Lester's Future

[SoxSport]

Speaking of Vic, it appears that he has become a problem staying healthy at age 32. He had similar problems last year. They have $39 mil for 3 yrs tied up with him, and he could well become an albatross.

They were lucky with Napoli--getting him down to 1 year, but Vic and Dempster look like expensive mistakes at this point. They continue to overestimate development time for their prospects--creating roadblocks with salary.

[a700hitter]

Speaking of Vic, it appears that he has become a problem staying healthy at age 32. He had similar problems last year. They have $39 mil for 3 yrs tied up with him, and he could well become an albatross.

They were lucky with Napoli--getting him down to 1 year, but Vic and Dempster look like expensive mistakes at this point. They continue to overestimate development time for their prospects--creating roadblocks with salary.

He's a good ballplayer, but it seem that everytime he goes hard in the field or on the bases he comes up lame.

[Bellhorn04]

They were lucky with Napoli--getting him down to 1 year, but Vic and Dempster look like expensive mistakes at this point. They continue to overestimate development time for their prospects--creating roadblocks with salary.

 

I don't think Dempster looks like a mistake at this point. He's got the second-most innings on the staff and his ERA is respectable, and close to what was expected.

 

He's doing much better than a lot of the other dumpster boys like McCarthy, Haren, Jackson and Marcum.

[a700hitter]

I don't think Dempster looks like a mistake at this point. He's got the second-most innings on the staff and his ERA is respectable, and close to what was expected.

 

He's doing much better than a lot of the other dumpster boys like McCarthy, Haren, Jackson and Marcum.

He has performed as most people had hopede he would. The AL and ALE has not caused him to implode as some had feared. A mid 4 ERA and 200 innings would be very helpful to this teams chances.

[User Name]

Well we agree on something for once. Dempster has certainly performed better than almost everyone (including me) expected.

[a700hitter]

Well we agree on something for once. Dempster has certainly performed better than almost everyone (including me) expected.

So, you were wrong about him... Right? Just clarifying, because some people here really get off on people saying they were wrong.. For me, the fact that you said that he has been "better than expected" was sufficient.

[User Name]

Oh i was wrong about him. I thought he'd provide innings but have an ERA near five.

[Palodios]

In all fairness, who wasn't wrong about Dempster? With Anibel Sanchez with shoulder issues, he could very well turn into the best free agent pitcher that was available last year... although that says more about the competition than himself

[jung]

I think Demps has done better against the good teams that anybody expected. He has been about what at least i expected against the not so good. However he has not been pounded by the better AL teams.

 

Days when he is very successful at keeping the ball down he is downright tough. I don't expect that of him though and I have been pleased with what he has accomplished so far.

 

For me the biggest dif in my expectation and the actual for one of our starters has been Lackey. To me he has been really terrific so far considering TJS. If he keeps going like he has been IMO he slots in right behind Buch and not far behind for that matter.

[italstallianion]

Knowing my luck there's still time for Dempster to suck. I was definitely wrong on him thus far.

 

I was wrong on Lackey too, but because I really wanted him on the team about a year before he signed. I guess there's still time on that one too.

[SoxSport]

If Dempster is worth $13 million a year as a pitcher, Kershaw is worth $50 million.

[jung]

No question that there has been a premium on starting pitching, In the Sox case that gets coupled with the double whammy of short term contracts. Even one more year on that contract would have likely gotten Demps price down to $11m. Hard to get a starting pitcher that is actually a genuine piece of your rotation for less than $10-11M these days. I cringe to think what Kershaw will get for his first big contract. It will likely make him something like the world's 4th largest economy.:D

[Bellhorn04]

If Dempster is worth $13 million a year as a pitcher, Kershaw is worth $50 million.

 

It's the same annual rate as guys like Haren and Edwin Jackson are getting, and Dempster is pitching much better than them.

 

$13 million is 50% of what 'aces' are getting now. Insanely inflated as it is, it's just the current economy of baseball.

[User Name]

It's the same annual rate as guys like Haren and Edwin Jackson are getting, and Dempster is pitching much better than them.

 

$13 million is 50% of what 'aces' are getting now. Insanely inflated as it is, it's just the current economy of baseball.

 

SoxSport's logic is obviously flawed. That's not how the baseball economy works. And Kershaw is an awful example, since when he signs his Dodgers extension, he'll be exhibit A of just how expensive starting pitching has become.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Yeah I was furious with the Demp signing. I thought he was Freddy Garcia 2.0, and wanted to give the ball to RDLR rather than Demp.

 

Shows how much I know.

[RedSoxNC84]

Not really on topic but I still thought it funny:

 

Jose Iglesias has hit as many homeruns as Jacoby Ellsbury.

[mvp 78]

Can someone tell me how we have two #1's again?

[Bellhorn04]

Can someone tell me how we have two #1's again?

 

Why not just ask the person who said it.

[mvp 78]

Ok. Dear half the board, why did you think Lester (bad for 22 months) and Buchholz (on/off DL for his career) were #1's?

[Bellhorn04]

Ok. Dear half the board, why did you think Lester (bad for 22 months) and Buchholz (on/off DL for his career) were #1's?

 

Our starting pitching has been a lot better than expected so far this year. But anybody who came into the season thinking there were 2 #1's on a staff where the top ERA last year was 4.56, was not grounded in reality. I seriously doubt that half the board said this though.

[jung]

I think the best anybody likely thought was that we could possibly have what everybody in baseball wants for starting pitching...two studs at the top of the rotation....maybe not two Aces, certainly not two #1's but two guys that are really going to haul the water for you. Lester and Buch started as that I think. Then Buch clearly distinguished himself and then got hurt or something...who the hell knows. Lester then went into the annual "lack of confidence" funk and here we are.

 

But the news is starting to sound better on Buch and Lester has at least had a couple of good starts before the Seattle start. Buch can't flounder around now though as there is just about no time left. So he has to continue to improve and get back on the mound.

[Standing Room]

Can someone tell me how we have two #1's again?

 

Buchholz and Lackey?

[Rick Ross]

Buchholz and Lester, though clearly the latter hasn't shown himself as such recently.

[Standing Room]

Buchholz and Lester, though clearly the latter hasn't shown himself as such recently.

 

Lester's not a #1 starter at this point in his career. More like a #4.

[iortiz]

A #1 has to show consistency and durability. An ace has to show that through a large period of time. Clearly we do not have an ace in this organization. At this point we only have a truly # 1. He is John Lackey.

[User Name]

So do we have an ace or don't we have an ace? Because you just said that we do and we don't in the same sentence. Unless you're saying that a #1 and an ace are not the same thing.

[iortiz]

Yup, they are not the same. True aces are a handful. On the other hand you have several #1s.

[Bellhorn04]

What the hell is a #1 anyway?

[User Name]

Yup, they are not the same. True aces are a handful. On the other hand you have several #1s.

 

By definition, a #1 is an ace. What you're trying to say is that the Red Sox don't actually have a #1, or ace. If a pitcher is not an ace, then he's not a #1.

 

Lackey may be an actual ace, and he sure is pitching like one, while being very durable ever since his biceps debacle. We'll see.

[User Name]

What the hell is a #1 anyway?

 

What the hell is an ace anyway? It's very subjective. But i guess if it had a definition, it would be a "top 20 SP" imo.