Red Sox Deadline Discussion

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
Laser Show said:
If they trade Lester AND Lackey, I just don't see how they compete in 2015 barring miracle breakouts from like 3 pitching prospects, excluding Clay. Hell even if they acquire Hamels I don't think it'd be enough.
 
 
Adding a cost controlled, Lackey to the discussion is just saying almost any player can be had for the right price. So I wouldn't worry about their rotation based on that statement.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Brohamer of the Gods said:
Or just that either could be traded, not necessarily both.
Wouldn't Rosenthal have written "either" instead of "BOTH" if he didn't mean both?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
And then the question of the club being sold has to move seriously into focus.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
I wonder if the Sox think Lackey could turn into a major headache down the stretch.
 
One of his best friends will likely be traded (Lester)
The sox will be sucking
He will still be facing a potential 500K season in front of him.
 
I could see Lackey being a complete dingleberry over the final 2 months, making contract demands through the media, being a grump to the young kids maybe...If the Sox can get good value for him, maybe they pull the trigger.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Stitch01 said:
I'm not advocating trading both, but I agree and think if they go this route they should be targeting '16 and moving Koji and Napoli too (and, this offseason, showing Papi respect and asking if he wants to play out a rebuilding year in 15).
 
This is a unexplainable and unspinnable choice. What's their reasoning for punting 15 ? Just sell the goddamn team if that is the approach. 
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
In my lifetime said:
 
 
Adding a cost controlled, Lackey to the discussion is just saying almost any player can be had for the right price. So I wouldn't worry about their rotation based on that statement.
I am. What if a team pays that right price? Sure we're loaded in prospects, but then we have a WIDE open rotation starting next year.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
dcmissle said:
And then the question of the club being sold has to move seriously into focus.
Taking an awfully big leap here
 
EDIT: This really isn't anything more than a "all players are available for the right price" kind of tweet. The reactionary, "they're setting up the team to sell" is insanity.   
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
MakMan44 said:
Pretty much. The Astro's are doing the same thing.
 
EDIT:
 
 
It's the smart play, but I don't expect both of them to be actually moved by Thursday. 
 
Yep...
 
Brohamer of the Gods said:
Or just that either could be traded, not necessarily both.
 
Pretty much this.
 
snowmanny said:
Wouldn't Rosenthal have written "either" instead of "BOTH" if he didn't mean both?
 
No. Both are absolutely available. Any deal in the works will almost assuredly go down to the wire, and the Sox can opt for the better package and keep the one they don't trade. Chances are they will use the option of trading Lackey as leverage in Lester negotiations. Which ever pitcher they don't trade, the put the full court press on for an extension. I'm guessing one of the two is traded, and it's more than likely going to be Lester. If things fall apart at 3:30 and they have a good offer for Lackey on the table, they shift and pull that trigger instead.
 
Edit: Rosenthal apparently meant they would trade both. I'd be surprised, and disappointed if they do. There is almost no way I can envision this team being competitive starting the year with a rotation of Buchholz, Workman, RDLR and a combination of Ranaudo, Barnes, Owens, and Johnson. That leaves no room for using young pitchers for improvements elsewhere. Either they'll have to go market rate for Lester and then for someone in the next tier down like Shields, Floyd, Masterson or Santana, or they're just not going to have the pitching to compete.
 
And if they're going to need to use some of that young pitching to upgrade elsewhere, they'll need to get some free agents signed early, which isn't likely in the case of a pitcher like Lester or Scherzer. Hopefully I'll look back at this next spring and laugh at how badly I was over reacting, but trading both Lester and Lackey doesn't seem like the approach of a team expecting to get back to the playoffs in 2015.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
6,133
Laser Show said:
If they trade Lester AND Lackey, I just don't see how they compete in 2015 barring miracle breakouts from like 3 pitching prospects, excluding Clay. Hell even if they acquire Hamels I don't think it'd be enough.
 
Geez, you act like there won't be free agent pitchers available.  They could get 2-4 top prospects for Lester and Lackey and sign Scherzer and Masterson.  They probably won't even lose their 1st rounder because they'll be one of the worst 10 teams in the league.  With all those added prospects, they can go get Stanton or someone big.  I can't believe some of you think the Red Sox will go with an ALL-ROOKIE lineup this year.  Calm down, what they could acccomplish is pretty brilliant.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
jimbobim said:
This is a disgusting choice. What's their reasoning for punting 15 ? Just sell the goddamn team if that is the approach.
Well what's the argument for shipping off Lackey, a real good pitcher who will cost well below market even with an extension to fix the minimum year, if they aren't going to have Lester and want to compete in '15?

So many telephone game and rumors this time of year that the rumor might be dead wrong of course, and the approach certainly runs counter to "we are the best team in the division, we just haven't played well".
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Hee Sox Choi said:
 
Geez, you act like there won't be free agent pitchers available.  They could get 2-4 top prospects for Lester and Lackey and sign Scherzer and Masterson.  They probably won't even lose their 1st rounder because they'll be one of the worst 10 teams in the league.  With all those added prospects, they can go get Stanton or someone big.  I can't believe some of you think the Red Sox will go with an ALL-ROOKIE lineup this year.  Calm down, what they could acccomplish is pretty brilliant.
I just don't see them signing Scherzer (who will be more expensive) if they won't pony up for the guy they know.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
dcmissle said:
And then the question of the club being sold has to move seriously into focus.
We would have heard more on that by now if they were thinking of selling.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,861
St. Louis, MO
They could easily sign Shields and Masterson, trade for a 3 and fill the rest out with the kids.

I'm kinda down with them blowing it up. It's the right baseball move and it takes balls.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
MakMan44 said:
Taking an awfully big leap here
 
EDIT: This really isn't anything more than a "all players are available for the right price" kind of tweet. The reactionary, "they're setting up the team to sell" is insanity.   
If there is a dearth of pitching that is leading teams to "overpay", please explain to me how that dearth will disappear between now and FA.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,416
Not here
The only way this doesn't piss me all the way of is if we get such a tremendous return that we can trade for Stanton and still be fucking loaded.
 

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
Laser Show said:
I just don't see them signing Scherzer (who will be more expensive) if they won't pony up for the guy they know.
Maybe that's the unsaid issue underlying this?  Maybe there is something in his medicals only they are aware of.  Just throwing it out there, not suggesting anything as fact.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Hee Sox Choi said:
 
Geez, you act like there won't be free agent pitchers available.  They could get 2-4 top prospects for Lester and Lackey and sign Scherzer and Masterson.  They probably won't even lose their 1st rounder because they'll be one of the worst 10 teams in the league.  With all those added prospects, they can go get Stanton or someone big.  I can't believe some of you think the Red Sox will go with an ALL-ROOKIE lineup this year.  Calm down, what they could acccomplish is pretty brilliant.
Yep. Because RS are playing chess and every other team in MLB is playing checkers.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
dcmissle said:
If there is a dearth of pitching that is leading teams to "overpay", please explain to me how that dearth will disappear between now and FA.
Teams are going to overpay NOW, not after the deadline. Ben is just trying to capitalize on that.
 
Like I said, doesn't mean both are gone and it certainly doesn't suggest they're going to sell the team. 
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Lowrielicious said:
One reason might be because he is better.
He also just turned 30 last month, which I believe is the primary reason the Sox are so hesitant to commit to Lester. They will both be 36 or 37 when the deals are over.
 
I would be absolutely shocked if they sign Scherzer.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
MakMan44 said:
Teams are going to overpay NOW, not after the deadline. Ben is just trying to capitalize on that.
Nonsense. You get your proverbial haul for Lester, try to pry away a comparable pitcher for less when every team is looking ahead hopefully to next year, and see how they respond.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,416
Not here
bankshot1 said:
OK we're in last place in the AL East, but kicking ass in the speculative trade race, right?
We were pretty well set up to be the best team in the division for most of the next ten years and it feels like we're trying to delay that a couple years rather than run the risk of signing a guy over thirty to a long deal.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Laser Show said:
He also just turned 30 last month, which I believe is the primary reason the Sox are so hesitant to commit to Lester. They will both be 36 or 37 when the deals are over.
 
I would be absolutely shocked if they sign Scherzer.
I'd be surprised too as of right now. But if they trade Lackey and Lackey then I can absolutely see it.
 
Lester and Scherzer are the same age, but Scherzer is probably better this year than Lester (in his career year) and has been consistently much better than Lester the last few years. If you are going to overpay, why not do it on the more consistent and better guy.
 

TOleary25

New Member
Sep 30, 2011
358
Lowrielicious said:
I'd be surprised too as of right now. But if they trade Lackey and Lackey then I can absolutely see it.
 
Lester and Scherzer are the same age, but Scherzer is probably better this year than Lester (in his career year) and has been consistently much better than Lester the last few years. If you are going to overpay, why not do it on the more consistent and better guy.
 
He's also thrown about 400 less ML innings FWIW
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I will say this for the 50th time. Scherzer turned down 6 years for $144 million. Explain how we get him, absent a 180 degree shift in approach.
 

Hee Sox Choi

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 27, 2006
6,133
John Lackey will soon be 36 and sports a 3.60 ERA (3.56 FIP / 3.35 xFIP) but you most definitely dangle him out there to see what you might get.  If you can score a Taijuan Walker or a Joc Pedersen and their 6 years of control, you definitely do it and then sign a free agent because you aren't going to lose your pick this year because it will be protected.  Lackey is getting old and how many 36-37 y.o. SP put up good #s?
 
You can sign free agent pitchers that are equal to or better than Lackey (plus you get the prospects).  Examples:
 
James Shields
Wei-Yen Chen
Jorge de la Rosa
Iwakuma
Kuroda
Lester!
Masterson
Scherzer
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,404
It wasn't that long ago that everyone here would have traded Lackey for a bag of balls, and now people are lamenting that they may get top prospects for him.  He's really come a long way in a short amount of time.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Rasputin said:
We were pretty well set up to be the best team in the division for most of the next ten years and it feels like we're trying to delay that a couple years
rather than run the risk of signing a guy over thirty to a long deal.
They shouldn't sacrifice 2015 because they are worried about overpaying Lester in 2019.

How has this ownership fared signing FA pitchers for $5Million or more? Penny, Clement, Matsuzaka, Lackey, Dempster... who am I missing? They traded for Peavy and Schilling and Beckett (and extended the latter two twice, the first extension being better than the second in each case).
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Ferm Sheller said:
It wasn't that long ago that everyone here would have traded Lackey for a bag of balls, and now people are lamenting that they may get top prospects for him.  He's really come a long way in a short amount of time.
While Lester is apparently going a long way -- out the door. Context matters.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
ScubaSteveAvery said:
Given the level of discourse, I hope they crash. I'm not sure I can handle a 65th Lester thread.
Just wait until a Jon Lester+Stephen Drew package rumor is floated
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
20,404
dcmissle said:
While Lester is apparently going a long way -- out the door. Context matters.
 
That wasn't really my point.  My point was only that Lackey has come along way in a short amount of time.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Rasputin said:
We were pretty well set up to be the best team in the division for most of the next ten years and it feels like we're trying to delay that a couple years rather than run the risk of signing a guy over thirty to a long deal.
Exactly. I thought the Sox were a power-pitcher and power bat away from owning this division for years. But instead, the team is getting blown-up to get max value for its pieces. I feel this is either some form of fantasy baseball or a diamond iteration of Gordon Gekko's Wall St restructuring circa 1989.  
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,416
Not here
Ferm Sheller said:
It wasn't that long ago that everyone here would have traded Lackey for a bag of balls, and now people are lamenting that they may get top prospects for him.  He's really come a long way in a short amount of time.
He really has. If he had been his Angels self from 2010-2012 one can only wonder what the differences would have been.

As for the signing of Scherzer, I think it would make more sense to sign Lester--even if it's after a trade--and if Lackey has also been traded, sign James Shields to be the number two guy.

Then you sacrifice a few chickens to Jobu so RDLR and Owens both become studs and we're good.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Hee Sox Choi said:
 
What does this mean?
A sarcastic reference to the fact that our FO is not smarter than everybody else in MLB. They just aren't. Constructing a title competitor is really hard, for everyone. There are a lot of bright people in this business.

If anyone thinks we can fool the world -- exploiting a market inefficiency that exists in July but will dissipate by November, sending Lester and Lackey packing and then replacing their production for less -- then prepare for disappointment because it's a pipe dream.

And if you're not replacing them for less -- if you're prepared to give Scherzer, for example , $150 million or more -- what is the point of this wheel spinning?

And what do you do if FAs, or trade partners just happen to say no and look in another direction?

If these two guys go, they are creating a very risky environment for players who want to win to enter. It's not enough that we're Boston.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Lowrielicious said:
I'd be surprised too as of right now. But if they trade Lackey and Lackey then I can absolutely see it.
 
Lester and Scherzer are the same age, but Scherzer is probably better this year than Lester (in his career year) and has been consistently much better than Lester the last few years. If you are going to overpay, why not do it on the more consistent and better guy.
 
I'm not trying to be snarky here, so please forgive me if it reads that way, but what is the statistical argument for Scherzer being better this year?  Lester has a better ERA, FIP, xFIP, BB/9, slightly more innings over the same amount of games, 1.3 more fWAR, a higher ERA+, and a lower FIP-. That's a lot for Scherzer to overcome.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
Regardless of how many players are dealt for how many prospects is there any doubt that Ben and Co. are going to make a serious, serious run at Stanton this offseason, armed with a large amount of prospects? 
 
So at least that's kind of exciting.
 
The idea of a Stanton-Ortiz-Napoli middle of the order next year would blow me away.
 

StuckOnYouk

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
3,538
CT
Rudy Pemberton said:
Would that make any real sense though? Gut the roster, and use all the prospects on a guy who will cost 250M to extend? Would the organization even be willing to do such a deal? Who supports him in the lineup and who the heck pitches?
 
Well we wouldn't be using all the prospects, that's the point of gathering up some more now with the Lester deal plus others.
 

LostinNJ

New Member
Jul 19, 2005
479
There are all sorts of things they might do -- it sounds like they're keeping their options open, as they should. Let's not waste time banging our heads against the wall about trades they haven't made yet. The truth is, despite all the breathless tweets and rampant speculation, we have no clue what they will end up doing, and neither do they. There are contingencies on top if contingencies here.
 
Is there any reason not to feel confident that the team will come out of this frenzy with an excellent long-term outlook? if we have to wait till 2016 to reap the rewards, we can be patient.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,861
St. Louis, MO
dcmissle said:
A sarcastic reference to the fact that our FO is not smarter than everybody else in MLB. They just aren't. Constructing a title competitor is really hard, for everyone. There are a lot of bright people in this business.
If anyone thinks we can fool the world -- exploiting a market inefficiency that exists in July but will dissipate by November, sending Lester and Lackey packing and then replacing their production for less -- then prepare for disappointment because it's a pipe dream.
And if you're not replacing them for less -- if you're prepared to give Scherzer, for example , $150 million or more -- what is the point of this wheel spinning?
And what do you do if FAs, or trade partners just happen to say no and look in another direction?
If these two guys go, they are creating a very risky environment for players who want to win to enter. It's not enough that we're Boston.
I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They did this same principle in 2012, dumping Gonzalez and finding that production cheaper in Napoli. It is a bit risky, but this front office wins a lot more than they lose. A week ago you called them out for not having the stones to sell, and now that it appears they do, the sky is still falling. Not sure how they win with you.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
I'm not trying to be snarky here, so please forgive me if it reads that way, but what is the statistical argument for Scherzer being better this year?  Lester has a better ERA, FIP, xFIP, BB/9, slightly more innings over the same amount of games, 1.3 more fWAR, a higher ERA+, and a lower FIP-. That's a lot for Scherzer to overcome.
Fair point. I had a quick look at K rates and FIP/xFIP and not any deeper. Lester really has dominated this year, I hadn't appreciated by how much through the haze of suck coming from the rest of the team.
 
16 QS to Scherzers 14. He is no doubt better than Scherzer this year. I stand by the comment that Scherzer has been more consistent and significantly better than Lester over the last few years though.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
I'm inclined to side with dcmissile. Pitching is always hard to come by  but I can semi agree with the idea of seeing what they have with the young pitching guns in their system for the rest of this year. 2015 the staff is a major question mark if Lack and Lester are dealt. A lot of high pressure innings to be replaced . 
 
I'm unhappy at the notion of trading off pieces that could help a 2015 run. I get Lester and the contract. Lackey could be argued would be selling high but he would be nice to have next year. 
 
Pressure is on Ben to acquire offense quickly and lots of it. 
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,429
Stitch01 said:
Well what's the argument for shipping off Lackey, a real good pitcher who will cost well below market even with an extension to fix the minimum year, if they aren't going to have Lester and want to compete in '15?
 
Without reiterating that whole long prior thread, I think it's safe to say that it is within the realm of possibility that his agent has told the Sox that Lackey will not be pitching for $500,000 next year, so they're trying to maximize his value.