The case against keeping Lester

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    The case against keeping Lester

    The case for him is very good, I agree--our ace, who has been our most consistent starter for almost 7 years, and has been very good postseason.   However, consider the following--


    1.  He can't fix the hitting problem at all, and that problem is by far the more serious one.  Lester is having a terrific year, ERA of 2.50, but the Sox have a losing record and Lester is only 10-7. 


    2.  His price tag is high, in all likelihood, high for a long time, like maybe 7 years.  Think $24M/year =  $168M.  That is, I hasten to add, an amount behind the dreams of avarice, and it gets paid whether or not Lester is injured or otherwise unable to pitch.  Anyone think he will still be this good for the final three years of the contract?


    3.  Meanwhile, the Sox just picked up a pretty decent hitting outfielder, Cespedes, who has hit more dingers than anyone on the Sox but Ortiz, scored more runs than any Sox player, and batted in more runs than anyone but Ortiz, and he is theirs for next year as well. 


    4.  Lester is still available for 2015 and beyond.  I don't think that will happen because I think he wants a huge contract, but he will definitely be on the market because Athletics can't afford him.  Relatedly, I also do not think Lester was available for a non-huge salary last winter. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    Justifications after the fact....It's a Sox fan's way of saying "If I can justify it, then I can accept it."

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    The case for him is very good, I agree--our ace, who has been our most consistent starter for almost 7 years, and has been very good postseason.   However, consider the following--

     

    1.  He can't fix the hitting problem at all, and that problem is by far the more serious one.  Lester is having a terrific year, ERA of 2.50, but the Sox have a losing record and Lester is only 10-7. 

     

    2.  His price tag is high, in all likelihood, high for a long time, like maybe 7 years.  Think $24M/year =  $168M.  That is, I hasten to add, an amount behind the dreams of avarice, and it gets paid whether or not Lester is injured or otherwise unable to pitch.  Anyone think he will still be this good for the final three years of the contract?

     

    3.  Meanwhile, the Sox just picked up a pretty decent hitting outfielder, Cespedes, who has hit more dingers than anyone on the Sox but Ortiz, scored more runs than any Sox player, and batted in more runs than anyone but Ortiz, and he is theirs for next year as well. 

     

    4.  Lester is still available for 2015 and beyond.  I don't think that will happen because I think he wants a huge contract, but he will definitely be on the market because Athletics can't afford him.  Relatedly, I also do not think Lester was available for a non-huge salary last winter. 



    first of all, the reason he is only 10-7, the teams cant score enuff runs for him.  most wins this year is 13 wins for all mlb pitchers!!  LEster is not too far off from the most wins.  Had the Sox have a better team, he would easily top over 13 wins this year.

    Plus he never have health issue in all these years except the cancer part.  So think about it....I rather to have a healthy pitcher that can win 10 games or more every year on my team!!

    The real reason why Boston traded him cuz they are not sure what Lester will be doing in the winter time.  Boston know that he stated that he want to return to Boston.  But Boston have seen that before.  Pedro says the same thing.  Damon says the same thing.  Ellsbury say the same thing.  But all have left for more money!!

    So it is Lester call, whether to take Boston newest up offer or move on and go after the highest bidder!!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    Hell, I thought the OP was a PERRY MASON episode.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThefourBs. Show ThefourBs's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    The case for him is very good, I agree--our ace, who has been our most consistent starter for almost 7 years, and has been very good postseason.   However, consider the following--

     

    1.  He can't fix the hitting problem at all, and that problem is by far the more serious one.  Lester is having a terrific year, ERA of 2.50, but the Sox have a losing record and Lester is only 10-7. 

     

    2.  His price tag is high, in all likelihood, high for a long time, like maybe 7 years.  Think $24M/year =  $168M.  That is, I hasten to add, an amount behind the dreams of avarice, and it gets paid whether or not Lester is injured or otherwise unable to pitch.  Anyone think he will still be this good for the final three years of the contract?

     

    3.  Meanwhile, the Sox just picked up a pretty decent hitting outfielder, Cespedes, who has hit more dingers than anyone on the Sox but Ortiz, scored more runs than any Sox player, and batted in more runs than anyone but Ortiz, and he is theirs for next year as well. 

     

    4.  Lester is still available for 2015 and beyond.  I don't think that will happen because I think he wants a huge contract, but he will definitely be on the market because Athletics can't afford him.  Relatedly, I also do not think Lester was available for a non-huge salary last winter. 




    1. They've temporarily fixed the hitting problem by removing the #1 pitcher on the staff. Think the lack of offense has something to do with Lesters record?

    2. There's a chance that a higher initial offer this Spring by the Sox could have resulted in productive negotiation and a contract that both sides could live with. I don't believe Lester was going to demand 7 years and nothing less.

    3. yup, Cespedes is a pretty good hitter, with one year left. What happens when the Sox are out of contention in July again (probably because of a bad starting rotation) and then have to deal him "in order to get more than a comp pick" for him?

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:


    The case for him is very good, I agree--our ace, who has been our most consistent starter for almost 7 years, and has been very good postseason.   However, consider the following--


    1.  He can't fix the hitting problem at all, and that problem is by far the more serious one.  Lester is having a terrific year, ERA of 2.50, but the Sox have a losing record and Lester is only 10-7. 




    Ah yes, but now take Lester out of the 2014 pitching rotation for the whole year and replace him with somebody like Joe Kelly, and presto, we have a big problem with starting pitching, and probably 5 less wins.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    Justifications after the fact....It's a Sox fan's way of saying "If I can justify it, then I can accept it."



    Not after the fact. I would love to have Lester return, but have believed for some time he is just like Ellsbury, more than willing to go where the money is.  This is his right, but it doesn't mean the FO should pay it. 

    And, I say again, the Sox have had him for 2/3 of a season this year, his best season (in terms of ERA) ever, and they are losing games right and left.  I say again, Lester has been pitching great and the Sox are dead last in the AL.  This is/was not his fault, but does demonstrate that a great starter can't by himself turn a team around. 

    Plus I can't let go of this simple fact.  Even the paltry $70M for 4 years (if that is what it was) was a contract beyond the dreams of avarice.  Silly me, I would have been fine if the Sox had offered 5 years for $100M or even $110M.  But I now think those numbers are way low and Lester is gone for the money, more money than he can spend. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    The case for him is very good, I agree--our ace, who has been our most consistent starter for almost 7 years, and has been very good postseason.   However, consider the following--

    1.  He can't fix the hitting problem at all, and that problem is by far the more serious one.  Lester is having a terrific year, ERA of 2.50, but the Sox have a losing record and Lester is only 10-7. 



    Ah yes, but now take Lester out of the 2014 pitching rotation for the whole year and replace him with somebody like Joe Kelly, and presto, we have a big problem with starting pitching, and probably 5 less wins.



    Of course we don't know what the starting pitching will look like next year.

     

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     



    Not after the fact. I would love to have Lester return, but have believed for some time he is just like Ellsbury, more than willing to go where the money is.  This is his right, but it doesn't mean the FO should pay it. 

    And, I say again, the Sox have had him for 2/3 of a season this year, his best season (in terms of ERA) ever, and they are losing games right and left.  I say again, Lester has been pitching great and the Sox are dead last in the AL.  This is/was not his fault, but does demonstrate that a great starter can't by himself turn a team around. 

    Plus I can't let go of this simple fact.  Even the paltry $70M for 4 years (if that is what it was) was a contract beyond the dreams of avarice.  Silly me, I would have been fine if the Sox had offered 5 years for $100M or even $110M.  But I now think those numbers are way low and Lester is gone for the money, more money than he can spend. 



    The four-year, $70 million offer was ridiculously low. However, we don't know what Lester wants or would have accepted. His people never put a figure on the table, and if they or anyone wants to use the Sox offer as the reason, well, that even more ridiculous.

    All Lester said was he's willing to take less than market value, but how much less and what does he think the market value is.

    I'm wary about five-year-plus contracts for pitchers in their 30s, but I would make an exception for Lester and if it doesn't pan out, so be it. So I do hope the Sox aggressively go after him over the winter.

     

     

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     

     

    The case for him is very good, I agree--our ace, who has been our most consistent starter for almost 7 years, and has been very good postseason.   However, consider the following--

     

    1.  He can't fix the hitting problem at all, and that problem is by far the more serious one.  Lester is having a terrific year, ERA of 2.50, but the Sox have a losing record and Lester is only 10-7. 

     

     



    Ah yes, but now take Lester out of the 2014 pitching rotation for the whole year and replace him with somebody like Joe Kelly, and presto, we have a big problem with starting pitching, and probably 5 less wins.

     



    I think you missed the point, which is that the Sox have had Lester for four months of this season, and they are currently not only dead last in the AL East, but hopelessly last because of the hitting.   What good has it done them to have a very good starter, Lester, with his best ERA ever (2.50)?    With this deal they get a good hitter and can still make a run at Lester if they want to in the postseason because we can be certain he ain't staying in Oakland.  This was a smart move by the Sox FO once they realized Lester was/is out of their price range. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:


    In response to maxbialystock's comment:



     


     


    The case for him is very good, I agree--our ace, who has been our most consistent starter for almost 7 years, and has been very good postseason.   However, consider the following--


     


    1.  He can't fix the hitting problem at all, and that problem is by far the more serious one.  Lester is having a terrific year, ERA of 2.50, but the Sox have a losing record and Lester is only 10-7. 


     


     




    Ah yes, but now take Lester out of the 2014 pitching rotation for the whole year and replace him with somebody like Joe Kelly, and presto, we have a big problem with starting pitching, and probably 5 less wins.


     




    ...and so what difference does 5 more or less wins figure in the long run unless you had over/under at the betting parlor. My guess the Sox will wind up 70 and 92 at seasons end, maybe worse--I like their chances with the new guys. I wish we still had Miller--he's the one that will be a challenge to replace.


    If you signed Lester and Lackey---Let's just say you spent $150 on Lester and you extended Lackey for 3 years for a total package of $50--you will have spent $200 M to get an extra 25 from lester and 16 for lackey over what  replacement pitchers might win.


    You would run BenC out of town, it would be worse than him signing Drew for 4  years at $48 M.


    I would seriously have to think long and hard before I'd sign Lester for $150 M in the off season. I would truthfully trade for Hamels if the asking price can be worked out. A lot can happen in the next 4 months.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    My guess is sometime by November, 2015, there will be a lot of comments about Lester signing a megadeal with the Yankees, or some other suitor. And then people will chirp how the Sox were smart not to try to re-sign him and that mid-market thinking is the way to go, and it will then turn into a I Hate Jon Lester thread. People will say "good riddance!" or "see, he's all about the money." Then a few Sox columnists will egg fans on even more by saying the Sox are a far better team without Jon than with him based on the emergence of Henry Owens, etc. Or it will be attached to this thread. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     



    Not after the fact. I would love to have Lester return, but have believed for some time he is just like Ellsbury, more than willing to go where the money is.  This is his right, but it doesn't mean the FO should pay it. 

    And, I say again, the Sox have had him for 2/3 of a season this year, his best season (in terms of ERA) ever, and they are losing games right and left.  I say again, Lester has been pitching great and the Sox are dead last in the AL.  This is/was not his fault, but does demonstrate that a great starter can't by himself turn a team around. 

    Plus I can't let go of this simple fact.  Even the paltry $70M for 4 years (if that is what it was) was a contract beyond the dreams of avarice.  Silly me, I would have been fine if the Sox had offered 5 years for $100M or even $110M.  But I now think those numbers are way low and Lester is gone for the money, more money than he can spend. 



    The four-year, $70 million offer was ridiculously low. However, we don't know what Lester wants or would have accepted. His people never put a figure on the table, and if they or anyone wants to use the Sox offer as the reason, well, that even more ridiculous.

    All Lester said was he's willing to take less than market value, but how much less and what does he think the market value is.

    I'm wary about five-year-plus contracts for pitchers in their 30s, but I would make an exception for Lester and if it doesn't pan out, so be it. So I do hope the Sox aggressively go after him over the winter.

     

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Exactly Roy.  Some people are talking about the situation as if the Sox were negotiating with themselves.  No matter the public statements, I am certain Lester's camp wasn't/isn't about to take less than the length and princely sums that the market avails to a guy who is at the height of his powers and arguably the best lefty in the game.

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    I really think Dan Nava has got to be the most fan favorite player on this board when it comes to people running to his defense because he can reach base. Average, HR, RBI be damned. More people ran to Nava's defense when he slumped than Lester when he was traded.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    I really think Dan Nava has got to be the most fan favorite player on this board when it comes to people running to his defense because he can reach base. Average, HR, RBI be damned. More people ran to Nava's defense when he slumped than Lester when he was traded.




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    OK ... Yeah, you are right.  He is a fan favorite, because he wasn't supposed to be a major leaguer, and just hustled and worked hard at every level that he barely got into and turned himself into a legitimate ham & egger, and then, last year, a borderline all star.  How can you not root for the guy?  The dude is the polar opposite of the pampered star.  Yeah, you are right, some of us cut the guy a little more slack.  This bothers you?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    If you have to choose between great pitching and great hitting your team is not going anywhere. 

    But in general I'll start with great pitching and go from there. I think most would. 

    Also: they could have gotten some hitting without trading Lester - trade other guys for hitters, which in some cases, they did. 

    "Relatedly, I also do not think Lester was available for a non-huge salary last winter. "

    Well, you don't know that. What we know is that he said he's sign here for less, and we know our team lowballed him with an insulting offer, then attempted to negotiate with him during the season after previously declaring that we don't negotiate during the season. 

    That's about all we know for sure. 

    But - I will say this: if they do re-sign Lester or another ace in the offseason, this all starts to make more sense. 

       
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    "His people never put a figure on the table, and if they or anyone wants to use the Sox offer as the reason, well, that even more ridiculous."

    Not really man. 

    If someone offers you $10 for a video camera you know is worth $100, you don't make them any kind of counter. You walk away because you know they are full of it.

       
     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    "His people never put a figure on the table, and if they or anyone wants to use the Sox offer as the reason, well, that even more ridiculous."

    Not really man. 

    If someone offers you $10 for a video camera you know is worth $100, you don't make them any kind of counter. You walk away because you know they are full of it.

       


    No you don't. You put you're price on it. Then if they don't move much, you walk away. You don't walk away simply because someone tried to get steal of a price on first try. That's ridiculous. You're not much of a negotiator if you're going to get offended simply because someone tried to get a good price. You walk away when they don't move off their first offer.

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

    I think you missed the point, which is that the Sox have had Lester for four months of this season, and they are currently not only dead last in the AL East, but hopelessly last because of the hitting.   What good has it done them to have a very good starter, Lester, with his best ERA ever (2.50)?    With this deal they get a good hitter and can still make a run at Lester if they want to in the postseason because we can be certain he ain't staying in Oakland.  This was a smart move by the Sox FO once they realized Lester was/is out of their price range. 



    I don't follow you here.  You're saying they can still make a run at him, then you're saying they realize he's out of their price range.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SpacemanEephus. Show SpacemanEephus's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:

    "His people never put a figure on the table, and if they or anyone wants to use the Sox offer as the reason, well, that even more ridiculous."

    Not really man. 

    If someone offers you $10 for a video camera you know is worth $100, you don't make them any kind of counter. You walk away because you know they are full of it.

       




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    What if someone offers you $50?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    I'll negotiate him down to $30 and call it a day.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    I think it's an airtight case.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     



    Not after the fact. I would love to have Lester return, but have believed for some time he is just like Ellsbury, more than willing to go where the money is.  This is his right, but it doesn't mean the FO should pay it. 

    And, I say again, the Sox have had him for 2/3 of a season this year, his best season (in terms of ERA) ever, and they are losing games right and left.  I say again, Lester has been pitching great and the Sox are dead last in the AL.  This is/was not his fault, but does demonstrate that a great starter can't by himself turn a team around. 

    Plus I can't let go of this simple fact.  Even the paltry $70M for 4 years (if that is what it was) was a contract beyond the dreams of avarice.  Silly me, I would have been fine if the Sox had offered 5 years for $100M or even $110M.  But I now think those numbers are way low and Lester is gone for the money, more money than he can spend. 



    The four-year, $70 million offer was ridiculously low. However, we don't know what Lester wants or would have accepted. His people never put a figure on the table, and if they or anyone wants to use the Sox offer as the reason, well, that even more ridiculous.

    All Lester said was he's willing to take less than market value, but how much less and what does he think the market value is.

    I'm wary about five-year-plus contracts for pitchers in their 30s, but I would make an exception for Lester and if it doesn't pan out, so be it. So I do hope the Sox aggressively go after him over the winter.

     

     



    My guess is that 6 years at $20M as an initial offer might have gotten fruitful negotiations started. As it is now our pitching rotation for next year is in shambles. The only way to fix it is to sign a very good SP or two. They will cost money. This is a deal that should have been concluded before the season started.

    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

     

  •  
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    The Red Sox were 13-8 in Lester's starts this year, even though they only averaged 3.75 runs in those games.  They are 35-52 in other games.

    So even with a lousy offense, with a great starter you can still win about 60% of the time.  With an average starter you can only win about 40% of the time. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: The case against keeping Lester

    In response to bugmenot2's comment:

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to maxbialystock's comment:

     



    Not after the fact. I would love to have Lester return, but have believed for some time he is just like Ellsbury, more than willing to go where the money is.  This is his right, but it doesn't mean the FO should pay it. 

    And, I say again, the Sox have had him for 2/3 of a season this year, his best season (in terms of ERA) ever, and they are losing games right and left.  I say again, Lester has been pitching great and the Sox are dead last in the AL.  This is/was not his fault, but does demonstrate that a great starter can't by himself turn a team around. 

    Plus I can't let go of this simple fact.  Even the paltry $70M for 4 years (if that is what it was) was a contract beyond the dreams of avarice.  Silly me, I would have been fine if the Sox had offered 5 years for $100M or even $110M.  But I now think those numbers are way low and Lester is gone for the money, more money than he can spend. 



    The four-year, $70 million offer was ridiculously low. However, we don't know what Lester wants or would have accepted. His people never put a figure on the table, and if they or anyone wants to use the Sox offer as the reason, well, that even more ridiculous.

    All Lester said was he's willing to take less than market value, but how much less and what does he think the market value is.

    I'm wary about five-year-plus contracts for pitchers in their 30s, but I would make an exception for Lester and if it doesn't pan out, so be it. So I do hope the Sox aggressively go after him over the winter.

     

     



    My guess is that 6 years at $20M as an initial offer might have gotten fruitful negotiations started. As it is now our pitching rotation for next year is in shambles. The only way to fix it is to sign a very good SP or two. They will cost money. This is a deal that should have been concluded before the season started.

    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

     



    If we had signed Lester would he continue to lose games by scores of 2-1 and 3-2? Wasn't the offense with RISP a total joke? How were we going to address that this fall in the FA market since the pickings for offense are so few. Did you watch the Ben Cherrington press conference?



    I do not get the press conferences broadcast where I live. I do know that good teams start with good starting pitching, and its easier to find good position players than good SP. We have the prospects to trade for offense this offseason. How are we going to replace Lester?

    WE ARE ALL JUST POPPYSEEDS IN THE BAKERY OF LIFE

     

  •  
    Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share