sk7326

Mechanics have always been good from a low injury perspective - not a violent delivery. At some point you have to respect his ability to eat up innings and treat it as a trait. Yes, a long term deal you are probably paying for a #3/4 starter in Year 5. But the Red Sox can afford to do that, especially if years 1-3 are as fruitful as one expects.

FIP of 1.5 runs better for Lester. Santana hung up a 5.1 ERA in one of the best pitcher's parks in the bigs. Lester had some terrible homerun luck in 2012 and still cranked out nearly 30 innings more than Santana. ERA is a very small part of the story there. Lester had an off season. Santana was hide your eyes awful. Lester was still 4 fWINS better than Santana in 2012.

Santana has a very spotty case history and was probably the worst starter in baseball in 2012. He is having trouble finding a market at his price because he has been terrible in the very recent past. Lee is a good comparison although he got the best contract in his FA group. Garza's injury history brought down his numbers and RA Dickey also had a lot of flaws. The comps you bring up are interesting but all have their own quirks. You have to think in terms of today's baseball economy and all of Lester's virtues. His one flaw is that he is not Verlander-King Felix-Darvish, although he can get to that level from time to time. But the market is paying a lot of money for what Lester gives you - one of the most consistent records of quality in the league with almost none of the red flags that come with making future bets on starting pitchers.

AJ Burnett signed for $16 million - so let's stop laughing together. First of all, why does the salary matter - it's not going to affect anybody. It does not provide a dollar for dollar effect for the Red Sox - they might budget themselves based on the luxury tax - but it's all a matter of what they want to spend, and that has more to do with how many planes John Henry wants than anything. Second, you have to respect the goods - $17M a year is not a fair price for what Lester contributes to a high revenue club like Boston which can afford to pay a lot of money for WARs. A man can offer a discount - but he can't reasonably be expected to leave that much money on the table in such a seller's market. Lester's willingness to take a discount - or at least the announcement - is an olive branch that he wants to make a deal with Boston. It's not a pledge to work for peanuts because fans find it appealing - it is giving Boston a long reasonable crack at landing him. Boston should take advantage of the opportunity, offer him a deal which he can accept without feeling rightly insulted and get on with the title defense.

Oh it was not stupid for Greinke (he's a really good pitcher). It was just the market he entered into. Lots of money chasing relatively few players. The draft picks are a far bigger deterrent than the salary. Here is the thing - Lester might want to trade some salary because he is in a place where his family is happy. He owes the Red Sox nothing - it's business. But that has to come with some additional security - it's the tradeoff people make, perfect sense. Now Lester is a $25 million a year pitcher in the open market - quality #2, fringy #1, no injury history and a sure bet to spin 200 innings at a pretty good to really good level, and most of the teams are swimming in cash like Scrooge McDuck. He may not get it from all 30 teams, but he will fit many teams' budgets at that price. He can offer a discount - but it has to be a discount from a fair open market price for him, not some sort of number dropped from the sky which seems emotionally satisfying but will not result in anything but some extra money to spend on Liverpool FC. $20M is a completely worthy number. Could he be had for less? If he feels good enough about his life, sure. But he certainly does not owe the Red Sox that, and asking for $20M is a considerable discount already.

True, although some of the drops, like the Cardinals was due to graduation. It is one thing to note with farm system rankings. Teams will dip as major leaguers get produced. Sox will drop off next year most likely as they will graduate at least 2 prospects.

$22M is a discount for what he'd be valued at.

Lester will look at Greinke as a comp, and I would too. I suspect the Red Sox do as well. $20-25M a year is not at all unreasonable for a guaranteed innings horse. I think the haggling is more about team options vs guaranteed years. If Boston could get Lester for 4/90 with 2 option years, that'd be about as team friendly as you're going to get. I can't imagine there is much disagreement on his dollar value so much as how much he will be guaranteed.

With Lester, I'd go 5/110 with a 6th year team option and have no regrets.

Someone didn't read the rest of my post .... And even so, as an organization you'd rather give Lester a 3 year commitment (or less) - pitchers are just high risk categories. But if you are going to give 5-6 years, Lester is one of those guys for the reasons I noted and you repeated.

Essentially zero ... the speed can help it, but station to station works too. Sox have put together outstanding run scoring outfits using both flavors. Just get on base and figure the rest out later. Also, the leadoff spot is a wee bit overrated - you only lead off once. But it does get more at bats over the season than other lineup spots, so having guys you want up the most does matter some.

Screw that - clogging the bases is just fine if he's clogging them up more than 35% of the time.

You don't want to give 5 year extensions for any 30 year old. However, that is going to the pay-to-play price with Lester, especially with free agency being the way it is (a lot of money chasing very few guys). Lester is a lot better than the best guys in this class for instance. He is what he is - an innings horse whose value is both in bulk as well as effectiveness. Yes, I am among those who cite his performance level more like a good #2 than one of the very very elite. But, the fact of the matter is that quality #2 starters, hell even quality #3 starters, who have no injury history and can crank out 200 IP seasons with such reliability, are VERY VERY rare in 2014 baseball. I think the question with Lester is not the length so much as the backside protection for Boston - will they demand some sort of options on years 5 and 6, and will Lester be comfortable offering them.

Spring Training stats do not matter, full stop. All that matters is that the players stay healthy, and to see if any big changes have occured (velocity, bat speed and the like). Obviously these things sharpen up over the spring. The W/L do not matter at all, but how the players look do. Certainly Fred's notion on Spring Training records is silly. Hell, even the April and May games matter only to a point. Certainly a rotten start can kill you, but it's still about health and how you are playing ... and not to lose too much.

If Vasquez is the defender he has shown coming up, he can be a .240/.310/.390 sort of guy and be an average big league starter. You look at Vasquez' minor league career and he has always had some good contact rates - enough that he should be able to provide some empty average at worst. The Red Sox did a good job rescuing Salty who was adrift as a prospect and evolved into a legitimately above average starter. Lavarnway is a terrible receiver who also stopped being a good hitter. That means in the final analysis, he is not a real starter. Swihart is the best long term prospect, but Vasquez might still be a guy with a starter's ceiling. Having legitimate depth in the sport's most deserted position is kind of amazing.

His potential is exciting. Have to give him a run at SS. Even if he is blocked when it is time for him to come up, I could see him as our Ben Zobrist, a super mega-utility guy if he continues his developmental leaps.

Positionally, the only guy who is not projected to be here I want to see is Vasquez. I think if he can show any sort of big league hitting ability - and his minor league contact rates show some optimism here - I'd think very seriously of starting him if Pierzienski is as mediocre as I expect him to be. Pitching wise, I don't want to see ANY of the kids up here starting since that means that one of our Top 5 guys is hurt or ineffective. But I am more bullish on Barnes than Webster for big league impact. I'd love for them to just tell Webster to forget about starting and convert him into a multi-inning bullpen weapon. His stuff could seriously play up in that role - but his flaws (command, lack of secondary pitches) look really bad in the rotation.

I don't know if it's veteran respect so much as making sure the kids can handle the jobs. Being able to handle the defense at SS is something that XB is still working - and I could see the Sox wanting to keeping him out of the pressure of a run scoring spot in the order as he focuses on his defensive game. I expect that your lineup is a good April lineup - that said, if Bradley shows the progress he has shown at every level so far, he'll be at the top of the order by June. He just needs to focus less on the power game and stick to getting on base and letting the power numbers take care of themselves. (he has double figures-ish HR power, but should not be obsessed with 15-20 jacks or anything like that)

Well, years and dollars are variable. Drew will eventually decide whether he wants to play baseball this season based on the given market. The Mets still makes the most sense by far. In the Bronx he'd have to play 3B for a year - where his bat doesn't really play. For the Mets, it has been a matter of the right price. They have a job opening, Drew will not cost them much pick-wise and he is an extremely valuable trade asset. If MLB did sign and trades the way that the NBA does - Drew would have had a much larger market.

He was not going to make an impact on this team. At the same time, he was going to be useful as A) insurance and a trade asset. I think folks seriously undervalued how useful a guy on a 1 year 12 million hitch would have been to trade by the end of spring training. For what he is (a guy with swing and miss stuff who was very durable and had some bad homerun luck) he had some industry value. I'd rather pay Dempster $12M and hope than Ervin Santana $60 million and hope a little less.

Personally, I think a title does buy you some time ... and the playoffs are such crapshoots that repeating, even with a better team, is tough. Hell, Baltimore was a lot better than they were in 2012 and missed the playoffs. Life happens. But a lot of fans lack perspective. The Sox fans deserve a contender for the prices they pay (or at least the aggressive pursuit therein). But it takes so much luck and health to win a title that you have to be reasonable. In 2008, Tampa was the best team in baseball - I am not sure (and I am not saying you agree with the outmanaging) how much Maddon over Francona mattered (if any). Hell, the Red Sox forcing that 7th game was remarkable the way that series went.

That Drew has not signed "yet" is not indicative of Boras' work certainly. Letting guys hang until a market gap shows up has long been a Boras staple. There is a lot of media posturing here, and owners telling the Gammons of the world that they have all sorts of contingency options. But usually, you wait and something will pop up, especially at a premium position.

No. When you charge the prices the Sox charge its public, there is no house money. The title buys some currency - but not a position where they are not trying to put the best product on the field to win. The fans deserve that. If they want young players to develop on the job, it's because they deserve that consideration. If the Red Sox miss the playoffs, the fans will (and should) be disappointed. The Nation should expect their team to contend, young players or not, and when there is a chance to make a deadline deal - to go ahead and do so. (not be stupid of course, but not hoard prospect inventory either)

Solid choice. I have lived through both road uniforms (in 1986 it was also navy and gray) ... these are better.

Astros will have the worst record in baseball. The Brewers are the worst team in baseball. Houston's work on the farm and whatnot (helps to have the former Cardinals scouting director as GM and all of those high picks) means that there is a corner to be turned. Brewers are in the Hobson Red Sox sort of hell of being both bad, and barren. Dodgers are the team on paper - but the DBacks and Giants both have legitimate reasons to dream here. Granted, the Giants are paying a barely #4 starter $18M a year as a thank-you card.