Lackey to the Cardinals

[seabeachfred]

I agree that it is not likely that Lester is resigned and that Sherzer is also too expensive. Your idea is as valid as any other. I have read all the reports about the Sox being in on Hamels. I think that he is making close to what the Sox could have retained Lester for so that does not seem to make sense given the Sox reluctance to sign Lester.

 

Who the hell knows what they will do? I am, however, confident that The Sox will grab at least two arms for the rotation and do the usual bull pen shuffling for 2015.

 

Whatever they do, I hope that they do not do the ( as a700 calls it ) "dumpster diving" to construct the rotation. This team needs one or two front line starters, not a mix of never wases / won't bes and reclamation projects.

 

Agreed. However, it will be dumpster diving if they are not willing to spend some money and some prospects. If we seen DD it can only be because Prune Face and his cohorts think they get another mulligan next year because of 2013. They have to be assured from the get-go that there will be no more mulligans. They have to put up or shut up. If they don't the press has to be relentless, the media brutal and the fans kept away in droves. We're the Red Sox damn it---we supposed to always be in contention.

[Behindenemylines]

Agreed. However, it will be dumpster diving if they are not willing to spend some money and some prospects. If we seen DD it can only be because Prune Face and his cohorts think they get another mulligan next year because of 2013. They have to be assured from the get-go that there will be no more mulligans. They have to put up or shut up. If they don't the press has to be relentless, the media brutal and the fans kept away in droves. We're the Red Sox damn it---we supposed to always be in contention.

 

If the Sox finish last this year (Most likely) then the FO will have used their mulligan. They have said over and over again they are building the 2015 to contend. That means rebuilding the pitching staff.

[Spudboy]

While this season sure has been a bust, I remain hopeful that the brass will do a decent job of rebuilding the entire roster ( the rotation is obviously the biggest need now ).

 

The Sox have the chips to make moves to get the team back in contention next year. I see no reason that would preclude them doing so.

[Behindenemylines]

While this season sure has been a bust, I remain hopeful that the brass will do a decent job of rebuilding the entire roster ( the rotation is obviously the biggest need now ).

 

The Sox have the chips to make moves to get the team back in contention next year. I see no reason that would preclude them doing so.

 

BC has said it several times in different interviews that starting pitching will be number 1 on his things to do this winter.

[seabeachfred]

BC has said it several times in different interviews that starting pitching will be number 1 on his things to do this winter.

 

And it should be BEL, but whether No. 1 or not the problem is getting the really good pitchers and that costs money. Does Henry really want to spend the money to get them? He sure didn't with Lester.

[Spudboy]

And it should be BEL, but whether No. 1 or not the problem is getting the really good pitchers and that costs money. Does Henry really want to spend the money to get them? He sure didn't with Lester.

 

Henry has shown little reluctance to throw money around in the past. The Sox have stated that they want to stay away from long term commitments to players over 30.

 

While we as fans want Lester back, the Sox have their own ideas on how to spend their money to build a team.

[seabeachfred]

Henry has shown little reluctance to throw money around in the past. The Sox have stated that they want to stay away from long term commitments to players over 30.

 

While we as fans want Lester back, the Sox have their own ideas on how to spend their money to build a team.

 

Yes, and this y ear those ideas have led us into the abyss.

[SoxFanForsyth]

And it should be BEL, but whether No. 1 or not the problem is getting the really good pitchers and that costs money. Does Henry really want to spend the money to get them? He sure didn't with Lester.

 

Everytime someone says this, I always ask this question, and nobody has even attempted to answer it.

 

The Sox have $75mm to spend this offseason. Where do they spend all that money? Because mid-market starting pitching doesn't sniff that amount. They will have at least 1 player that makes $25mm on their team by March, 2015. And it will probably be Lester.

[jad]

If it's true Lackey will honor his contract, why do the RS get rid of him knowing it will cost 10/15 mil per year to replace him in FAgency? I really don't understand that.

[seabeachfred]

If it's true Lackey will honor his contract, why do the RS get rid of him knowing it will cost 10/15 mil per year to replace him in FAgency? I really don't understand that.

 

jad, I tried to explain that to a couple of dingheads on this board but they closed their ears. Lackey demanded a trade when he realized the Red Sox were not serious about signing Lester and winning, and in addition refused to consider altering his contact. If he was going to pitch for $500K he wanted it to be for a good team and one that might alter that contract.

[Spitball]

Henry has shown little reluctance to throw money around in the past. The Sox have stated that they want to stay away from long term commitments to players over 30.

 

While we as fans want Lester back, the Sox have their own ideas on how to spend their money to build a team.

 

It amazes me how many fans still embrace the old Epstein-like thinking. Throwing long term contracts at players based on past performances leads to problematic budget and lineup restraints as a team moves forward. Players like Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Jonathan Papelbon, and Josh Beckett have contracts that are drains on their teams. Thank goodness Cherington is more of a progressive thinker. The Red Sox have the 2013 title and are regrouping to make another run in 2015.

 

More than a decade ago, Billy Beane was ahead of his time. He may have received too much credit, but the general public was not progressive enough to understand the forward thinking of his methods.

 

It may seem like small market methods, but the As and Rays have been pretty successful in the last decade. Cherington has embraced a different philosophy. The Red Sox will not sign players on past performance, and we need to get used to it. They may win one year and then regroup for the next. It is a new way to progress. Let the Yankees sign a bunch of stars to long term contracts that will result in Rodriguez, Sabathia, Texeira, Ellsbury, McCann and others growing old and being over-paid.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Spitball

[a700hitter]

Or maybe they are regrouping for another run at last place in 2016.

[jad]

Hmm. Makes sense if true, although knowing what's going on in JL's head has to be largely speculation. But even if that is true, RS still seem to have made a blunder--they could have renegotiated his contract (maybe kicking the 500K year down the road even). The option for Lackey wasn't "play for a WS contender this year" or "test the FA market next year." With that contract, his option was "play for the RS or retire." I just don't see why the RS couldn't have used that as a bargaining chip and ended up with a better,cheaper pitcher than they're likely to get on the market.

[Palodios]

Or maybe they are regrouping for another run at last place in 2016.

 

As in, 2016, not 2015? If the Red Sox made deep playoff runs every other year, and were last place the following year I think I would be okay with that. In theory, that was the plan here, overstock on offense, rebuild the pitching through the offseason, and make a strong run for 2015.

 

We actually might see this scenario in 2015/2016. If they pick up one of those 2016 mlb pitching free agents, they build a team that probably won't be around the following year. 1 starter, Koji (if he decides to play one more year), Ortiz, Cespedes, Victorino, Napoli could all be gone in 2016.

[Bellhorn04]

It amazes me how many fans still embrace the old Epstein-like thinking. Throwing long term contracts at players based on past performances leads to problematic budget and lineup restraints as a team moves forward. Players like Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Jonathan Papelbon, and Josh Beckett have contracts that are drains on their teams. Thank goodness Cherington is more of a progressive thinker. The Red Sox have the 2013 title and are regrouping to make another run in 2015.

 

More than a decade ago, Billy Beane was ahead of his time. He may have received too much credit, but the general public was not progressive enough to understand the forward thinking of his methods.

 

It may seem like small market methods, but the As and Rays have been pretty successful in the last decade. Cherington has embraced a different philosophy. The Red Sox will not sign players on past performance, and we need to get used to it. They may win one year and then regroup for the next. It is a new way to progress. Let the Yankees sign a bunch of stars to long term contracts that will result in Rodriguez, Sabathia, Texeira, Ellsbury, McCann and others growing old and being over-paid.

 

It remains to be seen if the Red Sox can succeed with that type of philosophy. They will be ending the 2014 season with one of the worst records in baseball and a myriad of holes to fill and question marks. Let's see how much of it they can solve without 'spending their way out of it'.

[Palodios]

It amazes me how many fans still embrace the old Epstein-like thinking. Throwing long term contracts at players based on past performances leads to problematic budget and lineup restraints as a team moves forward. Players like Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, Jonathan Papelbon, and Josh Beckett have contracts that are drains on their teams. Thank goodness Cherington is more of a progressive thinker.

 

There are players that deserve those contracts though. The 2004 and 2007 championships needed Manny's bat among many others. Pedroia got a long term contract at low AAV, and most believe he is worth it. Pedroia was worth it, and I believe Lester is too. Ellsbury wasn't. Papelbon wasn't. But how often do you find pitchers like Lester? We've been lucky with Roger and Pedro, but who knows the next time we'll see someone like those guys again.

[Spudboy]

I think anytime you sign an established player you end up paying for his "past performance". It is what his perceived value going forward is based on.

 

Which is not to say that I like the idea of over spending on a player just because he has had success in the past. If a player projects to continue that success and close to that level of performance the big money can be justified.

[Spitball]

It remains to be seen if the Red Sox can succeed with that type of philosophy. They will be ending the 2014 season with one of the worst records in baseball and a myriad of holes to fill and question marks. Let's see how much of it they can solve without 'spending their way out of it'.

 

I agree, but the Red Sox need to avoid 'spending their way out of it' and stay forward thinking. The Phillies and Rangers are in deep holes due in a large part to 'spending their way out of it.'

[Palodios]

I agree, but the Red Sox need to avoid 'spending their way out of it' and stay forward thinking. The Phillies and Rangers are in deep holes due in a large part to 'spending their way out of it.'

 

Well, the Phillies's big problem is that they overpaid on Ryan Howard.

[seabeachfred]

I think anytime you sign an established player you end up paying for his "past performance". It is what his perceived value going forward is based on.

 

Which is not to say that I like the idea of over spending on a player just because he has had success in the past. If a player projects to continue that success and close to that level of performance the big money can be justified.

 

Spud, there are exceptions to all the myriad or rules, written or otherwise that govern baseball signings and personnel in general, but Henry has drawn a line in the sand and said we can't sign players to expensive contracts over 30 years of age. I use the example of the three year $39 million we gave to Victorino. And he was coming off a miserable 2012 season with the Phillies and Dodgers. Year two, this year, has been a total waste of money; next year he may not be very effective because of his back problems BUT YEAR 1!!!!!! He hit a solid 294, hit 17 homers, stole close to 30 bases and won a Gold Glove played a RF he had never played before. Was that contract worth it? My opinion??? Absolutely, because without Shane I venture to say there would have been no WS Title in 2013. So to me that proves the exception to a rule that should never have been set in stone.

[Northern Star]

Well, the Phillies's big problem is that they overpaid on Ryan Howard.

 

overpaid is putting it mildly.

[Spudboy]

3/39 is not 5/125 or 5/150.

[Spitball]

The Phillies are just an example. The Red Sox would be in the same boat if they had not unloaded Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett. Throwing expensive long term contracts at "solutions" to holes in the line-up is likely to be recognized as a mistake in the future. The As, Rays and now the Red Sox are examples of teams taking another approach. I honestly don't see how baseball can move forward without a new approach.

 

Ellsbury and Choo were very nice pieces to any team, but they unbelievably signed superstar type contracts. That can't be healthy for the future of baseball. We need for all teams to have the ability to be competitive.

 

The As and other teams are recognizing that future success involves responsibly building from the farm system and creative trading. That includes the Red Sox because they will not be able to compete with the Yankee and Dodger way.

[Bellhorn04]

The Phillies are just an example. The Red Sox would be in the same boat if they had not unloaded Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett. Throwing expensive long term contracts at "solutions" to holes in the line-up is likely to be recognized as a mistake in the future. The As, Rays and now the Red Sox are examples of teams taking another approach. I honestly don't see how baseball can move forward without a new approach.

 

Ellsbury and Choo were very nice pieces to any team, but they unbelievably signed superstar type contracts. That can't be healthy for the future of baseball. We need for all teams to have the ability to be competitive.

 

Actually the bloated levels of the free agent contracts and the high percentage of busts have been a big equalizer in economically disparate MLB. Parity is running rampant this year. Check out the standings. Outside of the AL West, there is nobody more than 15 games over .500!

Edited August 6, 2014 by Bellhorn04

[Behindenemylines]

Lackey has actually pitched better for the Sox this year then he has for the Cards. If Craig can find his swing this will end up a steal for the Sox.

[Spitball]

It would be nice if the Sox could still fill holes by throwing huge contracts at players to solve positional problems. It worked for years...but I believe the times are changing. The successful teams will recognize the need to change with the times.

 

In years in which the free agency pool is shallow, the 30 something Ellsburys and Choos sign ridiculously large contracts because they are the top of that year's class. How does that affect future signings when younger and better players become available? The years and dollars are becoming dangerously irresponsible for long term success.

 

The successful teams will have to reverse their thinking. Teams will have to trust their farm systems and sign promising younger players for potential forward production rather than 30-something players for past production.

 

This is all I have been saying . It is just my opinion.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Spitball

[jacksonianmarch]

You guys are falling for the propaganda. Building from within takes time and also takes incredibly shrewd management. It took 10 yr for TB to build and they had top 5 picks each yr that decade. It took Pitt 20 yrs. The sox, meanwhile, are charging the highest ticket prices in baseball a and are crying poverty. Most people decrying the big contracts look at the whole contract instead of what it really is. Payment for half a contract of production and half for mediocrity. That's the going rate of business. If you want to fall for the propaganda, go for it. That's what Henry and Co want

[a700hitter]

You guys are falling for the propaganda. Building from within takes time and also takes incredibly shrewd management. It took 10 yr for TB to build and they had top 5 picks each yr that decade. It took Pitt 20 yrs. The sox, meanwhile, are charging the highest ticket prices in baseball a and are crying poverty. Most people decrying the big contracts look at the whole contract instead of what it really is. Payment for half a contract of production and half for mediocrity. That's the going rate of business. If you want to fall for the propaganda, go for it. That's what Henry and Co want

Luckily, I don't think that the FO has a build solely from within philosophy. People tend to project their own philosophy onto the FO. I think the Red Sox will continue to have one of the largest payrolls in baseball.

[Spudboy]

Luckily, I don't think that the FO has a build solely from within philosophy. People tend to project their own philosophy onto the FO. I think the Red Sox will continue to have one of the largest payrolls in baseball.

 

I don't see the Sox cutting the payroll significantly going forward. I believe that they will continue to spend big dollars when necessary ( 2014 off season will be nice! ) except that they have become more selective in the process. One can only hope that the selections will be good ones.

 

What I find encouraging is that the Sox have amassed quite a lot of trade chips going into the off season. There is more than just prospects to deal with. Veteran talent can be used as well.

 

Again, the big challenge will be reconstructing the rotation. 4-5 rookie arms will not cut it if the goal is to compete for a playoff spot in 2015. And the Boston fans ( the real ones ) know this and will speak quite loudly if the Sox are not aggressive in signing front line starters.

 

This is not a small market. Operating the team as if it were such will not fly.

[Spitball]

Most people decrying the big contracts look at the whole contract instead of what it really is. Payment for half a contract of production and half for mediocrity. That's the going rate of business. If you want to fall for the propaganda, go for it. That's what Henry and Co want

 

I guess I don't see your point. You see a successful method built on paying big dollars for eventual mediocrity? The Yankees may be able to afford this but I don't see it as a wise method for building a winning team.

 

Also, I don't see anyone advocating a strict build from within philosophy. There is a lot to be said for developing and paying young players going forward, but I assume the Sox will still have some large contracts. They just need to balance the team’s payroll. The highest paid players can't be handicapping any other portion of the team's balance. It is wise to develop a strong farm system so the team has affordable options to fill holes when aging players become over priced or are about to become over priced.

 

I am not saying any system always works. Obviously, the red Sox gambled on some young players this season, and it has not worked out. This has just been one incomplete season. I believe the test will take a period of time to measure a systems effectiveness. The As and Rays have managed to compete over several seasons while maintaining low payrolls. The Marlins trail in the Wild Card race by the same margin as the Yankees. I think we will have to watch the Red Sox over a few years to determine how their system will actually be employed and how successful it will be.