sk7326

********* A few silly things to respond to here. 1. First, $20M for 200 IP of #3 pitcher in 2017 dollars is not at all overpaid. When you look at the comps, to say so is ridiculous. 2. 4/70, if that is the number is an absurd offer. Comparing it to you or my meager means of living means jack squat. I can make a terrific living out of $100,000 a year. But if the revenue I am producing tracks to $20M a year (for instance), my wonderful salary is still insulting and woefully inadequate compared to the production. 3. There are maybe a half a dozen franchise pitchers. If you think the option is to swap Lester with one of those (Kershaw, Darvish, King Felix, Scherzer maybe, Jose Fernandez maybe, David Price maybe, just going off the top of my head), then there is a conversation to be had. If it is swapping Lester with a James Shields - you are paying more money (because he will cost more) for less pitcher (more consistent by a little, lower ceiling by a lot). Otherwise, you are going to insource Lester's production - which is cool, but none of the guys on the farm will be able to produce the innings. To supplement this, you need either more filler (which you'd be paying either Lester prices or asking for Ryan Dempster) or more middle relief (which is generally a land of crappy pitchers by comparison). 4. You seem to have a very very cockeyed idea of the economics of the pitching market. Even if Lester is not an ace - and is more a 2/3 starter (which is a fair assertion), the extremely high probability that he can crank out 900-1000 innings over the next 5 years at more or less that production level gives him a HUGE leg up as a commodity over people with sexier ERA stats. Daisuke Matsuzaka was much less hittable than Lester in 2008, but when you cannot actually take your team into the 7th inning during most of the 30-35 times a year you are scheduled to go - who cares? You don't need a staff ace to win a title or dominate a season - the 2013 Red Sox proved that. What you do need is the ability to continually get into the late innings with your starters. The stat which correlates the best with winning big is how few number of starters a team needs to get through the marathon. Jon Lester is the sort of guy who is essential to that goal. 5. And this is not one of your points, but an earlier commenter. The Red Sox do not live in the market that NY and LA do - boo hoo. But they live in a phenomenal revenue market. Markets differ in both size and fan interest - and the Red Sox play in a city where wins bring in extra money. I hate the $/WAR calculation because that ignores the realities of markets - for Boston, that number is HIGH ... for Tampa that number is low ... for most other teams that number fluctuates. Lester's production is more valuable to John Henry's bottom line than it is to the Rays owner.

That last sentence is the words of somebody who has never listened to a second of WEEI or The Hub. BTW: I do enjoy that you are pleased with the idea of running the team like a Wal-Mart while they charge you and me prices which are quite nicely in line with the commitments Yankees ask from their Nation.

I am not sentimental either. But I also know what the market is like, and is not going to ooze respect for the Sox pinching pennies. I am not looking for them to be wildly irresponsible, but they have financial edges - and to put it into Luis Suarez' pockets is not something I am too keen on. I can see the concerns you speak of in isolation - but nothing about Lester's mechanics or past provide much fear that he won't still be a pretty useful guy as he descends from peak level. In 3 years, $20M is pretty much the going rate for an innings eating #3/4. It sounds like a lot of money - because it is - but not within the context of spigot of national TV money coming as well as the gold mines the Red Sox have long had at the local level. Henry Owens could be potentially as good as Lester - but there is almost no chance he can carry the innings load Lester can over the next 3 years. If you look carefully, there are zero teams who are putting that much on kiddie starting pitcher's shoulders.

Long season - Lester could have been more standoffish but hasn't been. My inference is that there is a deal to be had here. Sox have to know how hard it is to find good durable help.

I think Cherington was unsentimental. But he will also be unsentimental if Pedroia had to go out for a couple of months. Bringing Drew back is easily the cleanest answer (and none of the answers are perfect) available. I don't think Farrell is being sentimental with Nava/Gomes/Carp. If you haven't noticed, Sizemore has the knees of a 52 year old man, and was slipping defensively before he destroyed them - Farrell needs those guys around just to be able to manage Sizemore's reps.

Right now, the problem has been injuries. The on-base has not been that bad all things considered - this will get better. If Pedroia is out - my first call is to Stephen Drew to see if he is up for something interesting. Failing that, you basically throw short term options at it until something sticks. One thing we have seen is that the Sox have worked Middlebrooks out at 2B. So if they really wanted to keep the bats there, signing Drew and moving Will to 2B is something that is at least possible.

I don't think Bradley's speed prevents him from doing that as well as playing one hell of a centerfield.

Not a fatso, but still a 1B/LF type. Lot of those guys if they deteriorate it moves quickly.

His comp in these areas is Bernie Williams really - and you could do a whole lot worse than that.

Relax - 13 games, fundamentals have been ok. The injuries are a bigger concern than any of the hyperventilating that is being done here. Bradley's power stats are not great, but .273/.368 is a slash line we will be very happy with. Bradley has plenty of speed, but he is a poor base stealer - but that's among the more dispensable baseball skills. Part of being a good organization is trusting your evaluations. Overreacting to spring results is generally poor business.

Less != Bubkus

Pujols not the sort of commodity which would be a strong future bet (shoddy athleticism, not much to go on besides his . A pitcher who never gets hurt and can spin 200 IP or so of #1/2 level pitching (with a couple of back end years of #4 more likely) is pretty valuable, and the industry has placed a tremendous premium on being able to pitch. With such a bullpen driven game, guys you don't need to worry about have value.

The 33 games vs 145 argument is silly, and neglects how much more direct the pitcher's impact is during the innings he pitches. I don't think the Lester decision is cut and dried, but the industry is paying for durability - and Lester has that. The offer the Sox made, if the numbers are accurate, won't get it done. Lester has said the right things - so we'll see what happens.

Sizemore (at least while waiting for his next catastrophic injury) - Bradley - Victorino left to right is their best outfield. Bradley is so gifted defensively that we can wait for his offense to catch up (if we have to).

It means Cherington needed guys in case starters got hurt. Roberts and Herrera are about as good as you can expect from "emergency filler". If they did not solve 3B and if Pedroia is gone for any serious length of time, we were gonna be in trouble anyway.

If I were Lester, I wouldn't either. I tend to think the deal might coalesce around 5+1 option or something. I don't like giving 5 year deals to pitchers, but if I HAD to do it (and given how few true reliable 200 IP sorts there are, I am not naive) - Lester is the sort of guy I do it for. Never gets hurt, very consistent - maybe not a "#1" in that Kershaw or 2009 Sabbathia sort of way, but can certainly touch that peak here and there. To me, he is almost a lock for those 1000 aforementioned IP, and at a level that we can live with even as his decline phase starts. It'd be a hard decision if I were running the Pirates - but fortunately this is the Sawx we are dealing with.

If you take Lester at his word, he is willing to take a discount. But what is a discount? A $16-$18M deal would be well, well below the market for a quality innings eating starter. I think the 25M AAV might be on the high side, but not by much. Actually, for that matter - I am pretty sure the price is not what is being haggled over. I suspect the two sides are in the same AAV ballpark. We know what the comps are, and we know that the Red Sox play in the deep end of the revenue and payroll pools, and we know the fans and media would (totally correctly) pillory them for pinching pennies. The question is years, both the number and the guarantee. I would not want to go 5 years on any pitcher. But if you have the resources the Sox have, and if you want to win an auction - it helps to assess the worst case result and see if you can live with it within the big picture. For me, Lester's worst case in the next 5 years basically ends up being 2014 Jake Peavy, perhaps a bit less. Is that player worth $24 million in the 2019 salary universe? Probably not - but it would not actually be that much of an overpay if Lester maintains his flawless mechanics and strong track record of durability. If the Red Sox could get 1000 innings of (on average) 2013 Regular Season Jon Lester production over 5 years, 24M AAV would actually be quite reasonable. I think if there is a real sticking point, it is years - either years the Red Sox don't want to give, or years the Red Sox want to put options on. For me, if I were Cherington, something resembling the Ortiz extension in terms (but longer) would make sense. 4 years, 5th year a vesting option, 6th year a pure team option.

NESN is on FIOS here in DC. It's not as lucrative I suspect - but nobody's starving. The Red Sox have a small ballpark, but a market with a near unlimited itch to pay - it's still quite the mint. If the Red Sox were in a different division they would still spend a lot. And well they should - given how they gouge the Nation the fans have every right to expect that. If JH is robbing the Sawx to pay Liverpool, yeah that is a problem. But yes the arms race with NY does hold them extra accountable. The trend of relying on their farm system is only because they have a potential MVP candidate there - there is less youth on the roster than you think. Really the trend with this team is more or less unchanged from the Theo days (pre-2011 if you want to be picky maybe), it just looks better with a World Title.

All it cost was money - relievers are like disposable diapers. The Cards have changed closers like women change shoes and it has not impacted them. Bottom line, if the starters are holding their end up, this is a nonissue.

It would have been neat - but he was a starter then. It took a while for teams to start identifying what he did best. And even now, the Red Sox have gotten a phenomenal amount of luck given how serious the durability concerns where when they signed him.

It seems that way, but Tampa has had a solid 6 year run - which is about as good as any team can hope for in the free agency era. The Rays and A's cannot make some of the decisions the Red Sox can, or they have to think harder. At the same time, the luxury tax and revenue sharing system gave them the tools to manage their franchise. The teams have identified market inefficiencies - they were on the forefront of advanced defensive evaluation. They have to take chances on injured relievers, but they also figured out that all relievers are chances - so in a way who cares. The Red Sox have figured this out. You treat relievers like NFL running backs, or disposable diapers - just the best way to handle them. I've noted, removing the compensation structure for free agency helps everybody - and if you just let teams trade draft picks, the compensation would take care of itself.

I think you have to consider it, but given the risk for pitching across the board, being able to have sure things in slots is extremely valuable. I think if Owens were ready - you MIGHT let Lester go, but the team would still want some veteran filler because it is hard to get through the marathon without some real horses. For an Owens sort (these days) we know the kid would be on some sort of limit, like 150-175 innings. I think the existence of those young starters is what has made guys like Lester premium assets. When you are watching the workloads of your kids, it is hard to contend while taxing your bullpen - and giving too many innings to your soft 5th-6th inning underbellies of your pitching staff - without having guys who do not have to be babysat.

The price of innings is very highly regarded by the industry. If you can churn out 200 IP at a #3 starter or better level, that's really really hard to find. I am always hesitant to pay for decline as rjortiz notes - but if you need to accept a couple of years of #4 starter level production, I'd rather do it with a guy without an injury history, a guy with sound mechanics and a guy I trust to be able to crank out 30 starts a year. Lester does hit all of those. Also, if you lock him in at a rate now, with the inflation of salaries in general and the high value of durable pitching - even the decline years aren't really that overvalued. It's something a team like the Red Sox can do though, and I don't see a huge reason to play hardball.

5) Not precisely. The revenue sharing could be better, but the competitive balance is there now. There is enough sharing for every franchise to build a team that can make decisions to help itself. Indeed, the problem now is that the last CBA made things harder to ensure competitive balance. Tampa and Oakland cracked the puzzle - the teams that haven't are not prevented by money. 4) Well, with the rules for true free agency, there is a winner's curse for a big free agent i.e. you pay a premium price to win an auction and you are buying decline years often to do so. Now smart teams are proactive, like Tampa is - offering to buy the players arb years at a premium in exchange for a year or two of free agency. For the player there is value there. It is unrealistic to expect Pedroia deals or demand them from players. 3) The rich teams (including us) have the advantages you mention. ALSO, the qualifying offer structure helps us too. After all, the draft pick cost goes DOWN the more qualified FAs you sign. If the Yankees blow their first round pick for McCann, a 2nd round pick for Ellsbury is a steal. The salary cap is just a transfer of wealth. I think the luxury tax-revenue sharing combo has worked for baseball and provided competitive balance in a way that other sports have not really achieved. The NFL feels wide open, but that is more a result of a 16 game season than anything else. There is still little turnover at the top. If you want competitive balance, you'd get rid of the salary caps on rookie bonuses (it is the one place where the Tampas and Pittsburghs were getting a ton of bang) and draft pick compensation for free agents and just allow the trading of draft picks.

He enjoys his life in Boston. Enough to be compensated like AJ Burnett? No.