Page 1 of 3
Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 2:10 am
by RalphWiggum
I think it's pretty obvious Lester is not signing for less than 6-7 years and with team policy that leaves us out of the picture. Does anyone actually like this policy or more importantly does anyone believe that there is no situation where the Jays wouldn't say "in this case we had to ignore it" when it comes to Lester we felt we had to make an exception.
Assuming the Jays move Dickey and Navarro and can get back someone who can help this team now don't they have to change their policy to make a real run at Lester?
I actually sorta like the policy especially when it comes to pitchers. Dozens of deals in the last decade have shown that the last 3-4 years on these long term deals end up being nightmares for the club. 48 million over 3 years for a guy who can't get anyone out anymore really handcuffs teams that don't have unlimited resources to cover up mistakes.
On the other side it doesn't seem like Lester is demanding an 8-10 deal and doesn't seem to be asking for stupid 20 plus million a year because teams have got wise unlike during the Kevin Brown days.
He's still relatively young for a proven pitcher and with our recent additions could easily by the guy that gets us those 4-5 more wins that put us in the dance.
is 7 years 126 million a stupid contract for a guy that would be 38 when the deal expires?
I'm totally on the fence on this one.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 11:42 am
by Steelo Green
Remember, it is about winning it just one year. These guys basically say we won't win a title all of the years I am here, but to win in this league is so few and far between that even if I assist in getting you to one title, that deserves a long term contract that will play me even until I am no longer an elite player.
It is very touch and go. We sign him and win a WS, we don't care that he is here even when he won't be a good pitcher anymore, we sign him and do not win, we will say it was an awful deal.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 12:28 pm
by CPT
I thought he had 6/138 on the table already?
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 3:07 pm
by C Court
CPT wrote:I thought he had 6/138 on the table already?
Yup. That's apparently the starting point and the Cubs and Red Sox will likely go higher.
Lester likes New England, so he very well could go back. Only way he comes to Toronto is if Alex makes a massive overpay, which is not happening.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 3:14 pm
by Santoki
Does this need a new thread? Lester isn't coming to the Jays for a multitude of reasons. Focus your offseason energy elsewhere people.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 5:05 pm
by UN-Owen
I agree with the policy when the pitcher in question will be 31 years old to start the season
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 5:12 pm
by Yosemite Dan
UN-Owen wrote:I agree with the policy when the pitcher in question will be 31 years old to start the season
I agree. If we are paying big bucks and long term I would take Scherzer over Lester any day of the week. I would not give Lester anything longer than 5 years at most. Let him be an albatross contract for some other team in 3 years.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 5:12 pm
by bluerap23
James Shields is the more realistic option. 5 years 100 million?
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 5:23 pm
by dballislife
if we ever make it to post season...or whos gonna be that guy that pitches the wild card game...whos gonna match up against other playoff teams ace, whos gonna have to give us those 2 huge starts in a series.....this team has needed a legit ace since the doc, now that 3 are available and we going for it with all these recent moves, we gotta finish the job...lester would be so huge for us all season and in playoffs, if theres ever time or player to break the rule its gotta be lester
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 5:32 pm
by Fairview4Life
dballislife wrote:if we ever make it to post season...or whos gonna be that guy that pitches the wild card game...whos gonna match up against other playoff teams ace, whos gonna have to give us those 2 huge starts in a series.....this team has needed a legit ace since the doc, now that 3 are available and we going for it with all these recent moves, we gotta finish the job...lester would be so huge for us all season and in playoffs, if theres ever time or player to break the rule its gotta be lester
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 6:11 pm
by C Court
I have no problem with the Jays five year policy. Across all pro sports, almost none of these mega-contracts for aging stars ever pays off.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 6:31 pm
by Santoki
Is 6/150 considered a mega-contract in baseball?
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 6:38 pm
by Mehar
bluerap23 wrote:James Shields is the more realistic option. 5 years 100 million?
Absolutely. Actually from what i read last week- Shields wants a 5 year deal at around 80-85 M at the minimum. I said this a couple of times now- but that is the guy i would target. Lester is not coming to Toronto. No point in even discussing about it. The 5 year limit for the Jays is one of the reasons.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 7:22 pm
by tecumseh18
I said last week on the off-season thread that I was coming to agree with the policy. Seeing the decline of Verlander cemented it for me.
The Royals this season may have had a horseshoe up their collective butts, but they didn't have make such dramatic overpay for a pitcher to get to the Series. Nor should we.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 7:39 pm
by MikeM
Does anyone really think Shields is an ace on this team. Maybe for 5/80M but even that is a stretch for me.
His K/9 is falling off a cliff and the last couple years he was saved by KC's defense + park. His HR/FB% dropped a good bit when he moved from TB to KC.
And if it was 13% in TB and he had better stuff then, what's it going to be in the Rogers Centre? He's a 3.50 ERA pitcher in a time where teams can have 3 guys better than that in their rotation quite easily.
Personally I prefer McCarthy at 60% of the cost of Shields but the guy comes with the necessary GB rate to play in this park and we'd still have tons of room left to fix our pen.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 8:12 pm
by Mehar
MikeM wrote:Does anyone really think Shields is an ace on this team. Maybe for 5/80M but even that is a stretch for me.
His K/9 is falling off a cliff and the last couple years he was saved by KC's defense + park. His HR/FB% dropped a good bit when he moved from TB to KC.
And if it was 13% in TB and he had better stuff then, what's it going to be in the Rogers Centre? He's a 3.50 ERA pitcher in a time where teams can have 3 guys better than that in their rotation quite easily.
Personally I prefer McCarthy at 60% of the cost of Shields but the guy comes with the necessary GB rate to play in this park and we'd still have tons of room left to fix our pen.
Mccarthy wants around 12-13 M a year for 4 years as a starting point, but with Shields- you know what you are going to get. The guy has pitched 200 innings the past 9 seasons, while Mccarthy has been inconsistent the past several years, and has had injury issues. However- if he can be had for the right price, i would consider him.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 10:37 pm
by CPT
tecumseh18 wrote:I said last week on the off-season thread that I was coming to agree with the policy. Seeing the decline of Verlander cemented it for me.
The Royals this season may have had a horseshoe up their collective butts, but they didn't have make such dramatic overpay for a pitcher to get to the Series. Nor should we.
KC had Shields himself, and gave up Will Myers to get him.
He's getting older, but something like that 5 yr/85 million figure that is going around seems like a deal we should make.
I'd also be in favour of throwing a bunch of cash at Scherzer, or to a lesser extent, Lester.
If we don't, we'll have lots of time to count our money in October.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Thu Dec 4, 2014 11:37 pm
by Schad
Centre Court wrote:I have no problem with the Jays five year policy. Across all pro sports, almost none of these mega-contracts for aging stars ever pays off.
Bingo. It's also much more pronounced in baseball, because there are no restrictions on their salary...free agent megadeals (not extensions, mind, which are often beneficial, or international signings) are near-universally bad deals. You're getting players in the late 20s/early 30s and paying prime rates for their decline years; best case is generally they play out half the contract above par before it all goes to hell, though as Prince Fielder is so amply demonstrating, you frequently don't even get that.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Fri Dec 5, 2014 3:07 am
by tecumseh18
CPT wrote:tecumseh18 wrote:I said last week on the off-season thread that I was coming to agree with the policy. Seeing the decline of Verlander cemented it for me.
The Royals this season may have had a horseshoe up their collective butts, but they didn't have make such dramatic overpay for a pitcher to get to the Series. Nor should we.
KC had Shields himself, and gave up Will Myers to get him.
He's getting older, but something like that 5 yr/85 million figure that is going around seems like a deal we should make.
I'd also be in favour of throwing a bunch of cash at Scherzer, or to a lesser extent, Lester.
If we don't, we'll have lots of time to count our money in October.
It's hard to compare giving up a prospect to giving a 6 or 7 year deal to an aging SP. But spending 138 mill over 6 years on something other than a single SP would allow a team to acquire and bring along a lot of prospects.
Re: Lester and the archaic no more than 5 year contract?
Posted: Fri Dec 5, 2014 3:22 am
by Kinger95
How much do u wish the Yankees wish A-Rod only got 5 years his last contract.
What about the A's with pujols and Hamilton
I think it's a good theory but if a 6th year is a deal breaker then it's hurting you
I also think that teams that give out deals like the Dodgers,tigers, Marlins (Stanton and Reyes) are stupid for goin to such long terms when it's unnecessary