The downside to signing Lester

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    The downside to signing Lester

    Frequent reader, don't post much but will someone please explain to me the downside to signing Lester? If the back up plan is hamels wouldn't it make much more sense to spend an extra 2 per year on an al east proven pitcher, and keep the prospects to acquire a power bat?

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

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:

    Frequent reader, don't post much but will someone please explain to me the downside to signing Lester? If the back up plan is hamels wouldn't it make much more sense to spend an extra 2 per year on an al east proven pitcher, and keep the prospects to acquire a power bat?




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    I personally feel like Larry is still waiting to trick Lester.  First he could've had Lester for Bailey's money, plus $1.  Then it was rumored to be $100m/5.  I think LL is waiting for it to get to $144M/6 before deciding he can't afford him anymore.

    I don't have the first clue as to what Larry is doing here.  I just have a really bad feeling about it.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-BAY. Show J-BAY's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    I agree, buff, the years are more the issue. The downside is how many innings Lester has already pitched in his career, and a long term contract will take him to the down side of thirty. 

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from steven11. Show steven11's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    There is no down side. Like any signing, there is always a chance the player may not perform every year at peak form.

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

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    There is no downside. He is a special pitcher, getting better like fine wine. Many great pitchers pitch as outstanding in their 30s as in their 20s. Maybe not as hard a throwers, but better pitchers. You guys and the Sox management are missing the point. You don't get Lesters off trees, just like you don't find closers that way either. Sign Lester, give him whatever he wants, he deserves to be treated like royalty.

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

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    It is very possible to waste your life by always looking five or six years ahead. While it is important to plan for the future, tomorrow is also a part of the future. Nothing lasts forever. That includes owners, ballplayers or even us. Any long term contract can backfire eventually. Sometimes you have to take chances. Lester is one of the best pitchers in the game. We all know that players are overpaid. That is just the way it is. We can't change that. The fact is that professional sports are a part of the entertainment business. The fact is that John Henry and the other owners are wealthy beyond our comprehension. If we don't want to do what it takes to sign Lester, someone else will. Then we can revile Lester and root for Henry Owens, et al. And so it goes.

    Stabbed by Foulke.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    More of a gamble when you don't know the player, or to put it in another way when he hasn't performed in your Park, and division. Lester has 4 good years left, last 2 he'll still be a OK end of rotation guy. As you get older you learn how to pitch. Pay the man and stop fooling around.
    He's costing you more each start. Lee was getting paid 21.5 at age 33, at 34 25 million.

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

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    The Red Sox are in a good position financially going into 2015 and future years.  If ever there was a situation that would seem to dictate spending big money on a free agent, this is it.  I'm worried about it myself.

    I suspect that if Lester does end up gone, the Sox will make a big move somewhere else.  We'll see. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    It is very possible to waste your life by always looking five or six years ahead. While it is important to plan for the future, tomorrow is also a part of the future. Nothing lasts forever. That includes owners, ballplayers or even us. Any long term contract can backfire eventually. Sometimes you have to take chances. Lester is one of the best pitchers in the game. We all know that players are overpaid. That is just the way it is. We can't change that. The fact is that professional sports are a part of the entertainment business. The fact is that John Henry and the other owners are wealthy beyond our comprehension. If we don't want to do what it takes to sign Lester, someone else will. Then we can revile Lester and root for Henry Owens, et al. And so it goes.

    Stabbed by Foulke.



    100% right DG, he'll get his money from someone.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazy-world-of-troybrown. Show crazy-world-of-troybrown's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    Another thing, a guy like Hamels doesn't face the DH either, that is huge. Lester has his whole career.

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

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    I'm cautious about giving out long-term contract to players in their 30s, especially pitchers, but I'd take a chance on Lester. I really wouldn't go more than five years, but I'd consider six, understanding that it might not end well. But I'd take a chance with him.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    Okay so if years is the issue why is hamels an option? 4 more years with a vesting option at 24 right? Seems like if you're going to spend 112 million anyway you might as well do it on the safer bet and keep your prospects

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    In response to royf19's comment:

    I'm cautious about giving out long-term contract to players in their 30s, especially pitchers, but I'd take a chance on Lester. I really wouldn't go more than five years, but I'd consider six, understanding that it might not end well. But I'd take a chance with him.




    [object HTMLDivElement]   Roy , few , if any , things in life end well. I would not want to sacrifice a lot of good things and good times in the interim,  in the fear that it might not end well. It probably won't anyway.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    I'm not concerned about "value" in the last couple of years of a 5 (or even 6) year contract.  By the time that contract is up $20M could very well be the going rate for a #3 or 4 pitcher!

    Having the right do something doesn't make it the right thing to do, although sometimes it feels like it is. :-)  

     

    And I have never posted here under any other names.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from soxnewmex. Show soxnewmex's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    Funny how many guys turn into Cy Young or Babe Ruth in free agent years.  Lester has always been a good pitcher, but he's outdoing himself this season.  Last year he started out well, was bad for a month or two, and then was stellar when it mattered in October.  I remember he had a stinker season in there somewhere too.  He can get as much money as he wants from the Yankees, but the Sox were with him through thick and thin through his illnesses.  He'll get plenty of dough whether he goes or stays; a rich man for life, here or elsewhere.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    I want Lester back, but if we don't sign him, the $20M a year or so will be spent elsewhere- perhaps on 2-3 other players.

    It's big decision time for Ben & Co.

    Sox4ever

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I want Lester back, but if we don't sign him, the $20M a year or so will be spent elsewhere- perhaps on 2-3 other players.

    It's big decision time for Ben & Co.

    Sox4ever



    2-3 guys that aren't top end pitchers, nullifying your point

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:



     




    In response to moonslav59's comment:




    I want Lester back, but if we don't sign him, the $20M a year or so will be spent elsewhere- perhaps on 2-3 other players.




    It's big decision time for Ben & Co.




    Sox4ever




     





    2-3 guys that aren't top end pitchers, nullifying your point


     


     





    My point was not that I preferred 2-3 players instead of Lester.  It was just to point out that not signing Lester does not mean our spending budget will be at $145M instead of $170M.


     


    There is a chance that the players we sign with Lester's money may outperform Lester. I doubt it, but the chance is there nonetheless.


     


    I want Lester. I also want us to find at least one big hitter, so we can move Papi and Napoli down a notch or two in the line-up. I want a plus fielding shortstop. I want a lot of things, but if we try to stay at or near the luxury tax limit, it might be hard to do everything at once. Choices might need to be made that means we don't get one BIG need filled this year (including winter), and we will have to fill that need with someone already on our roster.


     


    Sometimes the choice made is largely determined by weighing the value of the players already in our system who will take the place of the departing players and deciding which one is the least drop off. For example, let's say Ben is thinking we cannot sign Lester and Nelson Cruz this winter. I happen to disagree, but for arguments sake, lets say that after he spends on filling all the other high need areas, he comes down to an either or situation. He then weighs...


     


    Lester vs Workman/Webster/Ranaudo/Wright/Owens/Barnes


     


    or


     


    Cruz & a $3-5M free agent vs one or more of these guys playing a heck of a lot more OF in 2015 and beyond: Holt/Nava/Vic/Betts and maybe Cecchini, Middlebrooks or Bogey moved to the OF. Plus, the prospects we can get by trading Lester can help our future or be flipped this winter for a big named player. Let's say the prospects help us land Stanton. We could view this decision as Lester vs Cruz, Stanton, and a cheap free agent (the difference between Lester's deal and Cruz's deal). Now, the decision is not as clear. Is it?


     


    Personally, I'd take Lester, but my point is that what we spend on Lester will not be available to fill other needs somewhere, and this team has a lot of needs this winter. To me, it's harder to replace an ace than to find or develop a big hitter, so I'd choose Lester.


     


    Do what it takes to extend Lester before the deadline within reason. It's a tough decision to decide to pay one player close to 1/7th of the entire player spending budget, but if ever there was a more consistent and significant player available, it would be a guy like Lester. I'm hoping management realizes that just because Crawford was a failure, it does not mean every long term big deal will turn out to be a disaster forever more. We will need to take a chance and pull the trigger at some point. The free agent market recently has not has a guy like Manny for a long time. I think Lester warrants overpaying to keep, but there are limits to how much we can do.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: The downside to signing Lester

    In response to djcbuffum's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    To me, it's harder to replace an ace than to find or develop a big hitter, so I'd choose Lester.


    I'm not sure that's true these days. How many first-class sluggers are there in the game right now? And how many top of the rotation starters? With offense down in this era, it seems that teams are having more trouble finding that Manny-Papi punch that we enjoyed so much. Double entendre intended  ;)




    Good points, but it's hard to win a championship without a true ace (or two), but one can perhaps win with a balanced offense easier.

    We had a balanced offense last year, until the playoffs when Papi nearly single-handedly carried the offense on his shoulders.

    It's not easy to sign or trade for a true ace.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share