The Official Dead Horse Topics Thread

[cp176]

The more I think about it the more I am accepting this possibility. They f***ed-up the process from the get-go. They should have signed him at the end of the 2013 season regardless of what Lester or the Sox say. When they made that stupid offer in the spring of 2014 it was already too late. Then they made the 6/135 or so offer just as he was deciding to go to LA or Chicago.

 

DUMB, DUMB, DUMB.

 

Unless they really did not want him.

 

I think probably I should have said that they didn't want him that badly. Regardless of all the chitter chatter about the Red Sox budget, they continue to prove that if they want someone badly enough they are certainly willing to overpay for that person. They have been doing it for years. Each year their budgetary bar gets higher. The decisions made to not go after a true number 1 last year looked ridiculous then and they look even more ridiculous in hindsight.

[mvp 78]

If they really wanted him, he'd still be here.

[Bellhorn04]

If they really wanted him, he'd still be here.

 

I think you're right. But they really made themselves look ridiculous, starting with an offer of 70 million and ending with an offer of 135 million.

[mvp 78]

I think you're right. But they really made themselves look ridiculous, starting with an offer of 70 million and ending with an offer of 135 million.

 

Definitely

[Kimmi]

The money saved by not signing Lester would appear so far to be wasted. When you can afford the best, it might be in your best interest to get the best. You get what you pay for isn't just an expression. Note- I did say that the $ saved by not signing Lester "appears" to be wasted so far. I don't care that it cost a tad more to sign Price and I think that John Henry is pretty happy as well. If he had truly wanted Lester, we would still have Lester.

 

I have no clue what they thought they were doing with the $70 mil offer, but I think they wanted Lester back, just on their terms. They were pretty set on not signing an aging pitcher to a huge contract, which IMO, is the correct philosophy.

 

They did an about face on that philosophy this offseason in signing Price. IMO, it was a knee-jerk reaction, and not the wisest of moves.

[User Name]

They should have offered Bailey money right off the bat, and that would have saved them a lot of grief.

[Spudboy]

They should have offered Bailey money right off the bat, and that would have saved them a lot of grief.

 

I think that 5-6 /115-125 after the 2013 season ended would have been a successful preemptive bid.

 

What did Homer sign for ? 5/95? I don't think that would have gotten it done.

[User Name]

6/105. The length was right, the AAV was not. Perfect starting point IMO.

[Kimmi]

They should have offered Bailey money right off the bat, and that would have saved them a lot of grief.

 

I agree. And I thought Lester said that he would have signed for Bailey money had it been offered at that point.

[mvp 78]

Jonathan Paplebon

[iortiz]

Lol!

[Bellhorn04]

Papelyawn

[User Name]

Papelblows

[Spudboy]

Penis envy.

[User Name]

Papelpenis?

[Kimmi]

Penis envy.

 

To quote Elaine from Seinfeld, "I don't know how you guys walk around with those things."

[sk7326]

I have no clue what they thought they were doing with the $70 mil offer, but I think they wanted Lester back, just on their terms. They were pretty set on not signing an aging pitcher to a huge contract, which IMO, is the correct philosophy.

 

They did an about face on that philosophy this offseason in signing Price. IMO, it was a knee-jerk reaction, and not the wisest of moves.

 

It was, although I think they might have been too dogmatic in their valuation - model results vs the market as is. I could have told you that he was a $25M pitcher, just because the comps were becoming obvious. (#1/#2 pitcher with exceptional durability) I am not sure their terms read the market correctly. Certainly it missed the market by a large enough margin that hometown discount was a non-issue.

[Northern Star]

I have no clue what they thought they were doing with the $70 mil offer, but I think they wanted Lester back, just on their terms. They were pretty set on not signing an aging pitcher to a huge contract, which IMO, is the correct philosophy.

 

They did an about face on that philosophy this offseason in signing Price. IMO, it was a knee-jerk reaction, and not the wisest of moves.

 

The fact is the game is ruled by pitching and you saw how Ben's philosophy of go with a rotation of middling pitchers and try to mash the way to the series played out. They probably could have had Lester for less than they paid Price. Yes, it was a knee jerk but they were forced into it by the totally wrong-headed philosophy leading us to this point. I don't consider it unwise.

 

Look, I totally agree big contracts to older pitchers are not good. I am the first in line to abolish guaranteed contracts. But we were stuck, Price was the best guy out there, and they paid what it took to get him. I don't have much of a problem. After seeing Porcello and co crap the bed, I would rather pay the going rate for a bona fide ace than have another subpar year missing the playoffs. Price gives us a puncher's chance of the playoffs this year, but for my money the rest of the rotation is still too much of a question mark.

[Northern Star]

If they really wanted him, he'd still be here.

 

I think they wanted him, but they wanted their cake and to eat it too (that phrase doesn't make any sense, but whatever). They wanted him on their super-conservative terms. Their philosophy makes sense but baseball is not a game of sense nowadays, sadly. The market is what the market is.

[iortiz]

A 70 M offer for a guy like Lester is an insult to start with. It's ridiculous. Horrible way to manage the thing. They definitely didn't want him.

[Northern Star]

A 70 M offer for a guy like Lester is an insult to start with. It's ridiculous. Horrible way to manage the thing. They definitely didn't want him.

 

If they didn't want him, why even bother with the low-ball offer? To appease the fans? Didn't they know how the lowball offer would look? Either way, they thought they could get away with this philosophy about contracts to pitchers, and they were wrong. They proved this by paying Price instead of still staunchly sticking to their guns in the face of mounting evidence that they were wrong.

[User Name]

You can not pay pitchers, when you can consistently develop them. The problem is that it's almost impossible to consistently develop starting pitching unless you tilt your scale way over to the pitching side of the development process, and that's in direct disagreement to the Sox' "draft the best talent possible" philosophy. That's why baseball as much art as it is science. Nothing works 100% of the time.

[iortiz]

If they didn't want him, why even bother with the low-ball offer? To appease the fans? Didn't they know how the lowball offer would look? Either way, they thought they could get away with this philosophy about contracts to pitchers, and they were wrong. They proved this by paying Price instead of still staunchly sticking to their guns in the face of mounting evidence that they were wrong.

 

It speaks volumes of how this team was managed.

[Kimmi]

The fact is the game is ruled by pitching and you saw how Ben's philosophy of go with a rotation of middling pitchers and try to mash the way to the series played out. They probably could have had Lester for less than they paid Price. Yes, it was a knee jerk but they were forced into it by the totally wrong-headed philosophy leading us to this point. I don't consider it unwise.

 

Look, I totally agree big contracts to older pitchers are not good. I am the first in line to abolish guaranteed contracts. But we were stuck, Price was the best guy out there, and they paid what it took to get him. I don't have much of a problem. After seeing Porcello and co crap the bed, I would rather pay the going rate for a bona fide ace than have another subpar year missing the playoffs. Price gives us a puncher's chance of the playoffs this year, but for my money the rest of the rotation is still too much of a question mark.

 

The "totally wrong headed philosophy" happens to be the right philosophy. It just didn't work out. Regardless of whether you agree with the philosophy or not, the moves that Ben made or did not make were mandated by Henry. He is the one who did not want Ben to sign an aging pitcher to a large contract, though I'm sure Ben agreed with that philosophy.

 

Henry did an about face with his philosophy this offseason. He panicked, as is his MO.

[mvp 78]

The "totally wrong headed philosophy" happens to be the right philosophy. It just didn't work out. Regardless of whether you agree with the philosophy or not, the moves that Ben made or did not make were mandated by Henry. He is the one who did not want Ben to sign an aging pitcher to a large contract, though I'm sure Ben agreed with that philosophy.

 

Henry did an about face with his philosophy this offseason. He panicked, as is his MO.

 

When you can't develop viable starting pitchers, they need to be acquired via trade or free agency. If they really thought that Porcello was going to outperform Lester, I'm glad they made big changes to the FO.

[Bellhorn04]

The "totally wrong headed philosophy" happens to be the right philosophy. It just didn't work out. Regardless of whether you agree with the philosophy or not, the moves that Ben made or did not make were mandated by Henry. He is the one who did not want Ben to sign an aging pitcher to a large contract, though I'm sure Ben agreed with that philosophy.

 

Do you think the final offer of 135 million to Lester and the personal visit by Henry were just for show? (I'm not sure what to think about it.)

[Kimmi]

When you can't develop viable starting pitchers, they need to be acquired via trade or free agency. If they really thought that Porcello was going to outperform Lester, I'm glad they made big changes to the FO.

 

Part of the reason for developing a farm is to have the trade chips to fill in the holes. I would have traded for a young starter rather than trading for Kimbrel. I realize that is easier said than done, because you need to have a trade partner who is willing and reasonable.

 

Also, I do realize that it's sometimes necessary to hand out a huge contract to a free agent, pitching or otherwise. It's just a necessary evil.

 

Making a trade for a pitcher like Porcello was the correct move. It hasn't worked out so far, but it was a good move. No one thought that Porcello would outperform Lester, but Porcello was a good value trade.

[Kimmi]

Do you think the final offer of 135 million to Lester and the personal visit by Henry were just for show? (I'm not sure what to think about it.)

 

No, I think it was a sincere last attempt to sign Lester. I think that the FO just completely screwed that one up with the $70 million offer, then made a last ditch effort to salvage that relationship.

[mvp 78]

Part of the reason for developing a farm is to have the trade chips to fill in the holes. I would have traded for a young starter rather than trading for Kimbrel. I realize that is easier said than done, because you need to have a trade partner who is willing and reasonable.

 

Also, I do realize that it's sometimes necessary to hand out a huge contract to a free agent, pitching or otherwise. It's just a necessary evil.

 

Making a trade for a pitcher like Porcello was the correct move. It hasn't worked out so far, but it was a good move. No one thought that Porcello would outperform Lester, but Porcello was a good value trade.

The trade was fine, the extension was not.

[Kimmi]

The trade was fine, the extension was not.

 

Except if Porcello had pitched well and then left as a free agent, this board would be all over Ben for not locking him up during ST when they had the chance.