example1

There was also a tweet earlier tonight about the Reds possibly entertaining offers on Aroldis Chapman. I wonder what it would take to get him. That guy is an elite arm, albeit in the bullpen.

McAdam reporting Sox and Phillies discussing Sean Coyle for Antonio Bastardo. Coyle looks like he could be a decent player, but Bastardo wouldn't hurt in the bullpen.

I think Theo et al can make an appeal similar to what they did with Schilling 10+ years ago. "This is about being an enormous hero in Chicago, anchoring a rotation on a really, really solid team in a city that loves baseball. Also, we're willing to give you almost $30m/yr to make you happy."

I really hope it's the Red Sox. At this point just get it done.

This is going to be one of those nights where the Twitter sphere and this board should be pretty active. I bet we hear in the next hour who he's going to.

So they should avoid playing the market at all costs. Strike where the market is lowest and spend only when you absolutely need to. The market can't stay THAT high if there are 10 good SPs instead of only 2.

I haven't been around here very much for the past few years, but is it common to hit reply on 6 posts within about 20 minutes time? Hell, I spend that amount of time on ONE post. (not this one). As for Lester, if he's pushing 7 years and 150m then go ahead and count me out. He's simply not that good. There are plenty of good baseball players in the world. it may impact them in 2015 but think about where this team is poised to go. they have young prime and pre-prime talent scattered all over the field. They have some decent young pitchers who, even if others have written them off, still stand a chance to be pretty good. They have a ton of money. I agree with a700 that SP is at a premium, I just disagree that this means the Sox have to do the equivalent of buying a house when the market is absurdly high. It's too risky. Hell, even if they signed Lester AND traded for Hamels there's no assurance they win a single WS. At some point that's based on luck and other factors unrelated to a single SP being on the team or not. I would prefer Lester, but I'm going to continue being a fan if they don't get him.

I mean, the same conversation can happen every offseason: populace believes there's a single option to fill the need. Others say there are more than one option. Sox sometimes replace appropriately, sometime they miss. I think rolling the dice like that is far better than just giving in to the salary demand of every FA who is leaving the Sox. Lester should come back. That would make this team better over the next 4-5 years. However, having never written a check for 9 figures I can't speak intelligently about how hard it is to take that risk. I can imagine it is much more difficult than people let on. Smaller contracts spreads the risk, even if it may not have the same immediate reward of a single guy who can add 4-8 WAR in any given year.

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/12/06/sources-john-henry-makes-trip-to-visit-jon-lester/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Apparently John Henry himself went to visit Lester again yesterday. Queue Lester signing with Yankees a la Mark Teixeira.

It's funny because both of the guys you mention here are guys the Sox acquired when their value was relatively low. They turned into great relief pieces under their watch. Yet it is impossible to think they might be able to do that again? It's not like Koji and Miller were relief-aces the Sox had to bend over backward to get.

Yep. I bet the Sox FO is aware of a number of good pitchers who are available for the right hard-to-part-with pieces. Who couldn't they get for a package of some combination of Owens, Rodriguez, De La Rosa, Betts and Swihart? They'd never offer that much, but the point stands. I think this fact is exactly why the Sox would feel comfortable setting a limit on their offer to Lester. Everyone has an actual value, which means that at some point not paying the money ends up being the better choice. If they have few options they will go higher.

Anybody can understand why they'd be worried as the Sox don't currently have a rotation. People should only be worried if they think the Sox are unaware of this or have their hands tied for some reason. I don't think they do. They will get some pitchers, they will be competitive next year. Relax. You, of all people, know that invasive surgery shouldn't be evaluated while the body is still cut open.

Crazy question: is there any way for a Cole Hamels and Cliff Lee deal to work for the Sox? Would the Sox necessarily get screwed over? Is there some way they could benefit by being willing to take some of his salary? Yes, Lee is coming off of an injury. And he's older and very expensive. However, as recently as 2013 he threw 222 IP with a 1.010 WHIP and 222 Ks. That was similar to his last few years. Would I rather have James Shields for 4 years or Cliff Lee for his final 2? If it made it easier to get Hamels or if he cost few prospects would anyone take a shot to get him?

I agree with bolded above. Lester might not come back--it wouldn't be the end of the Red Sox. I'd prefer if he did come back but there's a chance he won't and the team will move on.

I think they just missed on this one, though I don't think Lester's numbers from 2012 and 2013 warranted a $20m offer. He ate innings (418.2 IP) but had a 4.28 ERA, a 97 ERA+, and clearly was allowing base runners as he had a 1.338 WHIP during that span. I think the Sox FO was eager to get to this off-season and have options and fewer long term obligations. Underestimating Lester's skills they offered him money closer to Clay Buchholz than Cliff Lee. Moving forward, anyone who signs him for $24-$25m will be banking on the fact that Lester is now a different pitcher than he was in 2012-2013. To my eye, he turned a corner toward the end of 2013 and did look like his command really improved. His stuff was always great, but being able to put it wherever he wanted helped him get to the next level. So all in all, I'm not shocked the Sox are in this position. I probably would have offered him $18m a year. In the year since he has shown the ability to be better consistently, which really makes separates a true ace from a good #1a.

Do you really lose respect for Lester because he hasn't turned down the Sox offer publicly yet? It would only be "honest" if that's what he really wants to do, and as far as I know you don't know him or his real intentions. Haven't you weighed new job opportunities before? It shouldn't be easy to decide where to spend your next 6-7 years. I don't blame him for taking his time. It's an important decision with lots of money attached. I also think people are underplaying the potential that the Cubs have to sign him. They have a really nice young core, an absurdly dedicated fan base, Chicago is a great city. Also, just like Schilling coming to Boston, I suspect Theo et al, are talking up how much of a hero Lester would be if he could come and pitch this team to a World Series. For a competitor like Lester that must be enticing... it doesn't hurt that it would come with $20m+ per season.

That seems about right to me. Total overpay by the Red Sox but none of those guys are absolutely necessary for the Sox to compete over the next 4 years. That would be a great get by the A's. Johnson is a really interesting pitcher who would have been one of the Sox better prospects in leaner prospect years. He's a 6'3 lefty who was a first round pick out of Florida. I've never seen him live but apparently he works incredibly fast, like Mark Buehrle. In a system like this he is easy to forget about, but I would probably prefer to get Johnson than Ranaudo or Barnes or Webster, even though the others have higher ceilings. All in all, this deal would basically assure all of us that in 4-5 years we will be discussing who we should trade to the A's for Margot.

He either gets traded or is their backup infielder of the future. Probably the former. His stock is pretty high right now for someone with a sub-.700 OPS throughout his minor league career. He's probably really solid defensively but I would capitalize on other teams' interest if it's part of a deal for someone they would like to get.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say he didn't have two good months sandwiched around 3 not so good months... From what I see his September was decent (.313/.317/.490/.806, 24 games) and his April and May were better (.304/.397/.438/.835, 53 games). Almost any team would gladly take those numbers. That's really two good months, three putrid months and one decent/good month. All the hand wringing about Bogaerts should really stop. (note: I'm not writing to you specifically a700). He's 22. Most 22 year olds are at A or AA. He hit 12 MLB home runs last year and had a almost 80 games with an OPS above .800. He's not a guy they should trade for nearly anyone and he's not a player that other teams should expect to get back in a trade, even for an established MLB SP. I suspect very few (if any) GMs even bring his name up in discussions about potential trades. For instance, it is laughable to think that they would trade X for Cole Hamels, unless the Phillies also ate all of Hamels contract. The Sox have plenty of other interesting pieces to get a deal done, even for a proven guy like Hamels, that the idea just strikes me as silly. I think that Hamels for Betts is even a stretch for Boston, again, barring PHI paying a substantial portion of his salary. All that said, I would strongly support the Sox working out a deal for Hamels where the quality of the prospects goes up as PHI takes on more and more of his salary. The idea that a team would trade a number of good prospects AND pay top dollar is a fantasy. If I were the Sox I'd be willing to offer a package around guys like Brentz, Cecchini and Johnson or comparable guys in that class. If PHI wants to move toward Rodriguez or Owens then they would need to pick up some of the salary. Betts, Swihart, Devers and Margot would be off the table most likely. If it required a better prospect I would offer one of Margot, Devers or Owens, but I wouldn't like it.

Not that it means anything, but when I listen to the Boston sports radio guys it is constantly "the Red Sox are going against what they said! They said no more longterm, high money contracts". So far, I've seen two contracts at 5 years or under. Yes, the money is high but Crawford and Gonzalez were 7 and 8 years or something, compared to 4 and 5 for Hanley and Panda. Ironically, the guy they are simultaneously saying the Sox HAVE TO GET is Lester, who will probably get 6 years or more.

I think the only place we really disagree is with your continual reference to "last place" as representing some particularly bad performance compared to not last place. I wouldn't say they were intentionally trying to finish last all season. They were trying to finish first until it appeared that was unreasonable. At that point they were trying to get into the best position for 2015 and beyond. As you said, 2014 wasn't a complete rebuild year--obviously they entered the year with most of the same players from their WS team. However, when all was said and done on 2014 they dealt away or jettisoned 4 of their 5 top starters from 2013 (Peavy, Doubront, Lackey & Lester), their 2nd best reliever (Miller) and Gomes (among a few others). That may not be a rebuild in the Marlins/Astros sense, but intentionally parting ways with 4 of your 5 starters from the previous year is pretty rebuildish. This conversation has probably jumped the shark, though I'm happy to keep exploring it with you. I think 2015 and beyond is a much more interesting topic. I get the concerns about Hanley Ramirez, especially on the heels of Carl Crawford's disastrous tenure in Boston. It's hard not to let Crawford's experience bleed into Hanley, but I think he deserves a fresh look. A 4 year deal at less than 100m is pretty remarkable for a guy with his talent and way less than anyone was anticipating. At what price/length does Hanley's contract become a "must have" despite his supposed attitude issues? I'd say the deal he signed is lower than I would have thought even in my most optimistic view. I acknowledge there's some risk there, but the length of the contract mitigates that somewhat. Panda isn't Mike Schmidt, but he's a very capable and competent MLB hitter. Probably overpaid for him, but he will hold down 3B, can probably transition to 1B when/if Napoli departs, etc., Also, people seem to be feeling like there's a chance these guys will come to Boston and totally flop like untested prospects might. Both of these guys have seen the best that MLB pitching has to offer and handled it well. Go watch Sandoval's playoff history highlights to be reminded that this guy has played in and delivered in huge situations against very good pitchers. I'm not one to put too much weight on small sample sizes, but he's proven he can probably hold his own throughout the season.

Thank you for the part re: great baseball fan. That's a nice compliment. You are as well, to be sure. I guess my point is that the worst-to-first pattern can easily be overblown. They were the worst in the AL East for two years, in both instances really blowing up the team at the end of the season. The first time they did that (2012) they went worst to FIRST with a World Series. The 2013 team was a really good club, built by their strategy when bound to miss the playoffs in 2012. Their success isn't unrelated to their strategy when blowing the team up. The 2015 team could be shaping up to be a really good club too, we will see. In either case I think any team should play the game outside the game as the season progresses. Ultimately their goal is to put together a core of players who can be effective over multiple years--it seems that's what the best dynasties do. Whatever they can do to get to that point I'm all in favor of--including finishing last instead of 4th or 3rd.

Don't you think the fact that they have now done it twice indicates it actually IS their business model? Obviously their aim is to win every year, but when that's not in the cards their business model says to do something to make it better rather than holding onto what should have been. That becomes more important than their finish in the standings. Isn't that what businesses do? They invest in a direction and cut bait when it doesn't work. Do you really think they spend their time sitting around the table saying "Our business model says we are supposed to be in first place. It's late July and we are 17 games out, let's stick with the original plan. Maybe we can pull out a 3rd place finish and get the 19th draft pick! Who cares if we lose out on being able to trade guys above their actual value to teams desperate for a LH reliever?" If their #1 objective was to finish as high in the standings as possible-whether April 3rd or August 15th-you would have seen Cherington fired multiple times already.

When talking about their multiple last place finishes I think it's important to think about how they happened. I would argue that their approach to both was similar--once they determined that they were out of the running they took the opportunity to make significant changes to the team. From a statistical point of view it isn't a trend, but it makes sense. Some seasons just aren't going to be winners; when that happens the question is whether they should aggressively blow up the team and give up on the season, or aim to not finish last. I personally don't think they should care whether they finish last or 3rd or 4th if they're not competitive enough to win. Ultimately I'd rather they have the better draft pick. Both times they got pick #7 and used those last few months to strip their team and retool. In 2012 it was the Adrian Gonzalez salary dump (responsible for their spending this year). This year they will transition to a relatively new group on offense and a rebuilt rotation. I understand the perspective that they should always try to finish as high as possible in the standings for the fans' sake. I just don't think it's strategically the best play. Hopefully they are now set up for a really nice run over the next few years. They have what appears to be a very solid offensive core with good depth at most positions. They also have enough money (thanks to their salary dump in 2012) to continue aggressively pursuing Lester even after landing Sandoval and Hanley. If they land Lester they will be in a pretty good position, in need of another #2 (ideally a #1a), but with all the pieces to make a deal: multiple MLB caliber outfielders (Cespedes, Bradley Jr, Craig, Victorino, Nava), 5-6 solid MLB ready young arms (RDL, Ranaudo, Webster, Barnes, etc.,), and a few blue-chip prospects (Owens, Swihart, Devers, Margot). I think they could put together a package for anyone who any team makes available. Yes, they need to make a deal, but they can afford to overpay and not be hurt longterm. Add a guy like Zimmerman or Hamels or Iwakuma and their rotation is suddenly pretty good.

This. For me it isn't just that he shut down the Yankees that year. It was his entire playoff run, culminating in a great World Series. He was a Marlin at the time, but 2003 was a season when both the Cubs and Red Sox looked like legitimate contenders, each losing in the LCS in a painful way. Beckett was probably the most impactful player in the entire playoffs that year, virtually unhittable over the last four games. Oct-12 2003: NLCS game 5- vs. Cubs: Complete game shutout, 11k, 2H, 1BB Oct-15 2003: NLCS game 7- vs. Cubs: Comes out of bullpen for innings 5, 6, 7, 8. Gives up 1 ER on 1 H, 0 BB. [steve Bartman game] Oct-21 2003: WS game 3- vs. Yankees: Gets loss in 7.1, Gives up 2ER on 3H and 3BB, 10 K Oct-25 2003: WS game 6- vs. Yankees: Complete game shutout, 9k, 5H, 2BB [walks off mound to WS celebration, in Yankee Stadium] I just remember watching at the time this 23 year old mowing down some really great teams and looking absolutely unphased throughout. Yes, he was a dick. Yes, later in his career he was disappointing. But even if he had never been a Red Sox I would have commended him for giving me the memories from that playoff run.