Papelbon's Poutine said:
The point came up initially in the context of "this offer will not be the highest/best he sees" and most subsequent discussion has tacitly acknowledged that point.
The premature re-signing Lester thread
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
- Status
The point came up initially in the context of "this offer will not be the highest/best he sees" and most subsequent discussion has tacitly acknowledged that point.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Actually, maybe they do face something close to this (or the implication of it) if they take the lower/ "comfort" offer, and essentially the player's choice is to deal with that potential sentiment or to do what they want. "Hey, this is how your peers view this process--you can do what you want and make peace with folks feeling like you put yourself ahead of the union, or you can go to the highest bidder and help everyone exist in a fair/ advantageous market."
If you think back to Papelbon, remember how he would sort of spit this line of thinking out like it'd been fed to him.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I think the point is that if the MLBPA is even involved (because the contract is potentially lower than what Lester might get elsewhere), its a clear sign that Boston doesn't want to match what might be a much higher value that is offered away. If the contract reporrt is accurate - and I specifically mean the six year, $120mm deal - then the Sox are likely going to miss out. And while I like Lester, tying up a good chunk of payroll in a 30+ year old pitcher for six years seems like a bad bet. I think the Sox feel this way too.
This is the opening offer and one that all other teams must start with. There is a good chance the Sox will need to raise their offer to finally bring Lester home. I imagine they know this as well as anyone else.
lxt said:
That may well be the case. On the other hand, they could have potentially locked him up for much less about 11 months ago. They chose not to and essentially asked him to test the market if you believe the 4yrs/$70mm reports. Then they traded him which further cut the ties. I have no doubt that Boston wants Lester back if they can get him at the right price. The problem may well be that the gulf between what they feel that price is and what Lester is willing/able to accept is still too great. I also strongly believe the Sox know exactly what it will take to sign him. If he doesn't come back, its because they decided not to meet that number.
If I'm looking for an example of a guy taking the most money because the union told him to, Papelbon's not quite the first one that comes to mind.JohntheBaptist said:
I don't think it's any kind of secret that the union wants you to take the best deal. I'm not exactly media and we were just chatting about a lot of stuff. Again, saying the union wants you to take the biggest deal isn't any kind of secret.E5 Yaz said:
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I have no idea how persuasive it is--my only point is that there is nothing material the MLBPA can/ will do. The best they can do is set a tone with the union that "this is the way people in the union look at it." That's the extent of the "pressure" MLBPA likely exerts--making you feel, from your entry into professional baseball, that taking less than market value can hurt your peers. Maybe none of them believe it/ care, maybe only some--like Papelbon clearly did. It isn't a tough sell--nearly every player isn't going to have to be "asked" twice to take the most money.
But come negotiation time, the MLBPA can't really "do" anything to stop a player from taking the offer he wants. What I was suggesting was that this *is* what they "do."
The rest of your post is a really pedantic version of what I'm talking about.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
I never made any commentary on how effective it is. People have observed that MLBPA values players taking the largest offer, which they do for obvious reasons. We're in agreement that they can't "do" anything to deter a player once he's at the decision phase, and so ultimately he can choose however he pleases without MLBPA having any recourse whatsoever. So, the way they communicate and attempt to achieve this end is by making players see the value to the union as a whole to their doing this. This is an easy sell for obvious reasons, and it isn't really debatable that players act in the interest of the union as a whole in other ways all the time. I don't know why you're drilling down to "players not talking at the ASG" in an effort to prove that it doesn't work, that has nothing to do with the price of tea in China here.
No, "we" aren't doing that.
According to a source familiar with the situation, the Red Sox have made it clear that there will be a “willingness to negotiate” with Jon Lester and his representatives after extending an offer during the two sides’ meeting earlier this week.
While a Boston Globe report suggested the Sox’ offer was for six years at between $110-120 million, the source suggested the team’s initial offseason proposal was part of a more complex discussion about potential contract parameters.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/11/19/source-red-sox-showing-willingness-to-negotiate-after-initial-offer/
Bradford
While a Boston Globe report suggested the Sox’ offer was for six years at between $110-120 million, the source suggested the team’s initial offseason proposal was part of a more complex discussion about potential contract parameters.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/11/19/source-red-sox-showing-willingness-to-negotiate-after-initial-offer/
Bradford
So are you using Papelbon as an example of a guy who took the most money because the union pressured him to or not?JohntheBaptist said:
Really good news. I knew there had to be more to the offer than just the numbers or else it was just a 'well, we tried, but got outbid' kind of thing.RedOctober3829 said:
Makes me wonder if they gave him a full NTC, a player option for a 7th year, incentives to get him up to 25mm annually, etc.
I think it's more likely that it was a simple "if you get a better offer we would appreciate it if you give use a chance to match or better it"moondog80 said:
moondog80 said:
Exactly. This all sounds pretty odd. What is the point of making an offer than most of the world thinks is below what he'll end up getting, and then making it clear they'd be willing to go higher if necessary?
If Lester would take 6/120 I'd be ecstatic. I can't imagine it happening. So I don't see the point of this reported offer. Christ, if Hamels would be 5/110 plus prospects why are they fucking around with Lester by offering him an extra year at $10m?
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
A "willingness to negotiate" isn't the same as a right of first refusal. And we don't even know if Lester would want to give them the chance to match.
How is AAV calculated when significant performance bonuses are involved?
The idea of a 6/120 contract with bonuses of $1M for 150 and $2M for 200 innings (including all-star and playoff appearances), or something along those lines crossed my mind.
(Seems like a possible way to hedge the salary cap, but I'm sure there's some sort of protection to prevent teams from offering say: 1 year/$1 million - performance bonus of $20M for 1 day on the active roster, seven consecutive team options under the same terms, or a $20,999,999.99 buyout for each option year - essentially guaranteeing the player 7/$147M, but with an AAV of $1M).
Granted the scenario I posed is crazy talk and would probably never be allowed, but I wonder if something like this is possible to snip a couple of million or so off of Lester's AAV without really impacting his actual payday.
Or why not offer him a 12 year contract worth $150M, with the last six year at under $1M, but give him an opt-out after the front loaded years?
Something like:
2015: $24M, 2016: $24M, 2017: $24M, 2018: $24M, 2019: $24M, 2020: $24M
2021: $1M, 2022: $1M, 2023: $1M, 2024: $1M, 2025: $1M, 2026: $1M
If there's a worry of him being toast by 2021 and accepting the $1M options , thus screwing us on the AAV for those six years, maybe give the Sox a $24M option with a $6M buyout, so while he still gets paid, it ends the effect on the AAV.
(Again, not sure if any of this would be possible, but I'm a bit curious if AAV can be manipulated like this...)
The idea of a 6/120 contract with bonuses of $1M for 150 and $2M for 200 innings (including all-star and playoff appearances), or something along those lines crossed my mind.
(Seems like a possible way to hedge the salary cap, but I'm sure there's some sort of protection to prevent teams from offering say: 1 year/$1 million - performance bonus of $20M for 1 day on the active roster, seven consecutive team options under the same terms, or a $20,999,999.99 buyout for each option year - essentially guaranteeing the player 7/$147M, but with an AAV of $1M).
Granted the scenario I posed is crazy talk and would probably never be allowed, but I wonder if something like this is possible to snip a couple of million or so off of Lester's AAV without really impacting his actual payday.
Or why not offer him a 12 year contract worth $150M, with the last six year at under $1M, but give him an opt-out after the front loaded years?
Something like:
2015: $24M, 2016: $24M, 2017: $24M, 2018: $24M, 2019: $24M, 2020: $24M
2021: $1M, 2022: $1M, 2023: $1M, 2024: $1M, 2025: $1M, 2026: $1M
If there's a worry of him being toast by 2021 and accepting the $1M options , thus screwing us on the AAV for those six years, maybe give the Sox a $24M option with a $6M buyout, so while he still gets paid, it ends the effect on the AAV.
(Again, not sure if any of this would be possible, but I'm a bit curious if AAV can be manipulated like this...)
If a team does that can't MLB just go back and adjust the salary numbers for a previous year and then apply a retroactive tax/penalty if need be? I don't think adjusting what a FA player gets paid for a specific year of a multi-year contract ever buys a team extra room under the cap in any one year.
Not.kieckeredinthehead said:
I'm being pretty clear--people pointed to the MLBPA stepping in if Lester wanted to take less. I pointed out that they can't do anything to someone who is choosing to do that (which is often suggested, and then questioned here earlier in the flow of this conversation), so the way they exert that "influence" is simply to do what all other unions do and make it a valuable proposition to consider the union and it's members when entering the free agent market. Hey, you're in a union for a reason--when they fuck with us, we strike, consider not taking lowball offers because it can effect the paydays of your peers and coworkers, etc.
I was referencing Papelbon's neverending rhetoric about "setting the market for closers" and gambling by never entertaining having his arb years bought out for "all the players coming after him" as an example of that at work. No one locked a door and got in his face about it, but someone we all agree is likely not too bright and very impressionable was parroting the sentiment constantly.
It is also an easy sell; "take the most money." That's ultimately why Papelbon did it, but to the extent that the MLBPA is a factor in decision making, I'm saying that's as far as it goes. "We're a union, keep that in mind."
edit to remove douchiness
In an old article, Speier notes that bonuses/incentives are included in AAV, and includes this from the CBA on option years [Article XXIII Section E (5) (d) (ii)]:
I am not an accountant but I don't think it'd work.
I think this is exactly what Levinson has been saying all along. This was a meeting to see if the Red Sox were in the game. And they said enough that now we are playing ball. No more, but certainly no less. Presumably, after much posturing, there were essentially three questions from Levinson. Are you prepared to go six? Yes. Is $x (20?) the range we're talking? Yes. Is there flexibility above that? Possibly.
Thanks. You have shown Mr. Lester great respect. You may participate. And we will remember as a sign of your good faith that you put a real number on the table for us to shop.
The guy who goes first gets some advantages, but also doesn't want to get nipped at the wire by $1. Letting it be known there is a little more obligates you to nothing but fires a warning shot across the bow to other clubs and helps increase the odds that you will get to go last.
Thanks. You have shown Mr. Lester great respect. You may participate. And we will remember as a sign of your good faith that you put a real number on the table for us to shop.
The guy who goes first gets some advantages, but also doesn't want to get nipped at the wire by $1. Letting it be known there is a little more obligates you to nothing but fires a warning shot across the bow to other clubs and helps increase the odds that you will get to go last.
I always love it when people come to hard conclusions about what someone else is going to do.
Which is to say, did you know that JD Drew doesn't care and Drew Bledsoe doesn't have that for in his belly?
The Red Sox have made an offer that is at least in the right ballpark. The next step is up to other teams, and the step after that is up to Lester.
I will say this, though. If the Sox end up bringing back Lester and bringing in Sandoval, they're going to be about 75% done with the off-season before Thanksgiving and that would be a beautiful thing.
Which is to say, did you know that JD Drew doesn't care and Drew Bledsoe doesn't have that for in his belly?
The Red Sox have made an offer that is at least in the right ballpark. The next step is up to other teams, and the step after that is up to Lester.
I will say this, though. If the Sox end up bringing back Lester and bringing in Sandoval, they're going to be about 75% done with the off-season before Thanksgiving and that would be a beautiful thing.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/free-agent-profile-jon-lester.html
In the end, I do think Lester can top the marks set by Hamels and Greinke. Lester was the best performer among free agent pitchers in 2014, so I can’t completely rule out him getting a seventh year and/or passing Sabathia’s mark. However, his age and the lack of a consistently dominant track record has me pegging him for a six-year, $153MM contract.
I'd say that sounds about right maybe 145-150 over 6 if I put a no trade clause in there but that's really quibbling
Got the brinks truck ready Mr.Henry ?
In the end, I do think Lester can top the marks set by Hamels and Greinke. Lester was the best performer among free agent pitchers in 2014, so I can’t completely rule out him getting a seventh year and/or passing Sabathia’s mark. However, his age and the lack of a consistently dominant track record has me pegging him for a six-year, $153MM contract.
I'd say that sounds about right maybe 145-150 over 6 if I put a no trade clause in there but that's really quibbling
Got the brinks truck ready Mr.Henry ?
Because we heard the "Sox are willing to negotiate" hours after we heard the reports of $120 million, I think we sometimes operate like those are 2 distinct things that happened at different times.
Isn't it more likely it went something like this:
"This is what we were thinking---6 years/$120 million."
"You know what, that's not a bad start--we have some more teams to talk to, how about we get back with you in a few days and let you know what we thinking? But that's a nice start."
"Sure...you know, we think that's a fair offer and a significant increase, but get back in touch after you talk to a few other teams. We want you back in Boston."
So, as opposed to saying "Why would they even make a first offer and then say they'll negotiate???? That doesn't make sense" if you think about how it went in that room it makes perfect sense. Unless you think the Sox were going to make one offer and Lester was going to sign immediately. The Sox make a the big increase, Lester gives some positive feedback but says he has others to talk to, the Sox reiterate their interest, but clearly won't put a deadline on him. Lester leaving that meeting without a deadline means that Sox are willing to negotiate.
Isn't it more likely it went something like this:
"This is what we were thinking---6 years/$120 million."
"You know what, that's not a bad start--we have some more teams to talk to, how about we get back with you in a few days and let you know what we thinking? But that's a nice start."
"Sure...you know, we think that's a fair offer and a significant increase, but get back in touch after you talk to a few other teams. We want you back in Boston."
So, as opposed to saying "Why would they even make a first offer and then say they'll negotiate???? That doesn't make sense" if you think about how it went in that room it makes perfect sense. Unless you think the Sox were going to make one offer and Lester was going to sign immediately. The Sox make a the big increase, Lester gives some positive feedback but says he has others to talk to, the Sox reiterate their interest, but clearly won't put a deadline on him. Lester leaving that meeting without a deadline means that Sox are willing to negotiate.
Curt Schilling @gehrig38 · 37 minutes ago
Darkhorse? Yanks offering 25x8 with 4 yr opt out. Brian has ALWAYS been sneaky good at winning when no one knows he's in the game
Curt Schilling @gehrig38 · 37 minutes ago
Darkhorse? Yanks offering 25x8 with 4 yr opt out. Brian has ALWAYS been sneaky good at winning when no one knows he's in the game
More like: "Brian has ALWAYS been good at winning when he and he alone is willing (and has the bottomless coffers) to grossly overpay." I suppose one could also characterize one who brings an uzi to a knife fight as one who's "good at winning."
Darkhorse? Yanks offering 25x8 with 4 yr opt out. Brian has ALWAYS been sneaky good at winning when no one knows he's in the game
More like: "Brian has ALWAYS been good at winning when he and he alone is willing (and has the bottomless coffers) to grossly overpay." I suppose one could also characterize one who brings an uzi to a knife fight as one who's "good at winning."
That opt out idea doesn't make sense, what 35 year old pitcher would opt out of another 4 years at 100?
That being said, never believe anyone in the NY organization when they say they are acting as if they are going to lay low. They just can't help themselves.
That being said, never believe anyone in the NY organization when they say they are acting as if they are going to lay low. They just can't help themselves.
Pozo the Clown said:
The Yankees probably figure that they have very little downside by making an offer. It likely makes the signing for the RS more expensive and if Lester takes their offer, they can absorb the overpay more easily than the RS.
If Lester's market is really 8/$200, that would clearly explain the interest in trading for Hamels.
If Lester's market is really 8/$200, we should all be looking for Shields and Liriano jerseys in a few weeks.Minneapolis Millers said:
I think it's G38 just throwing some stuff up against the wall based on what he thinks is going to happen. No other reporter, national or otherwise, is even acknowledging his "report" for lack of a better term.
It's not like Schill wouldn't have connections in either organization, so I don't doubt he's heard something. Probably a Yankees source bidding him up.
This reminds me of when the Sox made a stealth offer to Rivera that he was never going to take.
This reminds me of when the Sox made a stealth offer to Rivera that he was never going to take.
DrewDawg said:
I think this is dead-on. Lester's people know that the Sox are at a disadvantage (like being under the gun in poker) going first unless they just put something insane out there like 10/250. In a sense the Sox do Lester a favor by getting things started and Lester's people respond in kind with the message that they'll get back to the Sox before they sign anything.
I think this is the by-product of there truly being no hard feelings after last Spring's failure, a reasonable amount of trust between Lester/his agents and the Sox, and the fact that both sides understand that while they want to make a deal, they may not end up doing so.
Unfortunately, a lot of the commentary seems to start from the underlying assumption that the only response to a deal that isn't signed RIGHT NOW is armageddon.
And Lester's people get that and are not asking them to.
Could also be "this is our offer...we're happy to discuss less years at more money, changing the spread of the annual salary, reallocating funds to a signing bonus, adding option years, etc."
- Status