Sox Lester agree on 5 year deal

[italstallianion]

I'm definitely a big fan of the deal. I like the numbers, although I might have chopped off one year, but I'm fine with the contract as is.

 

What I enjoy even more is GOM getting assaulted by everyone else on the board. I've never seen so many things wrong with a single post.

 

You deserve what you get, dude. You should quit while you're only THIS far behind...

[example1]

Ok, tough guy. I listed Carmona's deal, and not Pedroia. Why? I meant to say pitcher. Feel better dumbass? The argument still stands. I admitted I meant pitcher when I said player.

 

This oversight changes your whole argument. What's so strange about the Red Sox signing a young hard throwing lefty to a deal through the early prime of his career? It's a decent deal, given how good Lester is, his young age, and other similar deals for other young pitchers. For instance:

 

Hammels was considered a super two/three year player if I remember correctly....and was heading into arbitration. Apparently, this escapes your infantile mind.

 

According to Cot's Hamels has 2.143 ML service time

Jon Lester has 2.072 ML service time

 

 

2 plus years of Major League service:

 

Hanley Ramirez, $11,666,667 (2009-14)

David Wright, $9,166,667 (2007-12)

Pat Burrell, $8,333,333 (2003-08)

Robinson Cano, $7,500,000 (2008-11)

Cole Hamels, $6,833,333 (2009-11)

Dustin Pedroia, $6,750,000 (2009-14)

Vladimir Guerrero, $5,600,000 (1999-2003)

Nick Swisher, $5,350,000 (2007-11)

Jon Lester, $6,000,000 (2009-13)

Brandon Webb, $4,875,000 (2006-09)

 

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2000/05/most-lucrative-contracts.html

 

They're both 2+ years of service time. There are 7 teams represented in the list of 10 above (Mets, Phils, Yankees, Red Sox, Expos, A's, D-Backs). Your claim is that somehow signing pitcher to a deal like that is intolerable or makes this group of Sox fans hypocrites. We also spend more in international scouting and in the draft than most teams. The difference in this type of spending and the FA market is enormous.

 

 

This isn't about whether the deal was a good or bad one for the Sox.

 

It is to everyone else. You're trying to make it into some moral lesson for everyone, but it isn't, given the list of other teams who have made similar investments in pivotal parts of their team. The list isn't peppered with Yankees, which should tell you something about the types of teams might make this type of move. In fact, the top 12 "underage pitchers" signed come from:

 

BOS

PHI

ARI

TB

HOU

LAA

CHA

FLA

KC

DET

LAD

MIL

 

A wide range of financial situations and team types if you ask me. I DON'T see the Yankees on there, but expect that Phil Hughes or Joba Chamberlain will have a similar offer at some point in the next year or two.

 

The fact remains. The precedent for 2nd year pitchers was set last year, in another bad deal I thought, for Carmona.

 

If you trust Cot's then you agree that the comparison is probably Hamels, not Carmona. Carmona was a season earlier. The merits of that deal have nothing to do with Lester's deal. Two different FOs, scouting departments, and management groups. Just because you can point to an example that doesn't work doesn't mean it won't work. Again, I'll point to Hamels, or Kazmir, or Webb or any of the other options that have.

 

There is no justifiable reason for giving a contract to a pitcher that is double the amount of money as the 2nd highest, and 60% more in AAV.

 

Again, you're wrong about the service time. Per usual, Cot's has already updated it with the new contract information.

 

These are exactly the kind of deals that are bad for baseball.

 

I never care about deals like Burnett's deal. The Yankees offered a couple million more for AJ then their next best competitor. Same with Tex.

 

Ahh, I see. So you don't care about the type of deals that the Yankees take advantage of, like signing the most expensive player around. But when other teams take advantage of their player development systems and sign their players to long ter deals that also benefit the club, you have a problem with it. At least you're transparent.

 

However, CC's deal was bad for baseball. The Yankees so far outdistanced the competition, it really wasn't even fair.

 

The CC deal wasn't bad for baseball. It was bad for the Yankees. They outbid themselves for a guy who didn't want to go to NY. If they were determined to have him they could have him. All of the baseball world realizes this.

 

Are you for a salary cap?

 

I'm for a system that encourages all teams to compete. I think that stacking the rules for arbitration and 6 years of ownership encourages teams to use their farm system to its best advantage. I think it also encourages teams to sign players to longer term deals to reward performance, but which also benefit the team by letting them build around a player who they know they will have for many years.

 

If yes, then how do you feel about the Red Sox deal with Lester?

 

If there were a salary cap I'm pretty sure it would allow a #2 pitcher to be paid 6m.

 

Was it a good deal for baseball where the Red Sox offer a deal that was worth for so much more than the precedents set for 2nd year pitchers?

 

It wasn't. I proved that above. Your notion that this is precedent setting is wrong.

 

Please post what you think without your "fandom" coming into play [which pretty much leaves ORS out of this].

 

It was a good deal for this club. Pitchers like Lester are hard to find and he will play an important role as the core of this team through his prime years. I think nothing different about this than when I see Cole Hamels or Scott Kazmir or Brandon Webb sign big deals. I would have no problem with the Yankees doing the same for Joba because he is likely worth at least that much on the market.

 

I think it is good for baseball when homegrown players stay with their teams and don't leave for the post-arbitration $$ FA riches (Yankees) that await them.

 

I think the signing for the Sox is good if Lester stays healthy. I think it was bad for baseball. This one may have more of an impact because there are a lot of 2nd year pitchers who will benefit from this, a lot more than potential Sabathias.

 

Yes, god forbid that the Rays make David Price a key part of their rotation or that Tim Lincecum make what he's worth with his home team. You like it better when they're all FAs and the Yankees can buy them in deals that "nobody coplains about". People complain, you just don't hear them.

[TheKilo]

Gom read this in the Yahoo story:

 

The impending deal is the largest given to a pitcher with around two years of service time, doubling the four-year, $15 million deal Cleveland's Fausto Carmona signed at the beginning of last season.

 

This is disingenuous because Hamels signed a contract this offseason for 3/20. So it's not only incorrect that Lester's is the highest total value since Carmona (since 20>15), but Hamels' AAV is also higher.

 

In short, Gom's been proven wrong, so he can STFU.

[diony]

I guess they meant non-super two pitchers. Both Lester and Carmona still had a year of minimun salary, unlike Hamels.

[TheKilo]

I guess they meant non-super two pitchers. Both Lester and Carmona still had a year of minimun salary' date=' unlike Hamels who had four arb years left.[/quote']

 

That's a good point, but Gom made no mention of the super-two qualification.

[Dojji]

I guess they meant non-super two pitchers. Both Lester and Carmona still had a year of minimun salary' date=' unlike Hamels who had four arb years left.[/quote']

 

THe more qualifications you add the more stupid the argument seems to the rest of us. Sox paid a guy far more than he would ordinarily be paid in the first year and get a cheaper pitcher through age 29 as a result, I don't see the problem.

[example1]

He tried to mention the 2nd year thing, but it didn't come out right.

 

Carmona, Lester and Hamels all have 2+ years of MLB service.

 

The Indiajs signed Carmona last year, when he had 1+ years of service under his belt.

 

For that year of MLB service they paid him .5m (2008), as part of the 4 year contract that he signed.

 

According to Cot's, Lester signed the deal at 2+ years, as did Hamels, while Carmona signed at 1+ years.

 

That said, I think that Dojji's point is right: this is a stupid discussion the more we get into it. Lester is a homegrown talent and is someone this club wants to build around. He's pitched well in two playoff runs, winning a WS. He's going into his age 25 season and he's willing to sign a deal that gives the Sox control and choice about SIX of his seasons (with that team-option tacked on). This deal is NOT the biggest ever deal for such a young player, nor is it the biggest deal ever for a pitcher in the same situation. He's not one of the highest paid players in baseball, but he is one of the best at his position. Gom's a dumbass.

[diony]

THe more qualifications you add the more stupid the argument seems to the rest of us. Sox paid a guy far more than he would ordinarily be paid in the first year and get a cheaper pitcher through age 29 as a result' date=' I don't see the problem.[/quote']

 

If you think that's worth the huge risk of giving guaranteed money on a 5 year deal to a unproven pitcher after his first full season, then yes. I just think is too soon.

[TheKilo]

If you think that's worth the huge risk of giving guaranteed money on a 5 year deal to a unproven pitcher after his first full season' date=' then yes. I just think is too soon.[/quote']

 

I actually agree with you...I would have gone year to year but hey it's not a deal that will kill the Sox.

[Dipre]

If you think that's worth the huge risk of giving guaranteed money on a 5 year deal to a unproven pitcher after his first full season' date=' then yes. I just think is too soon.[/quote']

 

It might be too soon, but another couple years like 2008 might have netted him 10+ mill in arbitration easy,so the whole point of the deal is to give him higher financial security now, but keep him at a manageable 6 mill salary through his prime when some teams' number 5 SP's are making that or more.

 

Oh, and Gom's a douche, precedent my ass, teams locking up young talent for player friendly prices through the first years so the team can buy a couple FA years is what every team is trying to do, just so happens Lester had quite a bit of leverage in the negotiations because of his resume the past two years, and even more, that figure might be eclipsed in the next couple of months, because it's not such a huge deal as you keep trying to make it sound.

 

f***tard.

[Dojji]

If you think that's worth the huge risk of giving guaranteed money on a 5 year deal to a unproven pitcher after his first full season' date=' then yes. I just think is too soon.[/quote']

 

Unproven? Lester was our best pitcher last year and whatever else he did, he certainly proved that he could handle a big league workload in 2009 and he was effective in the playoffs. And in getting there he should have surprised nobody -- Jon Lester was considered a prime talent as a prospect and he had a knack for doing what it took to get the win even before he came into his own. I'd say for a two-year player that's about as proven as you get.

 

Even if he takes a step backward next year he'll be worth this contract, JMHO.

[Gom]

I'm definitely a big fan of the deal. I like the numbers, although I might have chopped off one year, but I'm fine with the contract as is.

 

What I enjoy even more is GOM getting assaulted by everyone else on the board. I've never seen so many things wrong with a single post.

 

You deserve what you get, dude. You should quit while you're only THIS far behind...

Dude...300+ posts..and not a single one worth reading. Go have another beer and play MLB 09. That's as close to baseball as you'll ever get. Where do you stand on this? For a cap or against one? If you're for it, defend this deal against the precedents.

Gom read this in the Yahoo story:

 

 

 

This is disingenuous because Hamels signed a contract this offseason for 3/20. So it's not only incorrect that Lester's is the highest total value since Carmona (since 20>15), but Hamels' AAV is also higher.

 

In short, Gom's been proven wrong, so he can STFU.

I never mentioned it because they are different. Hamels was going to arbitration and had some negotiating power. Lester did not. Didn't think I needed to qualify that, Kilo. So follow your own advice.

If you'll notice everyone' date=' he doesn't try and defend his error in calling the salary cap a strawman point, because he can't. I'm right there. He knows it.[/quote']

I didn't, because you're right, it isn't. It's the only point that wasn't too much of a strawman. It got steered this way, so I'll let it pass. I said the deal was bad for baseball, and that anyone who defends this deal really doesn't either a) want a salary cap or doesn't understand it.

Instead, he goes off on some irrelevant, childish attempt to somehow lump any point I may have made about a salary cap with John Henry's. I don't know where he's going there, any ideas folks? Whenever the subject comes up, regardless of what the latest hot stove news was, I have been in favor of a cap, despite what benefits my team reaps from not having one.

I give you the point in which you call for a cap. You always have. I said that before. I just now realize you don't understand it as well as I thought you did.

Sure, I can logically be for a salary cap while calling this a good deal. It's a good deal if they beat the market, and I think they did.

I didn't quote the rest of your post, because it's either strawman, idiotic, or both. However, I'll give you a chance to come out of this without looking totally clueless.

 

Now...when you say beat the market...what exactly do you mean? Relative to free agents? That's a given....if you make the assumption that Lester continues at similar level of excellence for the next 5-6 years.

 

I will go on record in saying that I wish the Yankees should follow suit and lock up their young players, and they've done it with Cano and Wang, and probably will follow suit with Joba after this season, and maybe even Hughes if he can put it together.

 

That said...please explain to me how giving a pitcher an unprecedented amount of money considering their position? If you end up giving players double the money and a 60% higher salary than his peers, how is that fiscally responsible? With a salary cap, you've got to watch every dime.

 

The point I'm making is that any team would never be able to give such a deal if there really was a cap in place. So if you applaud this signing, you really don't want or understand what a cap would do to your team.

 

Certain signings hurt the game. CC does, in a small way. Lester does in a bigger way. Manny's deal was outright atrocious. How do players with Ibanez, Burrell, and Abreu sign for a combined total of nearly what Manny makes [yearly salaries]? Reward a guy who becomes such a divisive force in a clubhouse, force a trade, and you reward him with a ridiculous salary?

 

For all Dodger fans, you can't really be for a cap if you applaud the Manny deal. I never once said I wanted a cap.

 

For all of you John Henrys out there...to complain about the Yankees when your team sets precedents like doubling the highest bid for Dice-K, or the Lester deal...well...you're hypocrites, and you only complain when it serves you. ORS, I'm not putting you in this camp, just the senile one.

 

So...if you are for a cap...please justify this deal using existing contracts for players. I'd love to hear a lucid counter-argument.

[Sox Fan on Cape]

Gom, since when were the Red Sox anointed the guardians of what's good for baseball ? I understand that the Yankees don't want the job. The Red Sox did what they felt was best for the Red Sox. This is not a salary cap argument. You can simply agree or disagree that it is a good deal. The fact is, only time will tell.

[BSN07]

By Gom's standards, TB must have been trying to kill baseball by giving Longoria a long term deal with little to no ML time under his belt.

[ORS]

I didn't quote the rest of your post' date=' because it's either strawman, idiotic, or both. However, I'll give you a chance to come out of this without looking totally clueless.[/quote']

No, you didn't quote the rest of it because it pokes massive holes in your prior posts where you only recognize absolute positions.

 

The point I'm making is that any team would never be able to give such a deal if there really was a cap in place. So if you applaud this signing, you really don't want or understand what a cap would do to your team.

Yeah, I do, and here we go 'round the mulberry bush again trying to get you to understand that being for a salary cap does not limit my thoughts on deals within the current system to only their impact on a nonexistant salary cap system. I'll break down in as simply as possible.

 

I am for a salary cap.

 

A salary cap does not exist.

 

Therefore, my consideration of the merits of a deal do not need to consider the impact a deal would have on a salary cap, which, again, does not exist at this time.

 

Get it?

 

Probably not.

[BoSox21]

I still don't get how a pitcher like Jon Lester, who would be a #1 or #2 on most teams, making $6 million a year wouldn't fit in a salary cap that if it existed, would be at least $100 million

[BSN07]

I would think even with a Salary cap, teams would be able to pay a SP 6M a season.

 

 

 

What they would not be able to do is pay a SP 16M-20M.

[ORS]

I agree, for a starting pitcher performing at that level, you can easily see that salary fit within the framework of a salary cap set at $100M. However, whether or not it does is irrelevant to the discussion. The Sox were acting within the current system. Change the rules, ie have a salary cap, and the negotiations go differently, and we are talking about a different deal. Analyzing this deal within the framework of a nonexistant set of rules is the pinnacle of stupidity. Guess who suggests that's what we should do?

[diony]

I will go on record in saying that I wish the Yankees should follow suit and lock up their young players, and they've done it with Cano and Wang, and probably will follow suit with Joba after this season, and maybe even Hughes if he can put it together.

 

Wang never got an extension, thank god. He's making 5 mill on his 2nd arb year. The Yanks can afford having their pitchers year to year without taking any risks. Is too risky to give Joba an extension anytime soon.

[BSN07]

Wang never got an extension' date=' thank god. He's making 5 mill on his 2nd arb year. The Yanks can afford having their pitchers year to year without taking any risks. Is too risky to give Joba an extension anytime soon.[/quote']

 

Yes but in 2 years roughly, he will have about the same experience time as Lester does now. If he does pretty good this year( 150-175IP, low 4 ERA), followed by a strong season next year(210IP+ Low-mid 3 ERA), you wouldn't want him for 5/30M?

[BoSox21]

The Yanks can afford having their pitchers year to year without taking any risks.

 

Exactly, but according to Gom if the Sox extend Lester to buy out a year or two of free agency, that's "flaunting their economic might" as opposed to going year to year cautioning themselves against injury and risking the player becoming increasingly bitter that the team doesn't have enough faith in Lester to consider him a cornerstone of the team's future as they did for Youkilis and Pedroia.

[BoSox21]

Yes but in 2 years roughly' date=' he will have about the same experience time as Lester does now. If he does pretty good this year( 150-175IP, low 4 ERA), followed by a strong season next year(210IP+ Low-mid 3 ERA), you wouldn't want him for 5/30M?[/quote']

 

Why would they care about buying out free agent years? Who would outbid them if Joba ever got to free agency? They can afford to caution themselves against injury or more ill-fated trips to the Foxy Lady in Nebraska

[BSN07]

Why would they care about buying out free agent years? Who would outbid them if Joba ever got to free agency? They can afford to caution themselves against injury or more ill-fated trips to the Foxy Lady in Nebraska

 

I was trying to get them to see it threw our eyes. And Joba's a good example. If he pitches like I said, I don't believe there would be very many Yankees fans that would argue against a contract extension. Especially one at that price.

 

 

But you are right, if they keep spending at their status quo, they can afford to let these guys hit the market.

[Dojji]

Robinson Cano and his largish contract extension says hi

[BSN07]

Robinson Cano and his largish contract extension says hi

 

Your trying to argue pitching vs offense with a Yankees fan. Good luck.

[diony]

Yes but in 2 years roughly' date=' he will have about the same experience time as Lester does now. If he does pretty good this year( 150-175IP, low 4 ERA), followed by a strong season next year(210IP+ Low-mid 3 ERA), you wouldn't want him for 5/30M?[/quote']

 

Not in two years. After this season. He has 1.055 ML service now. But in 2 years, maybe. I'd rather give him 3-4 mill on his first arb year. If he's effective, then I lock him up to a Kazmir or Greinke type of deal.

[BSN07]

Not in two years. After this season. He has 1.055 ML service now. But in 2 years' date=' maybe. I'd rather give him 3-4 mill on his first arb year. If he's effective, then I lock him up to a Kazmir or Greinke type of deal.[/quote']

 

Your right there. But I see you get the general concept of my post though. That extending certain players before they become FA isn't the worst thing they can do.

[diony]

It would be dumb to not extend Wang before he reaches free agency.

[BSN07]

It would be dumb to not extend Wang before he reaches free agency.

 

Not according to all that is Gom.

[TheKilo]

I agree' date=' for a starting pitcher performing at that level, you can easily see that salary fit within the framework of a salary cap set at $100M. However, whether or not it does is irrelevant to the discussion. The Sox were acting within the current system. Change the rules, ie have a salary cap, and the negotiations go differently, and we are talking about a different deal. [b']Analyzing this deal within the framework of a nonexistant set of rules is the pinnacle of stupidity. Guess who suggests that's what we should do?[/b]

 

THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS