OT: Red Sox

chibears55 said:

Lol..

Im sure Lester would prefer to pitch for someone who has a legit chance to win now, which is why I dont think the cubs will get him if a team like Boston or SF goes to 6/140 or so unless the cubs respond back with something crazy or that 7th year. .

Id love to have Lester but anything over 25 per would be nuts unless the cubs were in position to win now, which their not..

Click to expand...

No but they will be in the middle of the pack somewhere in 2015 and should be fully ready to contend in 2016 and beyond. The Red Sox will contend in 2015 and 2106 with Lester's services but after that they don't look anywhere near as sustainable as they once did. They'll have some hard decisions to make and don't forget even if they get him they'll have to trade for another starter. On top of that hose two contracts signed this week might not look that good in 3-5 years. The Giants are a perennial contender and paired with Bumgarner that's a formidable top of the rotation. I can see him taking a serious look, but what I don't see is them being the top bidder at all costs. I will believe that Boston is the front runner for Lester until they're not but my gut tells me he could very well sign in Chicago.

Why is there no movement on Scherzer? I haven't heard anything.

JimJohnson said:

Why is there no movement on Scherzer? I haven't heard anything.

Click to expand...

Negotiating with Detroit the last I heard and doubtless waiting on the market to set itself while praying to the baseball gods that the Yankees get in the running.

TC in Mississippi said:

No but they will be in the middle of the pack somewhere in 2015 and should be fully ready to contend in 2016 and beyond. The Red Sox will contend in 2015 and 2106 with Lester's services but after that they don't look anywhere near as sustainable as they once did. They'll have some hard decisions to make and don't forget even if they get him they'll have to trade for another starter. On top of that hose two contracts signed this week might not look that good in 3-5 years. The Giants are a perennial contender and paired with Bumgarner that's a formidable top of the rotation. I can see him taking a serious look, but what I don't see is them being the top bidder at all costs. I will believe that Boston is the front runner for Lester until they're not but my gut tells me he could very well sign in Chicago.

Click to expand...

Ok.. but if im the cubs and the price is over 25, they have to ask themselves if it worth basically wasting the first couple yrs of that deal to hope he still a TOR type srarter in yr 3+ of the deal..

chibears55 said:

Ok.. but if im the cubs and the price is over 25, they have to ask themselves if it worth basically wasting the first couple yrs of that deal to hope he still a TOR type srarter in yr 3+ of the deal..

Click to expand...

I think it's going to be $25 mil per and I wouldn't say it would be wasting two years on the deal. I fully expect them to be full on contenders in 2016 and have at least one more TOR arm to go along with Lester (if he signs) and Arietta. I also don't underestimate the importance of 2015 and this young team learning how to compete. Having two top starters will surely take some pressure off young hitters during the inevitable slumps.

brett05 said:

second_place_first_looser image

Click to expand...

Ricky Bobby - "if you're not first, you're last."

TC in Mississippi said:

Of course it matters. You bid what you can afford and you also have to extrapolate that out for the life of the contract. That was a terrible signing and they outbid the second highest bidder in both years and dollars which made a halfway decent player untradeable when it was necessary to move on and get younger. All bidding against yourself accomplishes is raising the market in future years and hamstringing yourself from improving your club. Also if you backload a contract you either a) have to win a World Series in the part of the deal or b)know that you'll have younger, cheaper under market players to offset the overpay. Hendry accomplished neither with Soriano.

Click to expand...

So offering 24 million versus 26 million hamstrings the club over the life of the contract? Great! Good to know.

When you are reported to be going 6 years as this FO is doing, and you have the flexibility to make this kind of move, you don't get beat out on the man you want, especially dollars are concerned, and the Yankees and Dodgers are not teams you are bucking.

Again, unless he decides the money isn't the only reason, and he prefers some place other than Chicago, I'll understand.

And lets not act as it the Cubs have a long history of signing some of the most coveted players on the market at the highest dollar amount because they haven't. They have signed one, and people act as if it was such an albatross of a contract for a team like the Cubs. In fact, the Cubs probably have the most non-headline free agent signings of all the major market teams.

They chose to trade Soriano off. It isn't as if he couldn't have finished out his career in Wrigley and performed adequately while the Cubs were rebuilding. Hell, they were paying for most of his salary anyways.

Boobaby1 said:

So offering 24 million versus 26 million hamstrings the club over the life of the contract? Great! Good to know.

When you are reported to be going 6 years as this FO is doing, and you have the flexibility to make this kind of move, you don't get beat out on the man you want, especially dollars are concerned, and the Yankees and Dodgers are not teams you are bucking.

Again, unless he decides the money isn't the only reason, and he prefers some place other than Chicago, I'll understand.

And lets not act as it the Cubs have a long history of signing some of the most coveted players on the market at the highest dollar amount because they haven't. They have signed one, and people act as if it was such an albatross of a contract for a team like the Cubs. In fact, the Cubs probably have the most non-headline free agent signings of all the major market teams.

They chose to trade Soriano off. It isn't as if he couldn't have finished out his career in Wrigley and performed adequately while the Cubs were rebuilding. Hell, they were paying for most of his salary anyways.

Click to expand...

For the record the cubs offer is at 22.5 per, so if the Bosox or SF were to go to 25 then then cubs would probably have to go to at least 28 or add a 7th yr to gain his interest away from teams that are in win now mode. ..

I can care less if they give the guy 30 per, just as long as they continue to improve the team without using payroll as a reason not to..

Trading Soriano had more to do with giving him the opportunity to play on a playoff team at end of his career more then anything else..

If it cost Baez with 2 add in prospects they should trade for Cole. He pulled the Cubs off of his no trade list. I believe that it was them wanting Russell that caused the last trade attempt to fall short.

Latest On Cole Hamels
By Jeff Todd [November 26, 2014 at 3:30pm CST]
In a follow-up to his piece last night analyzing the Phillies’ options with regard to a possible Cole Hamels deal, ESPN.com’s Jayson Stark provides a series of interesting notes, all via Twitter. The overall picture that emerges is one in which Philadelphia remains willing and ready to be engaged, and is perhaps more flexible in its thinking than many believe.

MLBTR:

A team source rejected the prevailing view that Philadelphia is asking potential trade partners for two or three of their best prospects. Instead, the team has been in a stance of asking for offers on their star lefty.
At present, however, only one team has actually made an offer. Interestingly, the offeror is a team that has not been mentioned publicly as of yet. Philly felt it was a “good” offer but “not good enough,” per Stark’s source.
Ultimately, the Phillies have yet to reach a point in any discussion in which they have made a “formal ask” of a return for Hamels, says Stark. The reason is simply that talks have never progressed far enough to warrant a firm proposal.
MLBTR’s Tim Dierkes discussed Hamels’ value on today’s podcast (at about the 27:50 mark), arguing that Hamels would probably take down a bigger contract than Jon Lester were he on the open market. In that view, Dierkes opines, there is plenty of value to be achieved in trading for the Hamels contract, even if it is not a bargain. If Hamels ends up being dealt, it will be fascinating to evaluate how the clubs involved valued his deal.







So what has been rumored is not the truth and the one offer has been by a unknown team. That means that the market is shooting at Lester first because he will not cost 200 mil or prospects. Then the rest of the market should develop.

Now the whole cost 2 blue chip prospects is bunk. It will cost 1 blue chip with 2 quality adds. Baez and 1 SP prospect like Johnson with another like Vogelbach I believe would be enough to close the deal. Cubs already have a 2B they picked up and have Russell a year out. I don't see a down fall here.

The opinion on the podcast was that Cole was better than Lester but lesser than Scherzer in talent but he is the best deal on the market with how it is developing.