Trading Jon Lester (news and speculation thread)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
moondog80 said:
Not many.  A very small number compared to the ones that fail.
 
That said, if you're going to avoid long term deals like this, it makes it very difficult to fully use your payroll advantage.
 
Where they could use it is to extend guys earlier, knowing that if they whiff on a few they have the ability to absorb those contracts.  
 
Oh, and signing guys from Cuba like Abreu or Castillo or Tomas.  They could have had Abreu, and they sure can put up a good bid for Tomas or Castillo if they want.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
LostinNJ said:
Just by the way, "two-month rental" is inaccurate. If the team he goes to makes the postseason, he's a three-month rental, and the last month is kind of important.
 
AND that team also gets that time to negotiate with Lester on a long-term deal.  Not that I think they'll be able to come to terms because I think Lester hits FA.  But still, it's an advantage for them.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,458
ivanvamp said:
 
Where they could use it is to extend guys earlier, knowing that if they whiff on a few they have the ability to absorb those contracts.  
 
Oh, and signing guys from Cuba like Abreu or Castillo or Tomas.  They could have had Abreu, and they sure can put up a good bid for Tomas or Castillo if they want.
 
 
Right, but you need to have a steady stream of prospects worthy of signing long term to do that, which is hard to do year after year.
 
I think they would have been in on Abreu, but the deal Napoli took was the better bet at the time.
 

glennhoffmania

essential somewhere
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,402,490
NY
ivanvamp said:
 
Well, we better get used to the idea of Lester not pitching for the Sox.  In fact, after 2012 a lot of people here easily envisioned the Sox being without him.  In fact, many people wanted him off this team so fast it would make your head spin.  
 
The fact is that, while I really, REALLY want Lester back, I think they'll find a way to put together a pretty good ball club if he's not.
 
Well those people were stupid.
 
Look if Lester is gone I'm not going to lose any sleep.  My concern is over the process, not the player.  If this is how the FO will continue to view top pitchers going forward I question their strategy.  Now I'm just an idiot sitting in front of a computer at work bitching about this shit and presumably these guys know a lot more than me.  But some things seem pretty obvious from the outside looking in:
 
-Don't massively overpay for non-elite talent, like Ellsbury
-Don't rape your farm system in panic moves, like Bagwell
-Don't rely solely on your system and a bunch of sub-30 year olds and short-term FA reclamation projects to win titles
 
When you're a team that can afford to spend close to $200m on payroll, these rules should be pretty easy to follow.  Letting Lester walk and signing Scherzer would be stupid.  Letting Lester walk and putting together a 2015 rotation of Lackey, Buchholz, RDLR, Workman and Webster would be stupid.  So what's the solution?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
glennhoffmania said:
 
Sure, but there are also big contracts that worked out just fine.  If the Sox for some reason don't think that Lester is the guy they want to commit to long term, fine.  But all we keep hearing is that they won't sign pitchers into their 30s.  I don't see how that philosophy can work.  And unless there's something we don't know, like Lester has some sort of major health risk, I don't understand how he wouldn't be the type of guy you take a shot on.  Also...
 
 
None of the numbers we've been talking about over the last couple of months come close to anything like Sabathia, Verlander, ARod, Pujols, etc. got.  If Lester said he wanted Felix money or he was walking, fine.  Is there any evidence that he said that?  Again, we have his comments about Bailey and his comments about Scherzer.  If they don't think he's worth a little more than Bailey then what's the plan?  Are they hoping that Zimmermann or Kluber or Fernandez will give them a bigger discount?  Who do they think can fill the Pedro/Schilling/Lester role when it comes to winning a short series? 
It would also be different if they had a couple of prospects like Dylan Bundy and Kevin Gausman, or Paxton and Taijan Walker, or Martinez and 5 other Cardinals pitching prospects, instead of 8 guys who look like great options to be #3/4/5 starters. Maybe they're thinking that Lester is the guy that pries one of those potential future aces loose from their current team. And maybe they think that they can get Shields for 4/$70 or something to be the #2, but I think Shields is going to end up a lot closer to 5/$95 and maybe even higher in AAV.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
30,358
AZ
bosockboy said:
Seems like these would be awkward sales calls for Cherington....he sells Lester as a durable, playoff-tested workhorse lefty, but he must be asked "then why don't you want to resign him?"
 
I think any team that takes him has to at least consider that he is no more than a rental who comes with a short exclusive negotiation window.
 
Cherrington doesn't need to say much more than that he of course wouldn't be on the table if the Red Sox were headed for the playoffs.  We'd keep him and use him to win another championship, just like he's done for us twice before.
 
If you're calling to inquire for Jon Lester, you're calling to make yourself a favorite to win the 2014 World Series, and that sells itself.  I read stuff in this thread about Lester being the third best lefty FA, etc., but the reality to me is that of all the players who may be dealt at the trading wire, there is not a single one that helps a team more if the goal is winning the world series.  I can't think of one.  Sure, there are some in longer team deals that one could speculate about.  But for this market, right now, he instantly catapults any team that takes him on into a team with a very strong chance of winning the world series.  That's what Cherrington is selling, and that's what one lucky team is going to get.
 

AbbyNoho

broke her neck in costa rica
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
12,016
Northampton, Massachusetts
glennhoffmania said:
 
Sure, but there are also big contracts that worked out just fine.  If the Sox for some reason don't think that Lester is the guy they want to commit to long term, fine.  But all we keep hearing is that they won't sign pitchers into their 30s.  I don't see how that philosophy can work.  And unless there's something we don't know, like Lester has some sort of major health risk, I don't understand how he wouldn't be the type of guy you take a shot on.  Also...
 
 
I think this stems from the media more than the F.O. They can say something once and it becomes a talking point that the fans hear a million times because the writers need to say something every single day, even if there isn't something new to be said. So much of the shit that gets said by the media is just noise, is there any reason to think that the "never sign anyone over 30" thing isn't part of it? Our sample size could easily be just individual cases that happened to coincide with that statement.
 

glennhoffmania

essential somewhere
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,402,490
NY
moondog80 said:
Not many.  A very small number compared to the ones that fail.
 
That said, if you're going to avoid long term deals like this, it makes it very difficult to fully use your payroll advantage.
 
Re: point 1, it's clearly a mixed bag.  Looking at Cots here are the deals that I think worked out pretty well or will work out fine:
 
ARod (TX deal)
Miggy
Kershaw
Jeter
Felix
Manny
Tulo
Greinke
Trout
Hamels
Helton
Werth
Holliday
Lee
Pedroia
Wainwright
 
That's a decent list and I see no reason why Lester, slotted in around Werth money, wouldn't make the cut.
 
Re: point 2, I totally agree.  I'm not suggesting they should throw money down the drain, but what do they plan to do?  Sign 10 Victorinos? 
 

LostinNJ

lurker
Jul 19, 2005
452
wine111 said:
I think Lester will go and we have to take Matt Kemp at about half price along with getting Joc Pederson as part of a larger deal.  The Red Sox and Dodgers are linked by thier last big trade which enabled the Red Sox to win the 2013 World Series and I think the Red Sox don't mind keeping the trade pipelines open to the Dodgers, who have a track record of finding and signing good quality young talent.  Hopefully Uehara is traded somewhere as well before he breaks down again and loses value.  The Red Sox badly need a quality young hitter as we have few if any in the minor leagues.  We have arms that we are developing so we need some bats to balance our team. 
Doubt the Dodgers will trade both Kemp and Pederson, doubt the Red Sox will want both. And Rosenthal said on TV the other night that they are planning to keep Uehara.
 

glennhoffmania

essential somewhere
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,402,490
NY
Andrew said:
 
I think this stems from the media more than the F.O. They can say something once and it becomes a talking point that the fans hear a million times because the writers need to say something every single day, even if there isn't something new to be said. So much of the shit that gets said by the media is just noise, is there any reason to think that the "never sign anyone over 30" thing isn't part of it? Our sample size could easily be just individual cases that happened to coincide with that statement.
 
Fair point.  So my question still stands.  If Lester isn't the exception, who is?  Who is more durable and more proven?  Who else would've given them a discount below market?
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
18,215
glennhoffmania said:
 
Fair point.  So my question still stands.  If Lester isn't the exception, who is?  Who is more durable and more proven?  Who else would've given them a discount below market?
Guessing the Sox want their big contracts to be spent on guys whose FA status they are buying out. It's your Mike Stanton's or, hopefully, Xander Bogaert's.

It does beg the question: what do you do while you don't have guys like that, particularly at starting pitcher?
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
moondog80 said:
 
 
Right, but you need to have a steady stream of prospects worthy of signing long term to do that, which is hard to do year after year.
 
I think they would have been in on Abreu, but the deal Napoli took was the better bet at the time.
 
It would also have been weird to negotiate with and sign Abreu while Napoli was playing 1B during the World Series, since Abreu signed Oct 29th. Even if it was soon after the World Series, sloughing off an important teammate that quickly would certainly leave a bad taste in people's mouths. 
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,458
glennhoffmania said:
 
Re: point 1, it's clearly a mixed bag.  Looking at Cots here are the deals that I think worked out pretty well or will work out fine:
 
ARod (TX deal)
Miggy
Kershaw
Jeter
Felix
Manny
Tulo
Greinke
Trout
Hamels
Helton
Werth
Holliday
Lee
Pedroia
Wainwright
 
That's a decent list and I see no reason why Lester, slotted in around Werth money, wouldn't make the cut.
 
Re: point 2, I totally agree.  I'm not suggesting they should throw money down the drain, but what do they plan to do?  Sign 10 Victorinos? 
 
 
Almost none of those deals are good comparisons, and many aren''t even halfway done.  Not only are you declaring the 7 year Clayton Kershaw deal a success 4 months in, but you're comparing Lester to a 26 year old guy putting up HOF numbers.  
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
7,609
Harry Hooper said:
 
That's not hard:
 
1) My principal owner was severely traumatized by the Carl Crawford experience.
2) My principal owner thinks the MLB talent market can be played like the stock market.
3) My principal owner thinks "#1 starters are on their way out, Mr. Epstein."   
 
#4) We've won three world championships in ten years ... don't worry about it.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,383
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
I'm skeptical of the speculation that has Jon coming back if traded, because I think the way the Sox garner an "elite" prospect is contingent on allowing the other franchise to negotiate an extension with him first. No extension, no elite prospects.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,093
Andrew said:
 
I think this stems from the media more than the F.O. They can say something once and it becomes a talking point that the fans hear a million times because the writers need to say something every single day, even if there isn't something new to be said. So much of the shit that gets said by the media is just noise, is there any reason to think that the "never sign anyone over 30" thing isn't part of it? Our sample size could easily be just individual cases that happened to coincide with that statement.
 
Everything said and done by the braintrust since the Punto trade is consistent with not wanting to sign players over 30 for longer than 3 or 4 years. They may deviate from that at some point, but it is not a media creation.
 
alwyn96 said:
 
It would also have been weird to negotiate with and sign Abreu while Napoli was playing 1B during the World Series, since Abreu signed Oct 29th. Even if it was soon after the World Series, sloughing off an important teammate that quickly would certainly leave a bad taste in people's mouths. 
Since nobody else is saying it, I will: The Red Sox *were* in on Abreu.
 
http://bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2014/07/red_sox_were_less_than_5_million_from_winning_bidding
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
glennhoffmania said:
 
Re: point 1, it's clearly a mixed bag.  Looking at Cots here are the deals that I think worked out pretty well or will work out fine:
 
ARod (TX deal)
Miggy
Kershaw
Jeter
Felix
Manny
Tulo
Greinke
Trout
Hamels
Helton
Werth
Holliday
Lee
Pedroia
Wainwright
 
That's a decent list and I see no reason why Lester, slotted in around Werth money, wouldn't make the cut.
 
Re: point 2, I totally agree.  I'm not suggesting they should throw money down the drain, but what do they plan to do?  Sign 10 Victorinos? 
 
It seems telling that all the pitchers save Lee are only in year one or two of their megadeals, and/or were under 30 when they signed them. It's really too early to say on all of them, again except Lee (who may yet be terrible this year and next).
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,540
Fred in Lynn said:
I'm skeptical of the speculation that has Jon coming back if traded, because I think the way the Sox garner an "elite" prospect is contingent on allowing the other franchise to negotiate an extension with him first. No extension, no elite prospects.
By that logic he isn't getting traded period then.  Lester isn't going to scribble his name down on the dotted line simply because some team throws a fair market value deal in his lap the day of the deadline.  He's going to free agency and see what the market has for him.  That will include being very discerning as to his family's new home town.
 
Any team trading for him will be doing it knowing they're losing the trade long term unless they're the lucky bidder this winter.  That is how deadline deals work.  You give up long term value in exchange for maximizing your chances at a title in the very short term.
 
We might see some kind of value exchange like the suggested Kemp + money as part of the off-set for Lester only being a two month rental, but I see almost no chance Lester takes an extension before the deadline passes.  There is no incentive for him and ample disincentive.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
JimD said:
 
#4) We've won three world championships in ten years ... don't worry about it.
Number 4 has always bought me this year after last year. And it would buy me next year too, If they are candid and realistic about what 2015 has it store.

Beyond that, this become a very difficult sell even to the RS fan base, a marketing challenge. Nobody will for long pay premium prices to watch prospects and mediocrities get pummeled, even if the prospects are young and exciting.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
13,210
St. Louis, MO
twibnotes said:
Guessing the Sox want their big contracts to be spent on guys whose FA status they are buying out. It's your Mike Stanton's or, hopefully, Xander Bogaert's.

It does beg the question: what do you do while you don't have guys like that, particularly at starting pitcher?
Buy SP's on shorter deals for bigger dollars.  I can see them doing 3/60 for Shields this winter.
 

glennhoffmania

essential somewhere
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,402,490
NY
moondog80 said:
 
 
Almost none of those deals are good comparisons, and many aren''t even halfway done.  Not only are you declaring the 7 year Clayton Kershaw deal a success 4 months in, but you're comparing Lester to a 26 year old guy putting up HOF numbers.  
 
Well I said either worked out or will (may?) work out.  The Sox don't have a Kershaw so that isn't an option, but LA committed a ridiculous amount of money to him.  So the point there is that other teams will sign these deals, and while the back end may get ugly they'll have an elite player locked up in the near term.  The Sox won't.  If their goal is to reduce risk to almost zero then they will fail miserably.  Assuming some risk is part of the cost of getting or retaining elite players.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
glennhoffmania said:
 
Re: point 1, it's clearly a mixed bag.  Looking at Cots here are the deals that I think worked out pretty well or will work out fine:
 
ARod (TX deal)
Miggy
Kershaw
Jeter
Felix
Manny
Tulo
Greinke
Trout
Hamels
Helton
Werth
Holliday
Lee
Pedroia
Wainwright
 
That's a decent list and I see no reason why Lester, slotted in around Werth money, wouldn't make the cut.
 
Re: point 2, I totally agree.  I'm not suggesting they should throw money down the drain, but what do they plan to do?  Sign 10 Victorinos? 
 
Not really fair to compare guys like Cabrera, Kershaw and Trout who signed so early on in their careers.
 
It's probably much more fair to compare pitcher contracts:
 
1. Kershaw - totally incomparable to Lester, signed at age 27
2. Verlander - still early, but looking like the Tigers may greatly regret this one
3. Hernandez - see Kershaw, signed at age 27
4. Sabathia - not looking so hot for NYY
5. Tanaka - not comparable for a multitude of reasons
6. Zack Greinke - has lived up to his deal but not providing much/any surplus value
7. Cole Hamels - has been a very good deal thus far for PHI, providing a bit of surplus value
8. Johan Santana - abject disaster
9. Matt Cain - signed at age 27 so not really comparable, but even then it has been a mess the last two years
10. Barry Zito - awful
11. Mike Hampton - awful
12. Cliff Lee - been a good deal so far but not a huge amount of surplus value and may be slipping this year
13. Kevin Brown - good deal, producing 23 WAR for $105M over 7 years
14. Adam Wainwright - too early to tell but this year he's been great
 
So you have three guys in Tanaka, Kershaw and Felix who should be tossed out of consideration, four guys (CC, Santana, Zito, Hampton) who are/were bad deals, another two in Verlander/Cain that are looking pretty grim, two guys in Lee/Greinke who have basically been equal to their value, and three in Hamels/Brown/Wainwright who have provided some level of surplus value to their contract.  That's not a really encouraging list in my eyes.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
bosockboy said:
Buy SP's on shorter deals for bigger dollars.  I can see them doing 3/60 for Shields this winter.
 
No way they are getting the number 3 (behind only Lester and Sherzer )guy on the market to sign on the dotted line for a 3 year commitment.
 
Again this is not the NFL or NBA  with salary caps and restrictions. Some pitching needy team ( cough cough the Yanks) will probably offer him 4-5 years for 70-80 mill . book it. 
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
5,789
Somerville, MA
I mentioned it before in another thread and it was ignored, which means there's a decent chance it was a dumb thought and has no basis in reality, but aren't these types of contract negotiations typically solved with things like vesting option years and large buyouts?
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
12,068
twibnotes said:
Guessing the Sox want their big contracts to be spent on guys whose FA status they are buying out. It's your Mike Stanton's or, hopefully, Xander Bogaert's.

It does beg the question: what do you do while you don't have guys like that, particularly at starting pitcher?
Bogaerts? Bogaerts? Bogaerts is a Boras client and is never going to have FA years bought out. Plus he will finish his last year of service as a 26-year old because he played a full mlb season at 21 - and he turned out to be over his head - for a last place team. I get why they thought he was ready, but this was a poor outcome economically.
 

wine111

lurker
Oct 26, 2008
252
glennhoffmania said:
 
Fair point.  So my question still stands.  If Lester isn't the exception, who is?  Who is more durable and more proven?  Who else would've given them a discount below market?
Lester is the exception.  The Red Sox blew it big time with Lester, who could have continued to be thier ace and a great example to the young pitchers coming up.  Instead, they are prioritizing a 39-year-old closer 
whose end of career is likely very close for a team next year who has a very good chance of finishing last.  This is ridiculous. 
 

glennhoffmania

essential somewhere
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,402,490
NY
jscola85 said:
 
Not really fair to compare guys like Cabrera, Kershaw and Trout who signed so early on in their careers.
 
It's probably much more fair to compare pitcher contracts:
 
1. Kershaw - totally incomparable to Lester, signed at age 27
2. Verlander - still early, but looking like the Tigers may greatly regret this one
3. Hernandez - see Kershaw, signed at age 27
4. Sabathia - not looking so hot for NYY
5. Tanaka - not comparable for a multitude of reasons
6. Zack Greinke - has lived up to his deal but not providing much/any surplus value
7. Cole Hamels - has been a very good deal thus far for PHI, providing a bit of surplus value
8. Johan Santana - abject disaster
9. Matt Cain - signed at age 27 so not really comparable, but even then it has been a mess the last two years
10. Barry Zito - awful
11. Mike Hampton - awful
12. Cliff Lee - been a good deal so far but not a huge amount of surplus value and may be slipping this year
13. Kevin Brown - good deal, producing 23 WAR for $105M over 7 years
14. Adam Wainwright - too early to tell but this year he's been great
 
So you have three guys in Tanaka, Kershaw and Felix who should be tossed out of consideration, four guys (CC, Santana, Zito, Hampton) who are/were bad deals, another two in Verlander/Cain that are looking pretty grim, two guys in Lee/Greinke who have basically been equal to their value, and three in Hamels/Brown/Wainwright who have provided some level of surplus value to their contract.  That's not a really encouraging list in my eyes.
 
Without going through each deal/comment and debating them, I'll say this again- the deals that were being discussed for Lester were far less than any of these deals.  So while we can discuss whether Greinke or Lee or Verlander are good or bad deals, Lester would've (presumably) accepted millions of dollars less.  Is comparing a 7/180 deal for Verlander with a 6/120 deal for Lester reasonable?
 

The Boomer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2000
2,226
Charlottesville, Virginia
We keep talking about Lester (as a rental) for Pederson or Seager here at the deadline.  However, as a cost controlled for next season former LA resident, would Lackey for either of these blue chip prospects be more palatable to the Dodgers?
 

Jaylach

Gamergate shitlord
Sep 26, 2007
1,636
Vernon, CT
The Boomer said:
We keep talking about Lester (as a rental) for Pederson or Seager here at the deadline.  However, as a cost controlled for next season former LA resident, would Lackey for either of these blue chip prospects be more palatable to the Dodgers?
 
I also assume Lackey would love this deal. It would get the beer and chicken back together again. 
 
On a serious note - I've been thinking about this a lot lately too. All this talk about Lester to the Dodgers and I can't help but feel Lackey is maybe the better trade target for them. They will get him dirt cheap next year, and would probably be able to extend him. 
 

SoxFanInPdx

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,618
Portland, OR
I don't think Lester is a rental at this point and I'm thinking that the Sox have burnt a bridge with the low-ball offers. No way he's coming back here imo.
 

Fred in Lynn

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2013
4,383
Not Lynn (or Ocean Side)
Drek717 said:
By that logic he isn't getting traded period then.  Lester isn't going to scribble his name down on the dotted line simply because some team throws a fair market value deal in his lap the day of the deadline.  He's going to free agency and see what the market has for him.  That will include being very discerning as to his family's new home town.
 
Any team trading for him will be doing it knowing they're losing the trade long term unless they're the lucky bidder this winter.  That is how deadline deals work.  You give up long term value in exchange for maximizing your chances at a title in the very short term.
 
We might see some kind of value exchange like the suggested Kemp + money as part of the off-set for Lester only being a two month rental, but I see almost no chance Lester takes an extension before the deadline passes.  There is no incentive for him and ample disincentive.
Why wouldn't Jon Lester accept a market-value contract from another franchise if offered July 31 as opposed to this winter? His camp seems to believe the rumored 4/70 offered this past off-season was too cheap or too short, or both. Not sure we've yet seen what he'll do if offered a contract consummate with top-line starters, and I don't see why that can't happen now.

The Kemp idea of compensating the other team (LA in this example) is another way it could obviously happen that I could have mentioned in my previous post.
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
13,210
St. Louis, MO
SoxFanInPdx said:
I don't think Lester is a rental at this point and I'm thinking that the Sox have burnt a bridge with the low-ball offers. No way he's coming back here imo.
He's a rental for whoever acquires him.
 

wine111

lurker
Oct 26, 2008
252
jimbobim said:
 
No way they are getting the number 3 (behind only Lester and Sherzer )guy on the market to sign on the dotted line for a 3 year commitment.
 
Again this is not the NFL or NBA  with salary caps and restrictions. Some pitching needy team ( cough cough the Yanks) will probably offer him 4-5 years for 70-80 mill . book it. 
The Red Sox short term contract approach assures that no top level free agent sets foot in Boston, including Lester.  Shields is a level below elite and he might consider it, but it's very unlikely.  Considering his terrible track record at Fenway, I don't even think about Shields. 
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
9,050
CoRP said:
I would love to hear Lackey say that out loud.
 
Side issue, but I hate it when "reporters" like Rosenthal throw that kind of conjecture out there. You know Lackey or his agent are in Rosenthal's rolodex. If you want to know if Lester being on the team is a factor in "whether or not Lackey will play for $500k next year," which is, in itself, conjecture, maybe you should call someone and ask the question, rather than just speculate on what might or might not be a factor in Lester's negotiations. 
 

KillerBs

lurker
Nov 16, 2006
812
In any event, why would (or should) the Sox pay $20m for Shields' age 33, 34 and 35 seasons, when it adamantly refuses to pay, a much better pitcher, Lester, a couple mill/year more for the same 3 years (ie the last 3 years of a 5 year deal)?
 
Jul 14, 2005
227
Dorchester, MA
Papelbon's Poutine said:
 
Because he doesn't know what his market is until he gets there. He has a rough idea, but if he's not going back to Boston, why would he forgo the opportunity to either decide himself where he goes or to make absolute top dollar? 
Furthermore, if he's able to get another WS ring wherever he goes for the next 3 months that can only increase his demand.
 

Corsi

isn't shy about blowing his wad early
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 3, 2010
12,955
Boston, MA
Jayson Stark:
 
So after kicking around this topic with executives whose teams aren't involved in this particular derby, we'd include these clubs as potential candidates to match up with the Red Sox for Lester:
 
Dodgers
Los Angeles Dodgers: They're in on everybody. And they'd clearly love to add a starting pitcher this dominating. But a Matt Kemp-for-Lester deal isn't going to happen. And if the Dodgers balked at trading elite prospects like Joc Pederson and Corey Seager for David Price (whom they'd control through next year and might be able to sign long-term), would it really make sense for them to pay that price tag for a rent-an-ace? "They've been so consistent about not trading those guys," said one exec, "it's hard for me to believe they'd do that for Lester."
 
Cardinals
St. Louis Cardinals: We probably will never know how tempted the Cardinals were to use Oscar Taveras to front a package for Price. But as one NL exec said, "I can't imagine them giving up Taveras for Lester. That doesn't make a lot of sense." So would the Cardinals consider dealing, say, Shelby Miller for two months of Lester? Carlos Martinez? Stephen Piscotty? The guess around the industry is that it's going to take one marquee prospect to serve as the centerpiece of a Lester deal. And the Cards have the pieces to make a trade like that without sabotaging their future. But as we've written before, they've made only one pre-deadline blockbuster (Matt Holliday) in the last decade.
 
Mariners
Seattle Mariners: The Red Sox sent a top scout to watch Seattle's Triple-A team this week. So that tells us the Mariners are a team to watch in the next 48 hours. Now realistically, the Mariners need bats more than arms. And losing five of their last six, eight of their last 11 and 11 of their last 16 games has dropped them from 5.5 games out in their division to 11.5 out. So in a sane world, can they justify overpaying for the chance to play one wild-card game on the road? Not really. But there are enormous pressures on this front office. And Lester did grow up near Seattle. So this would be such an incredibly popular deal, it would have the potential to energize a skeptical fan base. Not to mention that that local angle would at least give the Mariners the hope of keeping him -- as opposed to Price, who has already told them he wouldn't re-sign there. So stay tuned.
 
Orioles
Baltimore Orioles: They're definitely in the market for a top-of-the-rotation starter and definitely interested in Lester. So the biggest question is whether the Red Sox would deal him inside the division. And the honest answer is: Why not? The Red Sox know Lester well, have an excellent feel for teams he'd want to sign with and probably wouldn't have much fear of him spending the next five to seven years in Baltimore. So if it means they have to face him once or even twice down the stretch, what's the difference if they get the right return? "I don't think the Red Sox would care if they traded him to Baltimore or Toronto," said one exec, "because I think they'd be confident he's not going to sign there." A bigger issue is the Orioles' consistent disinterest in including their best pitching prospects, Dylan Bundy and Hunter Harvey, in any deal.
 
Blue Jays
Toronto Blue Jays: Um, see above. Toronto is in on, well, everyone -- especially the top of the starting pitcher market. So again, the only major hang-up would be whether the Red Sox would deal Lester to a team in their own division. They'd never send him to the Yankees, obviously. But why not the Blue Jays, for the reasons we just discussed? "I could even argue," said the same exec we just quoted, "that you should always trade rentals in your division, if you think they're not going to sign there, because you take their prospects away." Toronto still seems like a dubious landing spot for Lester. But the Red Sox are open right now to all sorts of possibilities.
 
Braves
Atlanta Braves: The Braves have been telling teams they can't take on money. So the $4.5 million Lester still has coming this year might be an issue. But Lester does live in Sharpsburg, Ga., in the offseason and loves the area. So this is another team that makes sense -- on that level, at least.
 
Brewers
Milwaukee Brewers: It's now six years since Brewers GM Doug Melvin rolled these same dice on CC Sabathia, as a half-season hired gun. So is it possible this could line up as a déjà vu set of circumstances? A season in which a lot has gone right ... a lineup full of players in their prime ... a high-intensity race to win the division and avoid the wild-card game ... and a GM and owner (Mark Attanasio) who believe in doing what you have to do to win when the opportunity is there. Hmmm. "Everything about their season says, 'Go for it,'" said one NL exec. But the Brewers might lack the high-end prospect it would take to pull this off. And can they even afford to deal their most advanced young pitcher, Jimmy Nelson, for two months' worth of Lester? Fascinating team to watch.
 
Pirates
Pittsburgh Pirates: Here's another team, in the same division, in a similar situation, except with a much deeper pool of prospects to deal from. The Pirates could afford a deal like this more easily than Milwaukee could. But their recent July trading history suggests they just aren't inclined to overpay for rent-a-players. So would they break from that philosophy, even for a difference-maker like Lester? Seems unlikely.
 
So that's eight teams that could match up, have some level of motivation to do this or just can't resist the powerful trade-deadline pressures that sweep through front offices across North America every July. We'd still bet on the Dodgers if we were in a gambling mood. But there's a big enough field to make the next 48 hours a lot more interesting than they looked a week ago.
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/tradedeadline_140729/mlb-eight-potential-landing-spots-boston-red-sox-left-hander-jon-lester

 
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
18,597
Philadelphia
Papelbon's Poutine said:
 
Because he doesn't know what his market is until he gets there. He has a rough idea, but if he's not going back to Boston, why would he forgo the opportunity to either decide himself where he goes or to make absolute top dollar? 
 
Plus, who knows whether he wants to play out the rest of the career with the team that trades for him.  Does he want to spend the next six years in Toronto?  Baltimore?  Maybe, maybe not.
 
I don't see Lester as having much incentive to sign a new contract midseason with whichever team acquires him just because an approximately market-value deal is waived in his face.  All he really gets is protection against injury for about 10 starts and he gives up a lot in terms of expected dollars as well as control over his future.
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
37,808
Corsi said:
 
Mariners
Seattle Mariners: The Red Sox sent a top scout to watch Seattle's Triple-A team this week. So that tells us the Mariners are a team to watch in the next 48 hours. Now realistically, the Mariners need bats more than arms. And losing five of their last six, eight of their last 11 and 11 of their last 16 games has dropped them from 5.5 games out in their division to 11.5 out. So in a sane world, can they justify overpaying for the chance to play one wild-card game on the road? Not really. But there are enormous pressures on this front office. And Lester did grow up near Seattle. So this would be such an incredibly popular deal, it would have the potential to energize a skeptical fan base. Not to mention that that local angle would at least give the Mariners the hope of keeping him -- as opposed to Price, who has already told them he wouldn't re-sign there. So stay tuned.
 
James Paxton?
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,646
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/11280544/agent-boston-red-sox-pitcher-jon-lester-denies-report-contract-demands-led-trade-talks
 
 
BOSTON -- Jon Lester's agent denied a published report that claimed the pitcher's representatives informed the Boston Red Sox what it would take to sign the ace left-hander, prompting the club's decision to trade him.
"The discussions we had with the Red Sox were confidential and will remain that way," Seth Levinson, Lester's agent, wrote in an email Tuesday. "There is no truth to the report, and I am not going to guess why it was written or the basis for that report."
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
12,068
jscola85 said:
 
Not really fair to compare guys like Cabrera, Kershaw and Trout who signed so early on in

their careers.
 
It's probably much more fair to compare pitcher contracts:


 
1. Kershaw - totally incomparable to Lester, signed at age 27
2. Verlander - still early, but looking like the Tigers may greatly regret this one
3. Hernandez - see Kershaw, signed at age 27

4. Sabathia - not looking so hot for NYY
5. Tanaka - not comparable for a multitude of reasons

6. Zack Greinke - has lived up to his deal but not providing much/any surplus value
7. Cole Hamels - has been a very good deal thus far for PHI, providing a bit of surplus value
8. Johan Santana - abject disaster
9. Matt Cain - signed at age 27 so not really comparable, but even then it has been a mess
the last two years
10. Barry Zito - awful
11. Mike Hampton - awful
12. Cliff Lee - been a good deal so far but not a huge amount of surplus value and may be slipping this year
13. Kevin Brown - good deal, producing 23 WAR for $105M over 7 years


14. Adam Wainwright - too early to tell but this year he's been great
 
So you have three guys in Tanaka, Kershaw and Felix who should be tossed out of consideration, four guys (CC, Santana, Zito, Hampton) who
are/were bad deals, another two in Verlander/Cain that are looking pretty grim, two guys in Lee/Greinke who have basically been equal to their value, and three in
Hamels/Brown/Wainwright who have provided some level of surplus value to their contract.  That's not a really encouraging list in my eyes.
So what type of FA pitcher has produced good value? It's not helpful to say don't spend money here unless you can say spend it there instead.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
42,832
glennhoffmania said:
 
Well those people were stupid.
 
Look if Lester is gone I'm not going to lose any sleep.  My concern is over the process, not the player.  If this is how the FO will continue to view top pitchers going forward I question their strategy.  Now I'm just an idiot sitting in front of a computer at work bitching about this shit and presumably these guys know a lot more than me.  But some things seem pretty obvious from the outside looking in:
 
-Don't massively overpay for non-elite talent, like Ellsbury
-Don't rape your farm system in panic moves, like Bagwell
-Don't rely solely on your system and a bunch of sub-30 year olds and short-term FA reclamation projects to win titles
 
 
It seems clear that the team has no interest in paying $20 million+ long-term to a 30 year old pitcher. It's as simple as that.
 
Now, reasonable minds may differ, and any example I throw up as to why this may be a good idea could be countered, but that appears to be something they do not want to do.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
18,215
snowmanny said:
Bogaerts? Bogaerts? Bogaerts is a Boras client and is never going to have FA years bought out. Plus he will finish his last year of service as a 26-year old because he played a full mlb season at 21 - and he turned out to be over his head - for a last place team. I get why they thought he was ready, but this was a poor outcome economically.
He's a bad example bc of the Boras factor. My point is that I believe they want to break the bank on great players in their 20s, not 30s
 

strek1

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 13, 2006
24,092
Hartford area
Corsi said:
 

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal  14s
Possible dynamic in #RedSox talks: Lester, Lackey are close. Lackey may not want to play for $500K in ’15 or sign extensn if Lester is gone.
 So let's see:
 
#1 Does this mean Lackey has spoken with Lester and they will bend over backwards contract wise to sign a favorable deal to stay together on the Sox?
 
#2 Why can't that still happen if Lester is a rental somewhere.  if they are so "tight' Jon will return, right?
 
#3 Once Lester hits the open market is Lackey then going to shop his services to the winner of the Lester sweepstakes at a nice price so he can be with his pal. 
 
In other words all 3 of my thoughts are callng this BS. At contract time money is king and friendship is meaningless. 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.