sk7326

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.

It is possible. It's also possible that he was the only guy with options to create a roster spot with Breslow's return. I wouldn't read a whole lot into this. Somebody had to go down - there was no other logical candidate.

8 games ... breathe ... problem has been that the offense has not scored as much as a team which is putting baserunners on like the Sox are should be. That will correct itself.

A lot of bad luck so far. The on-base percentage is good, pitching staff leads the league in fWAR. (the key stats, strikeouts, walks, homeruns - all are doing ok so far). Defense has dropped off quite a bit so far, but going from Ellsbury to Sizemore in CF will do that. But the fundamentals are largely pretty strong - results will catch up.

We have played 8 games ... breathe ...

Rays did not have to do a whole lot. If Archer just develops the way his first year portended, if their defense is still strong. The separation between us and them was not huge to begin with. I don't call them frontrunners, but co-favorites with us? No doubt.

The Dodgers live in a different salary world - but they paid that for the best pitching product in the sport. Kershaw's age and skill level combined made it a sound, albeit risky idea. I expect the Lester deal to get done. The key to me - and my idle guess on the tension - is what the Red Sox are going to do to cover decline risk. The Red Sox like putting vesting options and team options on the back end of these deals (I would too). I imagine Lester, who has proven to be one of the league's most durable starters, is not wild about having "not precisely" guaranteed years on the back of a deal (and I would not be wild about it either). So if they can come to some sort of understanding on that structure (say, 5 years with a vesting 6th) that might be all there is to it.

AJ is a little better than replacement level. He is a downgrade from Salty - but a better contract given the Red Sox needs. I think there is a solid chance Vasquez ends up here if he can put together a solid offensive season at Pawtucket. There is no way a guy of AJ's caliber is going to block a guy of Vasquez' potential. A guy with Vasquez' glove, even if his bat is empty calories - is good enough to be an average starter. I don't think the issue with AJ is his non-taking approach. It is that combined with not being especially good defensively and a bit of a locker room lawyer in past stops. The calling a game thing can be replaced - slack picked up by coaches as needed. The Sox staff is good.

Pitcher wins means zero. He struggled a bit in August, 3 starts against Toronto and Texas particularly. He seemed possibly a little hurt towards the end as you noted. He's also 3 years younger than Jon Lester and as mechanically sound - so the idea of decline requires a bit more than 9 starts for evidence. The 30 inning drop from a year ago is indicators that he might not have been 100% coming in. Even so, he had numbers and win contributions right in line with his pretty amazing career. He's still in any best in the league conversation.

CC was excellent in 2012. It was a decline from 2009 since he provided 30 innings less of value, but yes the peripherals were excellent (FIP, K and BB percentages ... WHIP is silly to use in non-fantasy situations since it uses the wrong denominator). 2012 was a decline in that he was almost 2 wins worse than he was in 2011 and the innings pitched plummeted. He is still an innings horse, but not at the level he has been. But as I noted, getting him to a 2012 level (excellent peripherals, but not the guaranteed pitch to the 8th inning level of yore) will be plenty to go with Tanaka and Nova if they perform as anticipated. That is a rotation that can be a plus. Now, have the Yanks done enough to catch Boston and Tampa? Not to me. But the division is loaded.

Brentz was the easy call here just because he has options and other guys don't. Once again, spring training was not going to decide anything here. Heck, even last year with Bradley's amazing spring, he would not have made the club in April if Drew was not on the DL. Nice thing is that Brentz showed some indications that he can help the team if they need him.

Nats are a very strong bounceback candidate. Their lineup SUCKED inexplicably all season in a way that sure feels non-recurring. Getting a quality #2/#3 starter for basically free helps too. Braves still have better position players - although Jason Heyward staying healthy would be nice just so he can have a full season to flash his MVP-ness. Cardinals are the best team in the NL, and perhaps more. The strong lineup combined with a Tampa Bay-level bumper crop of pitching - they shut down a 15 game winner last season and their 7th inning reliever looks to have way way filthier stuff than the late season callup who started 2 World Series games for them - means an embarassment of riches. Pirates have a ton of prospect help coming too - especially if Jamison Taillon is ready for the show midseason. Dodgers are the best in the West - especially since Tim Lincecum is a #5 starter being paid like a #2. As far as the A's goes - Beane is the best GM in the game. He beat the market to OBP, and then when the price of OBP got too expensive, he beat the market to the evaluation of defense. Last year's division winners were 6th in OBP, the 2012 division winners were near the bottom. Beane saw the value in getting a near zero in OBP in Josh Reddick, and lean on his power and ability to field the hell out of his position to create value in that park. Had themselves an interesting offseason, adding Kazmir for a good price and getting Jim Johnson for a guy they gave up on. I like the Rangers more in the division - but the A's are gonna be right there. Detroit in a walk in the central, although Cleveland is going to remain pretty good - good young players, an elite manager and a pitching coach who seems to perhaps be a true team asset. As far as the East goes - last year I thought it was a 5 team race, and still do. Red Sox had the best combination of performance and injury luck and ta-da. But the Orioles got better - and they were a better team last season than the 2012 outfit without the phenomenal luck in close games. I liked the Johnson trade. He was going to be a big arbitration payment and Baltimore (correctly) decided their money was better spent on something other than a closer and so decided to save money there with a guy (Balfour) who is not going to be appreciably different. All four LCS participants last season had closers they discovered during the season - Tampa Bay picks through other team's trash for them - no point going to the mat for one. The Yankees got a little better, though their offseason would have made more sense if they actually kept the one superstar. Red Sox are gonna be good - although if you bet Sox v the Field, I'd take the field. Tampa objectively is the favorite in the division, but not by any real margin that matters. I like our chances this season as much as you can.

Lots of small sample size alerts at work here. First of all, the Red Sox did not jettison the best centerfielder in the AL without a fish in his name to bring in a reclamation project who has not been a replacement level player since 2010. I think the competition between Sizemore and Bradley is not nearly as close as it seems - not when the former cannot be counted on for 400 PAs. It would be a phenomenal story, but I think any Sizemore emergence is far more likely to impact LF than CF. Putting a guy with the knees of a 57 year old man in a very challenging CF is a recipe for disaster. Bradley can give the Red Sox near equivalent defense to Ellsbury, and that is still incredibly valuable. With Ellsbury and Victorino in CF and RF, the Red Sox were able to basically put potted plants out in LF and still be a good defensive outfield. You don't want to give that up without getting some serious pop in return - short of Sizemore being the MVP level guy he was eons ago, that tradeoff does not seem likely here. I think the org is going to have strong hands with Bradley here - have to count on your scouting and the development curve of a 23 year old who has delivered at every level of baseball he has been challenged at (aside from being overpromoted last season to the bigs).

Well, "show something" is an interesting criteria. If his amazing spring of 2013 was not proof of anything, then a slow spring in 2014 isn't either. If the Red Sox send Bradley down for a made-of-straw Grady Sizemore on the basis of a few dozen at-bats in March, they are stupider than we thought. Don't get caught with looking at the boxscores - spring stats mean zippo, unless there is some real underlying scouting flaws that go with it (a drop in bat speed, velo problems). Bradley is learning on the job - and if he defends at a high level, his track record is worth standing behind. I think there is zero chance Sizemore wins the CF job short of suddenly turning into the "best player in the AL" level he was in 2007.

Assuming 30 starts, you are talking about a guy who cannot get into the 7th inning in most of his outings. That sounds good in isolation, but that just murders your pitching staff over the long haul. The Red Sox bullpen was good this past season - but a lot of that had to do with their starters, including Dempster - preventing them from having to do excessively heavy lifting.

King Felix was one of the two best pitchers in the AL last season. Stop. CC IS declining, but a decline from "league's best" to "solid rotation guy" is not a big deal. Sabathia's 2012 is plenty achievable. The problem was that the Yankees' rotation depended on him being his 2009 form, which is too big a burden for him to carry. With Tanaka and a legitimately good Nova, that might be somewhat alleviated now. Obviously 200 IP with a 5 ERA is not good, and a rotation of those is a bad thing. But a 200 IP guy with a meh ERA is very very valuable over a 6 month haul - if nothing else to keep a pitching staff from being destroyed. DiceK in 2008 had a lovely ERA, but his sheer inability to pitch into games made his starts unnecessarily hard on the pitching staff.

CC's dropoff has been a major thorn for NYY since so much of their pitching relied on him being 2009 good. With Tanaka in the fold and Nova's peripherals starting to match his W/L numbers, the rotation has a much better chance to be competitive against restaurant quality opposition. But CC has to get back to being some form of an anchor there too. Nobody expects 2009 to come back, but at least getting back to 2012 Sabathia.