Trading Jon Lester (news and speculation thread)
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
- Status
Byrdbrian, the Abraham tweet says the "Sox have been told what it will take to re-sign Lester", which the source says is in the 5/110 to 6/144 range. If you buy the source, the Sox turned that formal or informal offer down, decided to deal him because they wouldn't pay the market price, and now have much of its fan base clamoring for a deal.
How are they going to spend the money they save by not paying Lester one might ask? Well half of it looks like it is going to an oft-hobbled declining OFer, who has the added benefit of a history of hanging out with Rihanna.
How are they going to spend the money they save by not paying Lester one might ask? Well half of it looks like it is going to an oft-hobbled declining OFer, who has the added benefit of a history of hanging out with Rihanna.
SoxinSeattle said:
That makes no sense. None whatsoever.
Oh wait, Willie Bloomquist. Check.
Boo hoo, cry me a river MFY front office.
I think you are reading too much into that. The first part of what you say is correct but the second part isn't quoted at all and reads to me as Pete spitballing the market. We have no idea if Lester thinks the market is 5/110(I'd bet he surely doesn't), 6/144(probably getting closer) or even more.KillerBs said:
If it turns out they knew they could have gotten him for 5/110 I will be as pissed as Bankshot.
One of the reasons Bankshot is pissed is because he thought that 5/110 was fair back in Dec/Jan. That PA throws it out now as within the range of what Lester is looking for now, is frankly surprising to me. That the FO thinks it (5/110) beyond their range or reasonableness is what is distressing.Byrdbrain said:
I freely admit this may all be be part of an elaborate dance, by Henry and LL, who's steps are foreign to me, but I sense in the end they will stumble.
bankshot1 said:
Please don't refer to yourself in the third person, it is already crazy enough on the board this time of year without the thread reading like it was written by Gollum.
And the bolded part is what several people have told you we don't know.bankshot1 said:
We know(per PAs source anyway) Lester's people told the Sox what he would sign for which is an the range of market value. PA then throws out some numbers that he thinks of as market value the low end of which is 5/110.
We have no clue if that is what Lester's people told the Sox, they may think market value is 7/175 or even higher.
It's meaningless crap. By definition the deadline creates a moment by moment atmosphere. You'll have guys working 36-48 hours straight -- precisely because things shift in moments. It's a reporter branding himself -- he's in the know! -- and not a news item.dcmissle said:
My thought too. Also, no one is looking to "trade for" Kemp, he's the price of getting Seager or Pederson.dcmissle said:
I've chosen to go with PA reporting as I assume he's got better sources than most of SoSH. If he has chosen to mislead me with a false # I will never forgive him.Byrdbrain said:
Well in a sense. I'm willing to take on Kemp because the prospects that would come back with him can be used for a certain slugging outfielder in Miami.P'tucket said:
Where does a leak like this come from? If it's from the Sox, it strikes me as profoundly stupid. As robust as the market might be for Lester, why would you ever want to go into a negotiation with everyone thinking you are hell bent on doing a deal. It seems to me that one bit of leverage the Sox have is the ability to say, "that's not enough, we'd rather keep him and try to reach a deal with him during our exclusive negotiating period." Telling the world you're not interested in him seems dumb.
If it's Lester's side, that's crappy for the same reason, and seems to me unlikely something his agent would want to do anyway.
If it's Lester's side, that's crappy for the same reason, and seems to me unlikely something his agent would want to do anyway.
jimbobim said:
bankshot1 said:
GIven that it's been reported that the Sox would do a 5/$110 deal for Lester, there has to be a "miscommunication" somewhere. Lester's market value is likely north of $150M. Signing for 5/$110 isn't a discount, it's charity.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Maybe Lester really doesn't want to get traded during the season. His mentioning that he would love to go back to Boston even if traded probably didn't help his trade value. This leak could be more of the same.
He's pitching well in a place where he is comfortable. In addition to the normal distractions and adjustments a trade entails, there might be some concern that he won't perform as well to close out the season going in to free agency.
I figured he was a lock for at least 6/150, with maybe the HT discount at 6/135. Today's 5/110 surprised me, but at this point i figure both sides are BSing, posturing and positioning themselves for some hoped for outcome.wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Read the link..."major league sources". IOW, Levinson/Lester are talking to people who are talking. You can be sure the Sox didn't leak that.
As to why it would make sense for Levinson/Lester to get this out, even if indirectly thru a 3rd party, it only makes sense if in fact Lester very much wants to stay in Boston, which he clearly does. Since we were all wondering what Lester meant by "hometown discount," now we have ballpark sense of it. He doesn't care about the last 20-40-60m that he might get on the FA market, he wants to stay in Boston on something "approaching market value." Sox say NO.
As to why it would make sense for Levinson/Lester to get this out, even if indirectly thru a 3rd party, it only makes sense if in fact Lester very much wants to stay in Boston, which he clearly does. Since we were all wondering what Lester meant by "hometown discount," now we have ballpark sense of it. He doesn't care about the last 20-40-60m that he might get on the FA market, he wants to stay in Boston on something "approaching market value." Sox say NO.
If they are in on Kemp, it has to be as a salary dump from the Dodgers to get a better prospect back. If it's one of the Dodgers' top 3, it's a move I would absolutely support.
This article explains why pretty well: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cost-of-moving-matt-kemp/
This article explains why pretty well: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-cost-of-moving-matt-kemp/
And maybe Lester gets it out to lay down markers in real time of what is happening. So later -- if he hits the FA jackpot -- there can be no FO argument along these lines: "see we never had a chance ... It was all about the money, always was. And we're not going to match that crazy offer"KillerBs said:
This would be the second time in the last week that this has happened. The very morning that Henry leaked to the Herald -- we have agreed with Lester not to negotiate in season -- Lester issued a correction, no I'm happy to talk.
Lester has been with the RS for 9 years. He has seen a lot, and certainly a lot more that the very recent amicable parting with Ellsbury.
Lester knows what this crew is capable of and has played this expertly.
Question: why would the Red Sox consider trading for Kemp who is injury prone and hasnt been at a level someone can expect AND (most importantly) is owed an average salary of 20M through the next 5 years? Wouldnt that money come close to getting Lester re-signed?
ArgentinaSOXfan said:
They wouldn't. The only reasonable scenario is LA paying for a large amount of that salary.
Not to mention Gregory Polanco, former #10 overall prospect by Baseball America, struggling with his first taste of the bigs but has put up a .945 OPS in AAA this season. If I'm the FO and the Dodgers are talking Seager or Pederson the Pirates would need to come back with a package built around Polanco to match. Josh Bell is nice but he's still a little ways off, Pederson is not and Seager could likely be the premier piece in a deal for Stanton.snowmanny said:
Papi tells Maureen Mullen Lester is a "keeper":
“He’s in the top three in the league. You don’t shuffle on that. This is a guy that is very valuable to this ball club. And he’s young, very talented, won a couple of World Series. You can’t ask for no more than what he has done. He’s in his prime. What else?
“But the trading rumor about my left-hander, I think I don’t know where it come from. It might be coming from the front office or whatever, but when you are planning on trading a player like that, that caliber of player in today’s day, you must be getting half a team from some of the places. This is a really good player. And I still believe that at some point they’re going to get into an agreement and get to enjoy seeing Lester pitch for another eight, 10 years, whatever. This is a guy that you enjoy watching pitch. There’s no question about it.”
----
Have to wonder what the clubhouse will be like if Lester is dealt.
“He’s in the top three in the league. You don’t shuffle on that. This is a guy that is very valuable to this ball club. And he’s young, very talented, won a couple of World Series. You can’t ask for no more than what he has done. He’s in his prime. What else?
“But the trading rumor about my left-hander, I think I don’t know where it come from. It might be coming from the front office or whatever, but when you are planning on trading a player like that, that caliber of player in today’s day, you must be getting half a team from some of the places. This is a really good player. And I still believe that at some point they’re going to get into an agreement and get to enjoy seeing Lester pitch for another eight, 10 years, whatever. This is a guy that you enjoy watching pitch. There’s no question about it.”
----
Have to wonder what the clubhouse will be like if Lester is dealt.
I hope he's right but I remember a quote from Ortiz in the winter of 2004-5 "Pedro ain't goin' nowhere".MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
https://twitter.com/JonHeymanCBS/status/494098249662218240
https://twitter.com/JonHeymanCBS/status/494098249662218240
link to tweet
https://twitter.com/JonHeymanCBS/status/494098249662218240
link to tweet
I have a feeling this is going to be a long day of speculation with maybe the Miller deal sprinkled in.
The Brewers have one of the worst farm systems and I doubt they match up well.
One would think you could get a semi bidding war between the NL Central ( STL Pit MIL ) LA SEA and BAL.
I think Edes article today points to Kemp being a part of the Dodger deal if it happened but LA is of course going to have to include money and one of Seager/Pederson/Urias
The Brewers have one of the worst farm systems and I doubt they match up well.
One would think you could get a semi bidding war between the NL Central ( STL Pit MIL ) LA SEA and BAL.
I think Edes article today points to Kemp being a part of the Dodger deal if it happened but LA is of course going to have to include money and one of Seager/Pederson/Urias
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/rob-bradford/2014/07/29/why-jon-lester-may-or-may-not-be-traded-week
Ortiz
"Trust me, if he gets traded, he goes somewhere else, they are going to be waiting for him in the clubhouse with a contract, with a deal," Ortiz said. "'Here, we've got this for you, that's why we traded for you.' That's how it works. Whomever trades for him is going to have a guaranteed contract on the table for him. They're not going to give prospects or whatever they give away just to use him just for a couple of months. I don't see that happening."
Bradford
The reality is, however, that Lester almost certainly will be a rental for whatever team might acquire him. That means he won't fetch as much as David Price, or even teammate John Lackey (he of the major league minimum contract in 2015). But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth it for the Red Sox to use their top starter as a means to an end.
Ortiz is smart guy. The idea someone is going to trade a top 3 prospect in their system and then pull a Red Sox and get queasy about market value is absurd. The only reason for emphasizing the "rental" aspect is to hold out hope they haven't progressed far enough where the other team would be demanding an exclusive negotiating period. ( outside of the Brewers who would probably not sign him)
Ortiz is right on this I would say sorry bradfo.
Ortiz
"Trust me, if he gets traded, he goes somewhere else, they are going to be waiting for him in the clubhouse with a contract, with a deal," Ortiz said. "'Here, we've got this for you, that's why we traded for you.' That's how it works. Whomever trades for him is going to have a guaranteed contract on the table for him. They're not going to give prospects or whatever they give away just to use him just for a couple of months. I don't see that happening."
Bradford
The reality is, however, that Lester almost certainly will be a rental for whatever team might acquire him. That means he won't fetch as much as David Price, or even teammate John Lackey (he of the major league minimum contract in 2015). But that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth it for the Red Sox to use their top starter as a means to an end.
Ortiz is smart guy. The idea someone is going to trade a top 3 prospect in their system and then pull a Red Sox and get queasy about market value is absurd. The only reason for emphasizing the "rental" aspect is to hold out hope they haven't progressed far enough where the other team would be demanding an exclusive negotiating period. ( outside of the Brewers who would probably not sign him)
Ortiz is right on this I would say sorry bradfo.
I agree. The Rays are pretty opportunistic. If they feel that this is the best time to make a heist, they'll make it.rembrat said:
Potentially decreasing Boston's haul for Lester would just be a nice secondary benefit..
OTOH, if they trade Price that's basically shooting their PO chances in the foot. How many more years does their core have? Especially with their prospect mill starting to crack. If they seriously think they can get back into the race, they may just hold Price.
- Status