Red Sox Deadline Discussion
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I really hope we keep Lester and one of Miller/Uehara. All the others can go (Breslow, Badenhop, Carp, Gomes, Drew). I wonder what we could get for Uehara and maybe one other piece, maybe a Josh Bell? Also apparently we are scouting the Braves AAA team but most of the Braves top talent is in the lower minors. Only player in AAA on the BA top 10 is Bethancourt, is that enough for a Miller or Uehara? Maybe the Sox have to throw in more to get him?
(originally had Gilmartin in the post but he was traded to MIN for Ryan Doumit)
(originally had Gilmartin in the post but he was traded to MIN for Ryan Doumit)
If Boston is able to get Meadows or Bell for Miller then Ben should get exec of the year. Very interesting scenarios being floated. Would love to get Alex Wood but that's not going to happen.tbb345 said:
Well yeah, because Alex Wood is in the majors helping them right now. There's a big difference between suggesting we target a guy in A-AA range, and a guy who's putting a mid 3 ERA in the middle of a playoff race.Tyrone Biggums said:
That's not saying there aren't talks about Lester and someone else. Just not Kemp. Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines but that is a very well worded non denial
tbb345 said:
If we don't keep all of them, I don't know that there is any point in keeping any of them.
They are all free agents. Together, they make for a big chunk of a playoff pitching staff. If you're trading Lester, you're taking an enormous risk that he's not going to come back. If you're willing to take that risk, the risk of losing Miller or Koji is pretty irrelevant.
E5 Yaz said:
Kemp is a reclamation project. He's an incredibly talented reclamation project, but he should not be the center piece of a deal for Lester, even if they are picking up the majority of his salary. The chances of him regaining his previous form are virtually nil. He's not at an age where you bounce back fully from the kinds of injuries he's had.
If it's something like Kemp and Seager, that's different, but Kemp and a couple of lottery tickets would leave me extremely disappointed.
I guess I think pitching is more predictive than hitting.Savin Hillbilly said:
...that a good pitcher has more control over events and that a good hitter still relies too much on luck (when he'll hit the ball - i.e. with or without people in scoring position, and where it will go).
On the other hand, good hitting is more enjoyable.
Absolutely. If they trade Lester, the return better include a high ceiling prospect that is close to major league ready. Preferably combined with a couple low level, high ceiling lottery tickets.E5 Yaz said:
Lester could be a huge difference maker to another team in a playoff race. The potential return needs to be in line with that.
Kemp? Not so much.
The optics alone would be horrifyingE5 Yaz said:
I won't say that Ben fleeced the Dodgers 2 years ago. I will say that he managed sell them his house for 2 x market value. And they didn't care, giddy after winning the lottery.
Kemp for Lester would be like Ben returning to them half the sales proceeds in a wheel barrel.
If the Dodgers give you Kemp, they probably will give you some other good stuff as well -- but only if you take the Kemp contract.
Probably? Anyone who is looking at this as a Lester for Kemp swap is completely missing the point of taking on Kemp's deal, even half of it.dcmissle said:
dcmissle said:
No way. If the Red Sox got Kemp and had to take Kemp's entire contract, the "good stuff" would have to be getting the entire Dodgers farm system.
Kemp and Lester are only related in the sense that the Dodgers want Lester and the Dodgers want to get rid of Kemp. The Red Sox could have Kemp for a couple of C- prospects right now and still force the Dodgers to eat a ton of money. Ben doesn't need to need to trade Lester to get Kemp.
It's certainly possible Kemp and Lester will be involved in a trade together, but the Red Sox are smart enough to know what the value of each of those players (and their contracts) are individually. Kemp is going to be heavily subsidized no matter what.
“@Buster_ESPN: Some teams that are dealing with the Phillies say they are having difficulty gaining traction in talks;not sure if PHI committed to dealing.”
https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/493574259709472775
Poor phi fans. I feel bad for them.
https://twitter.com/Buster_ESPN/status/493574259709472775
Poor phi fans. I feel bad for them.
Agreed with the sentiment expressed by some above in that Kemp and Lester may be part of the same deal but at least Seager would have to be included along with paying half of Kemp's freight. It just depends on the industry "value" of a compensation pick.
IMHO Seager and Kemp subsidized would be a significantly better asset for the 2015 season then the comp pick.
IMHO Seager and Kemp subsidized would be a significantly better asset for the 2015 season then the comp pick.
Does it bother anyone else that losing Lester would leave only John Lackey to be a guiding force for the next generation of Sox starters? I for one would love to see Lester heading a rotation of Renaudo, Workman, Barnes and Wilson in 2016 and beyond.
dcmissle said:
Danny_Darwin said:
Zimmerman has already played 26 games in the outfield this season, 3 more than he has at 3B and Rendon has played 79 games at 3B. I would suggest that Zimmerman already has moved off of third base, and that if Rizzo did say that he was our long term plan at 3B, he's flat out lying not just bluffing.
What really bothers me is that a team that can easily afford to be in the top 5 in payroll every year without breaking a sweat may make some complicated and risky moves just to avoid giving Lester a market contract.
Certainly do not trade him for Matt Kemp. I want no part of Kemp. WAR the last 3 seasons: 2.4, 0.5, -1.1. With a HUGE contract. Why on earth would the Red Sox, who aren't interested in committing big dollars to guys in their 30's, interested in Kemp, who will be 30 in September, has been mediocre *at best* since his one huge year in 2011, who has been injured regularly the past few seasons, and who will cost $107.5 million over the next 5 seasons, through 2019?
Insanity.
Insanity.
He wouldn't cost near that....I'd imagine half of that is picked up. If he is 5/60 let's say it's much more palatable.ivanvamp said:
seageral said:
Have you forgotten how this works from the Schilling saga?
Teams set parameters for trade. Commissioner's office opens a (72 hour?) window during which the acquiring team can negotiate an extension with a player without bringing tampering into the pitching.
Extension gets signed and trade is finalized -or- trade turns into a pumpkin.
MakMan44 said:
Which is my point--whatever team picks up Lester in trade won't be counting on an extension, so there will be no super-secret awesome embedded sox premium coming back in trade.
I don't think the compensation plays into Lester at all. The guy looks like he's seriously competing for the Cy Young. He's a 30 year old big game lefty and the compensation system was designed to bring back talent for players such as him.Apisith said:
What a difference 12 + months makes when people on this board were willing to deal Lester + prospects for Wil Myers. James Shields is a better pitcher than Lester etc...what an awful move that would have been. No title last year and a promising young outfielder on the DL.
I think the guys Boston are talking about dealing there is little risk on. If they do deal Koji Lester and Miller just pay them in the offseason and bring them back! We aren't a small market team and I'm sure if the Sox use this period to get the pieces they need for the future none of those three would say no to returning. Hell I would even bring Gomes back since he seems like a great clubhouse guy to have. Trade them and resign them in the offseason!
You are correct he won't cost a pick but that isn't an issue for a top of the market guy in any event.Apisith said:
I do agree if he gets traded there is no chance he comes back. He is comfortable here but if he gets traded I assume he will find out he will be just fine somewhere else.
I would assume being traded and not having that pick as an additional cost will only help him though.
It makes the free agent cost less, which in theory should help his contract mildly. It'll be a minor impact on him, but can't hurt and might help
It makes the free agent cost less, which in theory should help his contract mildly. It'll be a minor impact on him, but can't hurt and might help
j44thor said:
This in my opinion is pure false hope. Take the premium prospect and perhaps a significantly subsidized Matt Kemp and maybe get ready for the Masterson tour 2.0 as sad as that may be. (I wanted them to sign him for market value too but the tea leaves says JH and ownership don't want to go there.
Exactly!!!!!j44thor said:
Lester plus Seager makes paying market value for Lester much easier to take. It's what John Henry perceives as value. Lester alone for $26 to $28 AAV is not enough. Lester plus Seager for $26 to $28, then he's a buyer.
The Sox can include their own lesser prospect to balance out the years of control, so there are ways around the lack of an extension issue.HriniakPosterChild said:
Except, except, well, except, you know, EXCEPT they don't want to pay him ****ing market value.
Does everyone understand what market value is here? It is at least 6 years. It is at least $150 million.
Jon Lester is not getting the market from this ownership group. It is not going to happen. Let's stick a fork in that one, shall we?
Does everyone understand what market value is here? It is at least 6 years. It is at least $150 million.
Jon Lester is not getting the market from this ownership group. It is not going to happen. Let's stick a fork in that one, shall we?
