The Jon Lester Affair -- A Poll

How Do You Feel About the Whole Jon Lester Affair?

  • It sucks, I hate to see him go and I don't care who we get back.

    Votes: 71 20.0%
  • It sucks, I hate to see him go but I understand why the Sox have to make this move.

    Votes: 253 71.3%
  • I don't really like Jon Lester all too much. He was born in Washington but acts like he's from Texas

    Votes: 8 2.3%
  • Other. Explain

    Votes: 23 6.5%

  • Total voters
    355
Status
Not open for further replies.

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,548
Yes. Another Lester post.
 
Way back in February when the Sox were still feeling the good vibrations of October, 2013, there was a lot of talk about how Lester was going to sign with the Sox at team-friendly dollars and most of us were sitting around waiting for the inevitable to happen. According to sources the Red Sox low-balled Lester, feelings were hurt, no contracts were signed, the team has spectacularly crashed and burned and now we're hours away from Jon Lester's inevitable departure from Boston.
 
Rationally, I understand why the Red Sox have to make this trade. But that doesn't mean that I like it. There are times where I've been fed up with Lester, but on the whole I think he's a damn fine pitcher and it sucks that the situation SEEMS unfixable and he has to go. I don't buy into the theory that the Sox will trade him in July and sign him in December, unless your name is Rick Aguilera, that never happens.
 
There are a few threads with a ton of posts, but I'm interested in seeing the numbers. And for simplicity's sake, I've broken it down four ways:
 
1. I hate it.
2. I hate it, but understand it.
3. I like it.
4. Other.
 
 
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,598
NY
I understand why, at this point, the Sox have to make the move.  But I still voted for the first option because it seems like this whole thing could've been avoided if they acted rationally in the beginning.  So trading him is making the best of the current situation, but they fucked it up real bad to get to this point.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
We have him on record saying it would be difficult to turn down the 6 year / $144 million that the Tigers offered Scherzer.  Presumably, he could have been had for maybe less than that.  As such, I voted, "This sucks and I don't care who they get back."  Though if that ends up being James Paxton, Dylan Bundy, Polanco, or Oscar Tavarez I reserve the right to change my mind.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,321
I went with the middle option. It sucks that he's gone but I understand why the FO is going in this direction and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because there's a lot of proof to suggest this group knows what it's doing.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
I'm bummed and the prospectophila isn't doing it for me. I was hoping Lester would spend his entire career with the Red Sox and retire one right alongside Pedroia.
 

Jungleland

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2009
2,351
Other.
 
If he could have been signed for something reasonable in April, I'm disappointed that did not happen. He is a very good pitcher who has pitched excellently on the biggest stage time and time again. But ultimately, with April and that potential mistake thoroughly in the rearview, I'm glad that we are likely to see him traded for a significant haul. 2013 was wonderful, but I'm not sure it was predictive. It seems likely that even with a re-signed Lester in tow, the Red Sox will go into 2015 as fringe contenders short of some significant dealing at the winter meetings. I do not think the current crop of prospects is a slam dunk dominate the division for the next five years scenario, and thus I'm fine continuing the mass rebuild even if it means that we're now looking more toward 2016.
 
It sucks lowering the team's chances of winning in what could be the final productive season of David Ortiz's Sox career. Beyond that I'm pretty OK with looking long term, and given that the ship has seemingly sailed on a team friendly deal I think it'd be kind of crazy not to.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
rembrat said:
I'm bummed and the prospectophila isn't doing it for me. I was hoping Lester would spend his entire career with the Red Sox and retire one right alongside Pedroia.
This is pretty much where I'm at too. I'd understand why they have to move him at this point, but I really wanted to see him play for the Sox for the rest of his career. 
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
"he acts like he's from Texas" made me laugh.  Since I really really like Jon Lester, I stop at "he acts like he's from Georgia."  Which ain't great, but at least it's not Texas.
 
[I voted that it sure looks like he's gotta go, absent an "Oh My Goodness Gracious" hail Mary out-of-nowhere 5-year Red Sox deal getting announced tomorrow by Wally The Green Monster at a Giant Glass corporate golf outing.]
 

Orange Julia

kittens kitttens kittens kittens
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
13,828
NatsTown!
rembrat said:
I'm bummed and the prospectophila isn't doing it for me. I was hoping Lester would spend his entire career with the Red Sox and retire one right alongside Pedroia.
Me too.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,669
I voted #1. Of course he has to go NOW and of course I care what they get in return but overall I hate it and it could have been avoided. I believe they will regret not signing him.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,613
Other: We get at least 1 premiere prospect and either:
A) re-sign him after the season; or
B) someone else overpays him.
 

jasail

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,189
Boston
I voted it sucks but I understand.
 
I love Lester and I wanted him resigned. I think the Sox misplayed their hand at the beginning because I believe they could have gotten him at a price and length that would have been far below the present market value. I fault them for trying to take a conservative stance with him in an attempt to negotiate upwards, rather than going in and giving them a fair one-time offer. But that's water under the bridge.
 
Considering how this season has gone, it's too risky not to trade him. His value is high and it appears to be a sellers market; I expect the return will be good. He's still a free agent at the end of the season, and while prevailing opinion is that it is unlikely they will resign him in the offseason, the reality is that they still have to opportunity. This situation is superior to keeping him in uniform for the next two months in hopes that you can sign him during the exclusive negotiating window, which seems to fly in the face of his seeming intentions of letting the market set his value, and taking a draft pick that may be useful to the team in 2018 in the event that he leaves. 
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
I voted #2 but I'd really like to split the difference between #1 and #2.  Ultimately, I think you can make reasonable arguments both for and against the advisability of signing Lester to a big contract in the 6/130ish range.  The one thing I feel strongly about is that its not a clear cut issue with only one reasonable answer and that pretending like it is, in either direction, is stupid.
 

twothousandone

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,976
It's been a while since Sox fans were in this situation, where a popular, productive player, who still has productive years left, moves on. Garciaparra and Martinez aren't great comparisons. The best one is Clemens, but this doesn't feel like that, at all. Maybe it feels a bit like Mo Vaughn?
 

Scoots McBoots

nothing Sinista here
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,832
Worcester, MA
Other.  Hate the situation and that Lester's going to end up somewhere else.  I understand that the front office doesn't want to extend him, so trading him makes sense, but...they better get something really fucking good back.
 

3_games_down

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2007
137
Coastal NC
I voted Other.  I would have selected the following...
 
It sucks, I hate to see him go, the front office created this situation and now has to make the move.  
 

someoneanywhere

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
It'll be interesting to compare the results here against peteabe's "PR disaster" idea. 
 
I don't blame Lester for wanting security. I don't blame the Sox for restraint -- or, for that matter, believing in their ability to build a championship team without him. I'm just going to roll with it, as it were.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Voted #1.
 
I still can't understand why it's worth letting him go because the Sox may have a less than ideal contract on their hands for 1 year, 2 at the max.
 
Isn't that part of the advantage of being a major market club?  That we have that kind of room for error?
 

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
Other.  Sorry to see him go, but completely understand why it's needed.  Hope they can resign him in the off season, but absolutely OK if they don't.  I learned to trust they will reinvest the savings wisely and bring us a competitive team.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,299
I don't agree that the spring option was an insulting lowball. Based on how he had pitched the previous 2 years, it was a low offer, but reasonable as a first offer. I completely understand that Lester believed he was a better pitcher than that, and by turning down the deal he was betting on himself to have a huge season. Good for him that he has, and he's pitched so well that someone is going to overpay him in years or dollars or both. As much as I love Lester, I'm glad it won't be the Red Sox who overpay. Of course, this leaves a big void that has to be filled, but that's a topic for another day.
 

BlackJack

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 11, 2007
3,456
Other.  It does suck and the Sox do NOT have to make this move - the Sox absolutely could still sign him if they were willing to pony up.  At the same time, I definitely care who they get back.  Also, Lester is a bit overrated and acts like he's from Texas.  Adios Lester.
 

luckysox

Indiana Jones
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2009
8,075
S.E. Pennsylvania
I hate that this is what it has come to, and I hate that it didn't need to come to this, and until one of the fancy prospects actually becomes a fancy star, I'll be pissed that the FO bungled this to the point that Jon Lester will be pitching elsewhere. It sucks.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
8slim said:
Voted #1.
 
I still can't understand why it's worth letting him go because the Sox may have a less than ideal contract on their hands for 1 year, 2 at the max.
 
Isn't that part of the advantage of being a major market club?  That we have that kind of room for error?
 
You can make reasonable arguments for signing him but that bolded section is definitely not a given.  Look at CC Sabathia or Justin Verlander at age 31 and onward.  Or Matt Cain right now, who is about a year younger than Lester.
 
Tons of these deals work out horribly and the realistic negative scenario isn't just underperformance at the tail end of the contract, its mediocrity throughout at 20M+ per year.  And that's without even considering a Santana or Tanaka situation where the guy blows out his arm at the front end of the deal.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Why do people here keep saying things like the Sox were irrational and it never should have gotten to this point?

None of us really knows what went on besides what is reported but unless you really believe the Sox misjudged Lester's market value - something that borders on organizational incompetence - they have been acting entirely rational and a potential trade of Lester at the deadline is a logical outcome.

While I don't like seeing Lester go, I find it odd that members of this site, some of whom admire GMs like Billy Beane, who has made a career of trading away popular players or letting them walk, wont give the Sox credit for sticking to their organizational philosophy. While I may not like it, I believe the Sox aversion to playing in a certain market because they feel its overvalued is a good thing for the team long term. I also think its impossible to judge moves like this until after the fact. This isn't to say that the Sox FO is beyond criticism but I don't understand how you can assess their performance with incomplete information.
 

HurstSoGood

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2006
2,181
I voted other simply because I don't have the luxury of being a fly on the wall during any interactions between Lester/Jon's Agent and the Sox. 
 
From a fan perspective, I think of Jon as, truly, "one of ours." He has had a storybook career with us and overcame a well-publicized bout with cancer, which made me root more for his personal success than perhaps any normal player. Like Pedey, I want him to be a successful, contributing member of the Red Sox for his entire career, which is not the norm in this big-money free-agency era.
 
From a GM perspective, I understand the need to constantly evaluate individual performance and expectations, contractual scenarios and team mission. The Red Sox are a hugely successful franchise with the ability to spend money to acquire great players. They also have a responsibility to make rational, smart business decisions that will benefit the franchise, even if it pisses of some irrational fans ("Fans" being "fanatics" and all).
 
What I don't like is seeing a good franchise slapping the face of a well-liked, well-performing player who has meant a lot to the team and the fan base. I don't see him breaking down like some other, smaller LH pitchers (Santana, Hampton) or going sideways like Barry Zito. As I said above, I don't know how any conversations went between the parties, but offering 4/$70 is a blatantly underwhelming show of faith and recognition of the market. If we really could have extended him for a fair price/"hometown discount," (say, 5/$115) the this Front Office has failed miserably. OTOH, if both parties know that Jon was demanding 6/$150+, then we were probably screwed from the start. 
 
At the end of the day, a Lester trade may bring perceived value of prospects, but it is not necessarily going to help us over the next 2-3 years. Furthermore, the situation has grown more dire due to the complete meltdowns of Clay, Peavy and Doubie. Lester is as proven as any potential FA, especially vs the AL East. Even if we replace him with great prospects, our staff is going to be suspect. So, if not Jon, then who???
 

Dewy4PrezII

Very Intense
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2003
2,802
Outside The District
Seeing Lester traded will be painful as hell but I understand why it has to be done and if they are not willing to meet his contract demands then it is the right thing to do.  I don't know if I agree with the front office's reluctance to pony up.  I know the statistics say that paying top dollar for 6 years for a pitcher over 30 is almost always, in the post steroid era, a mistake, but the sentimental side of me said "pay the man."  He beat cancer as a 22/23 year old to become a fan favorite and the team Ace.  He has performed at his best on the biggest stage winning 2 world series championships in Boston.  He has, since 2008, only failed to pitch 200 innings in a season once (in 2011) and he has only had one season since 2008 with an ERA+ less than 100 and only one other that was less that 124. 
 
I saw his first start back in June 2006 and I was sitting in the bleachers just a few rows behind the red sox bullpen.  I remember standing during the national anthem and looking down into the pen and watching him looking around the stadium with an awestruck look.  He didn't seem awestruck once the game started but he certainly did while 34,000 people around him were standing and singing the national anthem.
 
That said, if the return is inadequate, which is to say it is not a top 50 prospect and at least one high upside lottery pick, then IMO they should hold onto him and make every effort to resign him.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,598
NY
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
Why do people here keep saying things like the Sox were irrational and it never should have gotten to this point?

 
Because it would be a really boring message board if we could only comment on things that have been confirmed and verified by two sources first hand.  It would basically just be a bunch of tweets posted by Corsi.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
 
You can make reasonable arguments for signing him but that bolded section is definitely not a given.  Look at CC Sabathia or Justin Verlander at age 31 and onward.  Or Matt Cain right now, who is about a year younger than Lester.
 
Tons of these deals work out horribly and the realistic negative scenario isn't just underperformance at the tail end of the contract, its mediocrity throughout at 20M+ per year.  And that's without even considering a Santana or Tanaka situation where the guy blows out his arm at the front end of the deal.
 
Well, that can happen for any contract, right?
 
Why ever sign a player to anything more than a 2 year deal if you're terrified of someone getting hurt or turning into a pumpkin?
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I think the Red Sox are run by smart people who want to win.  I know that doesn't mean every decision ends up working out well, or even that every decision is the right one to make at the time.  But my faith that they're not idiots (and that they're not primarily motivated by some venal desire to increase the value of John Henry's investment at the expense of the product on the field) makes it a lot easier to shrug and move on when I don't agree with the decisions they make.  And I reject the strain of thinking I see here a lot, where people get fired up because the decision-makers "are too smart for their own good."  
 
I think the initial 4/$70m offer was a serious lowball, but there's zero indication that Lester was somehow personally offended in a way that increased his price.  It seems, in fact, that despite the awkwardness inherent in the situation, everybody's still treating each other with respect and getting along.  It just may be that the decision-makers think there's a better way to win than by starting with an expensive ace pitcher.  It may be that they think Lester's not the right guy to be that expensive ace pitcher.  We don't know.
 
In the end, if Lester signs elsewhere for reasonable market value, I'll be disappointed.  If he signs elsewhere for an Ellsbury-like overpay, I'll just be sad, because I like rooting for the guy.  Either way, I will decline to join the angry mob.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
8slim said:
 
Well, that can happen for any contract, right?
 
Why ever sign a player to anything more than a 2 year deal if you're terrified of someone getting hurt or turning into a pumpkin?
 
Sure.  The point is just that you have to make a realistic assessment of the downside scenario to make an appropriate decision.
 
Dec 10, 2012
6,943
Where is the "I hate to see him go and it wholeheartedly matters who they get back but I don't understand why you can't afford him with 5 cost-controlled starters in '15, no other aces on the staff, with a top 6 market and top 4 historically spending team" option?
 

mr_smith02

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2003
4,352
Upstate NY
I like Lester a lot and feel he has a great deal to still offer this team in the coming years to allow it to still be a contender.  I get the whole "root for laundry, not the names" mentality, but I just can't apply that here.  Other players have headed out of town and it was a nasty experience (Nomar, Manny, Gonzales, Beckett, etc.), but I just feel like there aren't too many people who are lining up to send Lester packing.  It sucks!
 

Remagellan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Being a high revenue team means you can eat mistakes, which means you take take risks that other teams can't.  And if you aren't willing to take a chance on retaining a kid who's been a key contributor to two championships and a good guy in the clubhouse and the community, then you're not taking advantage of your financial strength.
 
If it makes them feel any better about taking the plunge, they should consider that his arm has one less year of wear on it than those of most aces his age do because he spent a year beating cancer instead of pitching.   
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,500
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
I find it odd that members of this site, some of whom admire GMs like Billy Beane, who has made a career of trading away popular players or letting them walk, wont give the Sox credit for sticking to their organizational philosophy. While I may not like it, I believe the Sox aversion to playing in a certain market because they feel its overvalued is a good thing for the team long term. I also think its impossible to judge moves like this until after the fact. This isn't to say that the Sox FO is beyond criticism but I don't understand how you can assess their performance with incomplete information.
or Bill Belichek - better a year early than a year late.
 
I voted "other". I think there was a meeting point but for some reason the two sides never got there. So it sucks to see him go but that's professional sports these days. I just hope Ben and Co. are smart enough to give us a championship level team in the coming years.
 

C4CRVT

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 29, 2008
3,076
Heart of the Green Mountains
I've been all over the place on this issue.
 
I was initially a proponent of a 4/70 kind of deal as being a nice hometown discount type of contract for a fringe #1 starter.
 
Then as Doubie and Buchholz progressively fell off the map and Lester stepped up, I was all hopped up on "sign the man!!" "he's one of us" "we need him to mentor the kids" bandwagon.
 
Now that that it appears that the FO and Lester both got off on the wrong foot and never really got that close, I'm dealing with the reality that it's time to trade him. I have to think that this is going to work out well enough in the long run. I hate it and wish that both sides could have met in the middle. It seemed like that would have been a better deal for me and for the Sox. But damn, Lester has the right to demand as much money as he can. I get why the FO won't go that far beyond their comfort level. 3 WS trophies in 10 years buys them some major leeway IMO.
 
So with that in mind, get some fucking studs and make this team a contender next year and beyond. It's the smart business decision.
 
 
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,431
Harrisburg, Pa.
Jon Lester's road version is the only professional jersey I own. For the past two days I've sat staring at the Lester-autographed 2007 World Series ball sitting on my desk. He has been my favorite player on the team since then, when I swore I'd never - ever - say a negative word about him. I wish he could stay, pitch and retire as a Red Sox and his number put on a wall at Fenway down the road.
 
When he's traded, I'll be extremely sad. But I also understand why they want to trade him and accept it. I don't fully accept them not resigning him but that's a different topic for a different day.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
I went with "other."  I understand why the Sox have to make the trade they are today, but I don't understand how and why they got to this point.  The entire approach of offering him 4/$70 was completely insulting, especially when all Lester has to do is look at what they gave John Lackey.  That was 4 years ago and Lackey was the same age with a lesser pedigree than Lester has, yet they gave him 5/$85M.  I don't understand how they could've gone to him with a straight face and expected him to engage in conversation.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
I voted for the first one, but only because the second option wasn't precise enough. Obviously, if we end up getting a top prospect back then I care and it could be gauged as the right move. However, I couldn't pick the second one because I DON'T understand what the FO is doing. Yes there are examples of guys like Sabathia and Verlander who were reliable and then lost it, but this is the Red Sox. As some of you have said above, being a big market team that charges up the ass for everything allows you to make mistakes. They gave Carl Crawford one of the worst contracts in MLB history, and one year removed from dumping that albatross, they won the WS. Shit happens.
 
I think what will really frustrate us is if 3-4 years from now, Lester is still pitching strong for another team. That will hurt. A lot. And with the money they saved, the Red Sox have to, have to, have to, get a great value for that money. I can't even imagine how I'm going to feel if they blow that money on guys like Drew and Pierzynski.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
I understand both side's perspective.  I really hope they can keep him, which to me, means make their best offer before the deadline and if he doesn't accept, then trade him for good prospects (obviously it would have to be significantly more than the slot value of a sandwich pick).
 
Overall, I trust the FO's approach.  In retrospect, they didn't handle this optimally but they're smart dudes that have to be allowed to implement their philosophy.  They already get more than enough backseat driving from the fan base & media, so I'm hopeful they learn the right lessons (debatable what those are!) for next time.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
jscola85 said:
I went with "other."  I understand why the Sox have to make the trade they are today, but I don't understand how and why they got to this point.  The entire approach of offering him 4/$70 was completely insulting, especially when all Lester has to do is look at what they gave John Lackey.  That was 4 years ago and Lackey was the same age with a lesser pedigree than Lester has, yet they gave him 5/$85M.  I don't understand how they could've gone to him with a straight face and expected him to engage in conversation.
 
4/$70 + the $13M he was already getting in 2014 = 5/83 or roughly what Lackey got.  So essentially, they started at Lackey money with the obvious expectation that they were going to have to go up from there.  This notion that the initial 4/70 offer was so outlandish and insanely out of line is getting really really tired.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,205
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
4/$70 + the $13M he was already getting in 2014 = 5/83 or roughly what Lackey got.  So essentially, they started at Lackey money with the obvious expectation that they were going to have to go up from there.  This notion that the initial 4/70 offer was so outlandish and insanely out of line is getting really really tired.
Word. Ditto the idea that whatever offer was made was "insulting". I could see how Lester might be disappointed given that he seems to like Boston but there is no such thing as an insulting offer in business. The word is only used in posturing. And whether we like it or not, Lester is a business, man.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
4/$70 + the $13M he was already getting in 2014 = 5/83 or roughly what Lackey got.  So essentially, they started at Lackey money with the obvious expectation that they were going to have to go up from there.  This notion that the initial 4/70 offer was so outlandish and insanely out of line is getting really really tired.
 
This is an interesting perspective.  It could be that Lester is willing to take a hometown discount from the money being offered to Cy Young Award winners, and we fans are projecting that quality onto Lester based on the past 12 months and his playoff record.  However, he's never really been close to a Cy Young winner, and even as good as he's been this year isn't a serious candidate for even a top 3 vote.  So, the Red Sox may just view him more as a #2 starter who has had a couple of good postseason starts -- like Lackey -- and that explains why they offered him #2 starter years and money.  That is a gap that was never going to close, and would also provide the hope that it isn't the case that they're unwilling to pay market value for an ace pitcher, it's just that they don't see John Lester as an ace pitcher.   If so, I expect Max Scherzer in my Christmas stocking.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
4/$70 + the $13M he was already getting in 2014 = 5/83 or roughly what Lackey got.  So essentially, they started at Lackey money with the obvious expectation that they were going to have to go up from there.  This notion that the initial 4/70 offer was so outlandish and insanely out of line is getting really really tired.
 
But what's the equivalent of that in today's baseball money?
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,598
NY
rembrat said:
 
But what's the equivalent of that in today's baseball money?
 
And why does his 2014 salary matter?  He was guaranteed that no matter what.  And he's better than Lackey. 
 
Arguing whether it was insulting or not is pointless.  But saying it was a ridiculous offer is totally legit.  I'd love to know what people think Lester would've been offered on the open market if the Sox didn't pick up his option.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
glennhoffmania said:
 
And why does his 2014 salary matter?  He was guaranteed that no matter what.  And he's better than Lackey. 
 
Arguing whether it was insulting or not is pointless.  But saying it was a ridiculous offer is totally legit.  I'd love to know what people think Lester would've been offered on the open market if the Sox didn't pick up his option.
 
He wouldn't have been offered 6/144 (i.e. Scherzer money) or whatever other numbers are being thrown around now.  Pretty sure the consensus around here was 5/100 was near the high end when this topic was discussed during the winter/spring.  To revise history now to say he would have been looking at Tanaka type money last winter is foolish.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,598
NY
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
He wouldn't have been offered 6/144 (i.e. Scherzer money) or whatever other numbers are being thrown around now.  Pretty sure the consensus around here was 5/100 was near the high end when this topic was discussed during the winter/spring.  To revise history now to say he would have been looking at Tanaka type money last winter is foolish.
 
Well we'll never know.  But I didn't think that Scherzer would be offered Scherzer money, or that Tanaka would be offered Tanaka money.  The market changes.  At the time, I didn't see why he shouldn't get Hamels' deal discounted a little bit.  Lower because he's older, but partially offset by inflation.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,482
Rogers Park
I think people are going to be surprised by how big a deal Lester ends up getting, similar to the way Ellsbury's deal ended up 40-50% higher than our consensus for what the Sox should offer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.