The Jon Lester Signs w/ Cubs - 6 yrs/$155 Million

[Guest]

Roughly 160 million for the whole roster if they sign both, I think. Maybe 165. Have to think there's like a 1% chance they even want to sign both though, and that this is largely games to make sure they get one of them.

[Tryptamine]

I don't understand why they would sign both unless they're giving up on Xander Bogaerts. Even if Hanley went to the OF it doesn't make sense as they already have a huge traffic jam in Rusney Castillo, Betts,Victorino,Cespedes, etc.

[ConstableRabbit]

Rosenthal is saying Hanley to BoSox all but done.

@Ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago

Sources say Hanley’s deal with #RedSox will be in range of five years, $90M.

 

@Ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago

Source: Hanley Ramirez headed to Boston tomorrow to finalize deal with #RedSox.

[Deeg]

Look for the Giants to jump into the Lester derby hard with Sandoval gone. And maybe Headley too.

[Guest]

From Heyman's report on Sandoval

 

But Boston is rebuilding in a big way. The team is also talking to its former ace, Jon Lester, and is believed prepared to offer him close to $130 million over six years.

 

With Ramirez and Sandoval, the Red Sox are also in position to trade some of their hitters for pitchers.

[Deeg]

I would be willing to go up to $150 for 6 years on Lester, and I don't think Boston would. But if someone (again, not Boston) offers 7, that's a pretty big poison pill.

[jersey cubs fan]

I would be willing to go up to $150 for 6 years on Lester, and I don't think Boston would. But if someone (again, not Boston) offers 7, that's a pretty big poison pill.

why?

[Guest]

Yeah, I don't get how people get so sure about these arbitrary cutoff points where 6 is acceptable but 7 is a big poison pill. The difference can't be THAT extreme.

[Guest]

Yeah, I don't get how people get so sure about these arbitrary cutoff points where 6 is acceptable but 7 is a big poison pill. The difference can't be THAT extreme.

 

Because no one actually wants Jon Lester for 6 years, that's just the cost of doing business. In a fantasy world where you can name your duration, most people would probably pick 4 years. This isn't a fantasy world, so most people were hoping for 5 but understanding of 6. When you go to 7 you're now facing a pretty significant chance that Lester is nearly useless for half his contract.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, I don't get how people get so sure about these arbitrary cutoff points where 6 is acceptable but 7 is a big poison pill. The difference can't be THAT extreme.

 

Because no one actually wants Jon Lester for 6 years, that's just the cost of doing business. In a fantasy world where you can name your duration, most people would probably pick 4 years. This isn't a fantasy world, so most people were hoping for 5 but understanding of 6. When you go to 7 you're now facing a pretty significant chance that Lester is nearly useless for half his contract.

 

Useless? That's not a very strong likelihood.

[Guest]

Yeah, I don't get how people get so sure about these arbitrary cutoff points where 6 is acceptable but 7 is a big poison pill. The difference can't be THAT extreme.

 

Because no one actually wants Jon Lester for 6 years, that's just the cost of doing business. In a fantasy world where you can name your duration, most people would probably pick 4 years. This isn't a fantasy world, so most people were hoping for 5 but understanding of 6. When you go to 7 you're now facing a pretty significant chance that Lester is nearly useless for half his contract.

 

Yeah, don't really agree with this at all.

[KingCubsFan]

Realistically, it's looking more and more like the Cubs will essentially get one good offer out of this. If they really want him, I feel like they're going to have blow everyone out of the water and offer $180 million or something close to it.

[ConstableRabbit]

Yeah, I don't get how people get so sure about these arbitrary cutoff points where 6 is acceptable but 7 is a big poison pill. The difference can't be THAT extreme.

 

Because no one actually wants Jon Lester for 6 years, that's just the cost of doing business. In a fantasy world where you can name your duration, most people would probably pick 4 years. This isn't a fantasy world, so most people were hoping for 5 but understanding of 6. When you go to 7 you're now facing a pretty significant chance that Lester is nearly useless for half his contract.

 

Useless? That's not a very strong likelihood.

The phrase was "nearly useless," and it's not like it's unprecedented. Look at CJ Wilson.

[Guest]

It all depends on what baseline you want to start with for Lester in 2015. You could say pretty much everything from 3 wins to 5 wins and have some decent logic behind it. At the high end, that statement is far less true, but to use an example, what if Steamer has Lester pegged? Assuming normal decline, you get 1 season above 3 fWAR and four under 2 wins if you give him a 7 year deal.

[Guest]

Realistically, it's looking more and more like the Cubs will essentially get one good offer out of this. If they really want him, I feel like they're going to have blow everyone out of the water and offer $180 million or something close to it.

 

Why do you think they have to blow everyone out of the water rather than just being the highest bidder?

[Guest]

It all depends on what baseline you want to start with for Lester in 2015. You could say pretty much everything from 3 wins to 5 wins and have some decent logic behind it. At the high end, that statement is far less true, but to use an example, what if Steamer has Lester pegged? Assuming normal decline, you get 1 season above 3 fWAR and four under 2 wins if you give him a 7 year deal.

 

I just don't care if there is negative value in the deal as long as he's a good pitcher. Money is worth less to us because we have a lot of it to spend and few places to spend it and few guys to spend it on. Whatever the market dictates is fine with me.

[jersey cubs fan]

Realistically, it's looking more and more like the Cubs will essentially get one good offer out of this. If they really want him, I feel like they're going to have blow everyone out of the water and offer $180 million or something close to it.

 

I don't understand what this means?

[Guest]

It all depends on what baseline you want to start with for Lester in 2015. You could say pretty much everything from 3 wins to 5 wins and have some decent logic behind it. At the high end, that statement is far less true, but to use an example, what if Steamer has Lester pegged? Assuming normal decline, you get 1 season above 3 fWAR and four under 2 wins if you give him a 7 year deal.

 

I just don't care if there is negative value in the deal as long as he's a good pitcher. Money is worth less to us because we have a lot of it to spend and few places to spend it and few guys to spend it on. Whatever the market dictates is fine with me.

 

Right. The question being asked here is 'how long is Lester going to be a good pitcher, and how good will those good years be?' If you think he's a 4-5 win guy in 2015 there's not as much risk going to 7 years, but if you think Steamer is closer to reality then there's a lot of mediocre to bad waiting in the back half of a 7 year deal.

[Tyrant]

Yeah, I don't get how people get so sure about these arbitrary cutoff points where 6 is acceptable but 7 is a big poison pill. The difference can't be THAT extreme.

 

Because no one actually wants Jon Lester for 6 years, that's just the cost of doing business. In a fantasy world where you can name your duration, most people would probably pick 4 years. This isn't a fantasy world, so most people were hoping for 5 but understanding of 6. When you go to 7 you're now facing a pretty significant chance that Lester is nearly useless for half his contract.

 

Useless? That's not a very strong likelihood.

The phrase was "nearly useless," and it's not like it's unprecedented. Look at CJ Wilson.

 

Wilson didn't have nearly the same sustained level of success as Lester has had.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, I don't get how people get so sure about these arbitrary cutoff points where 6 is acceptable but 7 is a big poison pill. The difference can't be THAT extreme.

 

Because no one actually wants Jon Lester for 6 years, that's just the cost of doing business. In a fantasy world where you can name your duration, most people would probably pick 4 years. This isn't a fantasy world, so most people were hoping for 5 but understanding of 6. When you go to 7 you're now facing a pretty significant chance that Lester is nearly useless for half his contract.

 

Useless? That's not a very strong likelihood.

The phrase was "nearly useless," and it's not like it's unprecedented. Look at CJ Wilson.

 

Wilson didn't have nearly the same sustained level of success as Lester has had.

 

Didn't he go from a reliever to 200 inning starter like overnight? I'm not sure how he compares to Lester.

[Guest]

It all depends on what baseline you want to start with for Lester in 2015. You could say pretty much everything from 3 wins to 5 wins and have some decent logic behind it. At the high end, that statement is far less true, but to use an example, what if Steamer has Lester pegged? Assuming normal decline, you get 1 season above 3 fWAR and four under 2 wins if you give him a 7 year deal.

 

I just don't care if there is negative value in the deal as long as he's a good pitcher. Money is worth less to us because we have a lot of it to spend and few places to spend it and few guys to spend it on. Whatever the market dictates is fine with me.

 

Right. The question being asked here is 'how long is Lester going to be a good pitcher, and how good will those good years be?' If you think he's a 4-5 win guy in 2015 there's not as much risk going to 7 years, but if you think Steamer is closer to reality then there's a lot of mediocre to bad waiting in the back half of a 7 year deal.

 

I'm thinking he is on the high end of that in the front end of the deal. Numbers should get a nice boost from the AL -> NL jump.

[sneakypower]

fwiw, here's the list of starters: age 35-37 this year

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=50&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=35,37&filter=&players=0

[KingCubsFan]

Realistically, it's looking more and more like the Cubs will essentially get one good offer out of this. If they really want him, I feel like they're going to have blow everyone out of the water and offer $180 million or something close to it.

 

Why do you think they have to blow everyone out of the water rather than just being the highest bidder?

Because there are more and more indications that going back to Boston is his first choice. I don't want the Cubs to be used as nothing more than leverage to raise the price on Boston and then, when the price is right, the Cubs aren't given an opportunity to counter. I'd rather the Cubs simply make an offer that the Red Sox won't match.

[SouthSideRyan]

fwiw, here's the list of starters: age 35-37 this year

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=50&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=35,37&filter=&players=0

 

Lester has 35.4 fWAR through age 30.

 

Buehrle at 36.6 and Lackey at 29 are the only ones remotely close to him. (Cliff Lee only had 23 through his age 30 season.)

[Guest]

fwiw, here's the list of starters: age 35-37 this year

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=50&type=8&season=2014&month=0&season1=2014&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=35,37&filter=&players=0

 

Lester has 35.4 fWAR through age 30.

 

Buehrle at 36.6 and Lackey at 29 are the only ones remotely close to him. (Cliff Lee only had 23 through his age 30 season.)

 

I'm not sure but I thought that link was supposed to be encouraging. Certainly didn't cause me to worry.