Jon Lester
by Logodaedalus on Sep 25, 2008 7:00 PM EDT
75 comments
In thinking about potential off-season trades to acquire starting pitching, I've been tossing around the notion of trying to peel Jon Lester away from the Red Sox in exchange for Kelly Shoppach and Gutz/Francisco. With Lester starting against us tonight, I thought I'd throw this out there.
I have no idea whether the BoSox would even consider trading Lester, and there are certainly ways in which it wouldn't be the best of trades for the Tribe, but there are ways in which it makes sense as well.
Pros:
Why The Red Sox Might Like the Deal:
-Boston has a real need for a catcher, as Varitek's contract is up, and a right-handed power hitter like Kelly should be a good fit for Fenway and the Monster. Shoppach would constitute a way to cut some serious salary for the Beaneaters.
-Their present OF situation looks less than desirable to me. I don't know much about their depth in the minors, but a quick glance at their 40-man doesn't exactly give the impression that they're particularly deep. Ellsbury is a base-stealing machine, but is OPSing only .712, with an OBP of .331. He's only walked about 7% of the time. It doesn't look like they're counting on Coco to be an every day guy either. Gutz could get some starts in CF, at the very least. They have Bay and Drew in the corners, which figures to be a pretty solid offensive situation, but Gutz or Francisco could be upgrades over backups. In any event, Shoppach would obviously be the centerpiece of any deal
Why The Indians Would Like the Deal:
-Lester is coming off of what may be a breakout year, and might be just the kind of young, cheap, but somewhat established starter with long term potential the Indians would like.
Cons:
Why The Indians Wouldn't Like the Deal
-Lester is left-handed. Obviously given the rest of their rotation options, the Indians would prefer to acquire a righty if possible.
-Lester is coming off of what is perceived as a breakout year. It would not exactly be buying low for the Tribe.
-We'd prefer not to have to trade Shoppach. It's unclear how much Victor will be able to catch next year, and the other catching options for the Tribe are a ways from hitting the bigs
Again, this may be a silly thing to discuss, since Lester may be untouchable. I don't know much about the Red Sox pitching depth, and it seems fairly likely that trading Lester for Shoppach to fill a catching hole would simply open up a gaping pitching hole. Beckett and Dice-K are under control for a couple more years, and Wakefield is Boston's perpetual slave boy (though who knows how much longer he'll pitch), but Schilling and Byrd are free agents, and Buchholz is perhaps a question mark, though he has pitched well in the minors since going down.
0 recs |
75 comments
Email
Print
Comments
I doubt the Sox would trade Lester unless it was for an absolute haul. Aside from his trade value, he is a fan favorite which the organization will take into consideration.
by Roger Dorn on Sep 25, 2008 7:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And, I am not sure that they are trying to cut salary at all.
LGT's resident beer connaisseur.
by LGT Patrick on Sep 25, 2008 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
doesn’t exactly seem like their MO, it’s true. But it’s not as if they’re going to go spend a lot on a catcher just because they can, either.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 25, 2008 7:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really see us parting with Shoppach either. Especially given that Victor has something of a propensity to get hurt.
by fwembt on Sep 25, 2008 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I could definately see us parting with Shoppach if we get a solid starting pitcher or infielder.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 25, 2008 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really? I think that a young(ish) catcher with 20+HR power is something we would keep.
by fwembt on Sep 26, 2008 12:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that it matters, but Jon Lester is better and I would take him.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 26, 2008 12:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shoppach is not young but certainly not old either.
Perhaps more importantly, his knees are still young.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2008 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the S.S. Keep Kelly makes ready for its second winter cruise. All aboooooooard!
by fleerdon on Sep 26, 2008 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I don’t think Lester is available at all unless someone dangled a blockbuster in front of them.
Clay Buchholz on the other hand? Go get him. That’s buying low.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Sep 25, 2008 7:42 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Clay Buchholz for Jeremy Sowers anyone? Similar values, get ’er done!
by Joe. on Sep 26, 2008 1:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Completely agree. Not sure what Boston’s feelings are on Buchholz, but I’d rather take a chance on a guy who seems to have a higher upside, but wouldn’t cost has much as Lester (who i agree is not a likely to be discussed for anything less than all-star-type talent). Have the BoSox soured on him at all?
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Sep 26, 2008 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Sox are too smart to deal Buchholz while his value is perceived as being low. I don’t think they’d accept Shoppach for Buchholz, let alone Lester.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 26, 2008 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not suggesting that Shoppach would be enough, just that it’s more reasonable to think the Indians could put a package together for Buchholz rather than Lester.
You know Selig? Ombudsman.
by rolub on Sep 26, 2008 11:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, but I think they would still ask for a TON in return for Buchholz. And rightly so. Plus, isn’t the only thing they need (besides a catcher) young pitching? I can’t see a deal that makes the Red Sox better.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 26, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s beginning to seem like this was a non-starter
by Logodaedalus on Sep 25, 2008 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting. Nobody likes this idea, but half the people think we can’t afford to give up Shoppach, and the other half thinks there’s no way Boston would trade Lester for him.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 25, 2008 11:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Both camps are correct. We cannot afford to part with him and there is no way Boston parts with Lester for him. At least, I think.
by fwembt on Sep 26, 2008 12:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No Shoppach for Lester is entirely worth it, but it has no chance of happening.
by Joe. on Sep 26, 2008 1:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We could afford to part with him if we got Lester in return, but they wouldn’t do it. It doesn’t really make sense for it to be a bad deal for both sides, unless the organizational needs went against it, which they don’t. Shoppach is probably more valuable to Boston than to us… just maybe not as valuable as Lester. I dunno.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 26, 2008 1:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreeing with the above responses … Shoppach is a very valuable asset, but probably not as valuable as Jon Lester.
Furthermore, if keeping/trading Shoppach is the difference between filling/still having a black hole in the lineup at 1B, well, I"ll just say that needs to be weighed very carefully, too.
I don’t think we need a starter as much as we need a plus hitter at first base. We’ll count ourselves lucky to get one productive season out of both Hafner and Garko combined in 2009.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2008 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pronko? Garkner? Gonk?
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Sep 26, 2008 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hafner and Garko combined this season are approximately equivalent to Neifi Perez in 1999, without the triples. Make of that what you will.
by FredOx on Sep 26, 2008 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was expecting to see another jersey.
The best thing probably is to hit [Grady] 2nd -- Jay
by Buckeye Brad on Sep 26, 2008 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HAHA awesome. Gonk it is.
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 7, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There’s no way they trade Lester for anything less than an established All-Star. And even then probably not.
by TribeJay on Sep 26, 2008 12:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That may be true. But they are looking at starting garbage at catcher again next season. And not really much out there in trade for FA for that to change.
by hans on Sep 26, 2008 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rangers have four catchers, all of whom would be a lot cheaper than Shoppach.
Besides, Lester is INCREDIBLY valuable.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 26, 2008 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would they necessarily be cheaper than Shoppach?
by Jay on Sep 26, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because the Rangers have four. And because Shoppach has proven more at the ML level than all/any of them.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 26, 2008 2:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The second point makes sense. But, the first one doesn’t. Let’s see. I’ve got four diamonds. Shall I sell one cheap because I’ve got four? See the problem?
by peter m on Sep 26, 2008 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right.
That only works if the GM is stupid.
It affects willingness to sell a lot, sale price only very little.
by Jay on Sep 26, 2008 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could affect sale price, since the buyer would know that you’d accept the best available offer that benefits you, and the threshold for benefiting you is lower when you have a surplus. If there were only one possible buyer, this would be a big difference, since that buyer could offer the lowest return that would benefit you. But since the number of potential buyers is relatively high, they still have to bid against each other, rendering the minimum threshold of acceptability much less meaningful.
by Logodaedalus on Sep 26, 2008 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But you’d be thrilled to have four diamonds.
The Rangers having four catchers doesn’t benefit them at all.
by Peter Bendix on Sep 26, 2008 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Seriously, why can’t I hit the reply button correctly?
by Peter Bendix on Sep 26, 2008 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this guy played infield for the Tribe in 1976.
by odradek on Sep 27, 2008 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was the guy with the swizzle stick between his teeth.
by peter m on Sep 27, 2008 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
So I’m watching Game 1 of the ALDS.
This Lester kid. Did you guys know he had cancer?
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 1, 2008 11:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was shocked to see Youklis make an out. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before.
by odradek on Oct 1, 2008 11:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, but we’re all used to the flop sweat.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 2, 2008 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello Nick,
Yes – he had lymphoma, which I think was in the lymph nodes. Fortunately, they seem to have caught it early enough.
I’m glad that he has recovered/is recovering (if you consider he’s likely still in the remission period), even if I’m not overly fond for the team he plays on.
Just my 2 cents.
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Oct 2, 2008 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was being sarcastic. Tom Mastny is Indonesian and whatnot.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 2, 2008 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello Nick,
I wasn’t sure if you were being serious or not – from the tone, I thought you were being serious. Whoops – must already be “rusty” and the offseason is not even a week old yet. I’ll have to report to Spring Training early. :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Oct 3, 2008 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
With me it’s safe to assume sarcasm.
Steel Nick
by nickjs21 on Oct 3, 2008 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
italics: the universal marker for sarcasm (sometimes)
Oh I’m not being sarcastic! Noooo! This is just a little speech impediment…
by Logodaedalus on Oct 6, 2008 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hello Nick,
I’ll keep that in mind – thanks! :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Oct 6, 2008 11:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Michael Bowden??
Sox don’t have room for him and he seems ready. Could we give them some outfield depth and a couple of youngsters for him?
by kershaw_equals_stud on Oct 7, 2008 11:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Besides a catcher, the Red Sox really don’t need anything.
by Peter Bendix on Oct 7, 2008 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“[On Sunday] they scored on a pop fly they called a hit, which is a joke,” said Lackey, referring to a popup that was misplayed into three runs. “[On Monday], they score on a broken-bat ground ball and a fly ball anywhere else in America [except in Fenway Park]. And [Pedroia’s] fist-pumping on second like he did something great.”
John Lackey quoted on ESPN.com.
by odradek on Oct 7, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Love that quote
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on Oct 7, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1!
Personally, I think the Red Sox’s fist pumping (such as Pedroia’s action there and Papelbon’s overblown dramatics every time he saves the game, whether he dominates or not) gets obnoxious and sickening to watch after a while.
Go Rays! :-)
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Oct 7, 2008 9:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He’s just jealous because Pedroia just Knows How To Win.™
Obviously they never should have let Erstad go.
by Jay on Oct 7, 2008 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1 – I couldn’t agree with you more, Andrew!
The "cream of the crop" doesn't always rise to the top.
by indiansfan on Oct 7, 2008 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Sweet Baboo
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
