This post has been removed.

personally i think the pricetag will be too much and too long. i would be willing to overspend on a 3 year deal but nothing longer than that

In response to mef429's comment:

Mef4---the problem is that we do need a solid No. 1 or 1.5 starter.  We should all know by now that neither Lester or Buchholz is mentally or tough enough to hold down that spot, and I would hope the front office realizes that too.  We have the money to spend and if they act judiciously with the funds at hand they should be able to make it happen.

 

In response to seabeachfred's comment:

Sanchez will likely be nothing more than a #3 starter on the Sox, to expect him to perform as a #1 or 2 is setting him up to fail. 

But, since he is only 28, I believe a 4 year/$48 million deal might work, something the Sox would have no problem affording.

For the record, this is the type of deal I'd like to see them maxing out on for any player...maybe up to $60million for 4 years, for a bonafide ace or 5 tool player.

In response to Soxdog67's comment:

Sanchez is better than anyone in our rotation right now. Number 3? Perhaps behind a Verlander and a Fister. Oh wait, he is.

In response to Alibiike's comment:

That's a matter of opinion, Alibike, but I wouldn't consider trading Lester OR Buchholz straight up for Anibal Sanchez...

we have lots of number 3s imo....we need an ace...get zachG

This post has been removed.

In response to Soxdog67's comment:

In a world where Jeremy Guthrie asks for 3 years $34mill, that offer to Sanchez is insulting.  And if we ever live in a world where Guthrie GETS 3 years $34mill, that offer to Sanchez could and should lead to spontaneous human combustion.  Whether it is Sanchez who combusts or the presenter of the deal is presently in question, and hopefully we never have to find out.

 

 

Sanchez should expect and receive offers that are at minimum in the neighborhood of what AJ Burnett and John Lackey currently have.  Sanchez has the numbers to parallel performance, and age on his side.  I would think a bare minimum is 5 years $80mill.  If Sanchez signs for anything less, he should not only fire his agent, but he should also fire himself for hiring that incompetent chimpanzee in the first place...

In response to notin's comment:

LOL some quality posts you've been having lately.

This post has been removed.

I agree Notin. If Sanchez gets less than 15M annually and less than 5 years he should get new representation.

You just about hit the nail on the head Notin....

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/11/anibal-sanchez-wants-six-year-90mm-contract.html

In response to Soxdog67's comment:

Soxdog, I don't like this absurd escalation of speculative free agent bidding either, but your numbers don't even come close to reflecting today's market salaries.  You may be reading too many Softlaw posts.  

In response to southpaw777's comment:

In the end his medicals (MRI) will prove to be the tipping point as leverage for both sides. Therein lyes the answer to the risk/reward for any team signing a veteran pitcher that has a pre-existing history of arm problems (see John Lackey).

Notin & Sheriff-Rojas and anyone else who questioned my contract numbers for Sanchez are correct, he will get a contract probably almost double that of the $48Million I mentioned...

...the question then becomes this...do the Sox go for the 6/90 number for someone I still think is only a #3 starter at best? Lackey and CJ Wilson got lesser deals and they were both considered #1 starters on their teams at time of free agency. Sanchez was at best #3 with Detroit and no more than a #2 in Miami.

...if the Sox decide to take a plunge on him it will be because he is 28 and has a relationship with Farrell already during his first tour in Boston.

 

In response to SindarinEribor's comment:

True: he has gotten my vote for "Poster of the Year" 2 years running.

I do think Sanchez will get $80M/5 or more. While I do not think he is the ace we need, it doesn't hurt to upgrade from a 5/6 slot starter to a 2/3 slot starter with potential to pitch like a number 1.

If we go after any high-priced player, I'd choose Sanchez and not Hamilton, Greinke, or Napoli. I still think trading for Brett Anderson is the best option, and I think I'd rather sign B McCarthy & S Marcum combined over signing Sanchez, but I doubt that will happen. If we sign 2 pitchers, we can then trade Doubront, Morales and Aceves (maybe Tazawa and others as well) as parts of deals to get the likes of Anderson and/or J. Upton.

This post has been removed.

Now Sanchez is demanding a big fat contract!!!  Guess the Red Sox isnt going to sign him unless no one wanted him!!

 

In response to jasko2248's comment:

I never implied trading Lester or Buch, I simply stated that Sanchez is better than either one right now.

The truth is that the Sox do not have a 1 or 2 starter and I don't think they have for a number of years. A top of the rotation starter will win you close to 20 games year after year. Who is the last starter to do that for the Sox, Pedro?

Other teams seem to be better at either scouting or cultivating pitching. Buchholz has never really panned out and I think Lester is washed up.

In response to Alibiike's comment:

To answer your question, Schilling or Beckett were the last to win 20.  I disagree on Sanchez.  Again, I wouldn't trade Lester or Buchholz for him and I seriously doubt the Sox would either.

Hes not worth 6/90 IMO. hes NOT a #1... Id go 4/52 maybe a 5th vesting option if that was the tipping point...

In response to georom4's comment:

Career ERAs:
Jon Lester: 3.76
Clay Buchholz: 3.92
Zach Greinke: 3.77

2010-2012 ERA (what have you done for me lately?):
Jon Lester: 3.85
Clay Buchholz: 3.49
Zach Greinke: 3.83

2011 ERAs:
Jon Lester: 3.47
Clay Buchholz: 3.48
Zach Greinke: 3.83

Can you pick out which one is the ace and which are the #3's?

Greinke is very overrated right now based on #1 one fantastic year back in 2009 which I doubt he'll ever replicate, and #2 Lester and Buchholz being uncharacteristically bad last year, which I would bet was more of an aberration rather than a trend. He's a good pitcher, but not worth the huge contract...would rather take my chances with Lester, Buchholz, and someone like Sanchez, Haren, or McCarthy.

I will also say that I enjoy reading Notin's posts on here.  He keeps it to baseball talk and realistic ideas at that, which I also try to do.  He is probably right on in terms of what Sanchez will demand.  This is why i have been advocating shorter deals, even if it cost more per year.  I sopke a lot about Peavy before he re-upped with the white sox.  I would have given him the 2 years and more than $29 million, because he has been that #1 quality starter and is 31.  I am high on Haren because he has been a workhorse and doesn't walk guys.  Could he be had for two years w/ an option based on performance/health in the $14-16 million range per year?  All pitchers are an injury risk.  CC and Halladay are the epitome of ace stoppers who want the ball, and they both dealt with or are dealing with injuries last year.  Sanchez is not a #1, but $15 million for 5 years is the going rate for serviceable quality starters.  I think the Sox need to take a chance on Haren, maybe do what moon says and try to trade for Bret Anderson, and hope like hell that they can develop Barnes or Rubby into a #1 or #1A.   

His Price Just Went Up, Asked One Team 6/90M, And Another Team 7/100M, Good Luck With That..