Edes On Lester, Miller, Kemp, Lackey

The Red Sox are currently weighing offers on Jon Lester and Andrew Miller, a source tells Gordon Edes of ESPNBoston.com. However, as of late last night, there was a less than 50 percent chance that the Sox trade Lester, and the same holds true for Miller based on current talks. Edes’ source did note that he anticipates offers for each lefty will improve as the deadline draws nearer.

Regarding the club’s reported interest in Matt Kemp, Edes does hear that the Sox would consider Kemp, but a lot of money would need to be heading Boston’s way. At this point, talks with the Dodgers haven’t even gotten to the point where names have been swapped. (Weekend reports indicated that a Lester/Kemp framework would be possible if the Dodgers included other pieces.) The Dodgers have told some teams that they’d prefer to hang onto Kemp, but a source insisted to Edes that Kemp is still in play.

The Dodgers do like Miller as well, and reports last night indicated that they’re in on John Lackey also. Those reports indicated that Boston is “getting hit hard” on both Lackey and Lester, and Edes has another team to add to the Lackey mix: the Royals. Kansas City makes plenty of sense for Lackey, given the fact that he has a club option at the league minimum next year (triggered by an injury clause in his contract). That has to hold great appeal for the Royals, who have noted payroll limitations. The remaining $5.25MM on his 2014 salary, however, could be problematic.


Leave a Reply

22 Comments on "Edes On Lester, Miller, Kemp, Lackey"


Karkat
1 year 1 month ago

Gotta figure that if Jon Lester pitches again for the Sox this season, it’ll be on Friday, and definitely not on schedule tomorrow.

Just occurred to me that I might end up having been present for Lester’s last home start in Boston (last Sunday, vs. Royals). Weird.

Jay Gaughan
1 year 1 month ago

Lackey will probably retire before he pitches for the league minimum.

Rally Weimaraner
1 year 1 month ago

I really dont know where people keep getting this idea from. Lackey has never indicated that is even an option he is considering.

redsox4434
1 year 1 month ago

Rosenthal reported it last month.

Bertin Lefkovic
1 year 1 month ago

Kemp and $57MM for Lester and a 72hr negotiating window (if the Dodgers are unable to extend Lester, the cash portion of the deal is reduced to $32MM) should be enough to get a deal done. The Red Sox clearly don’t want to pay Lester what he is worth (6/$150MM), so the next best thing for them is to send him someplace where they would only have to face him during interleague play or the World Series. If he becomes a free agent, there is too high a possibility that the Yankees sign him for them to take that kind of risk. This deal seems like a no-brainer to me.

Karkat
1 year 1 month ago

Try being a little realistic. If there’s a negotiating window then this is no longer a rental situation, it’s trading an ace, which means multiple top prospects. Not a one-for-one trade for declining OF Kemp.

BlueSkyLA
BlueSkyLA
1 year 1 month ago

That scenario isn’t more realistic, it is less realistic. In fact any trade that involves dealing Kemp, let alone with paying most of his salary, makes no sense for the Dodgers.

Karkat
1 year 1 month ago

If the Sox were going to give the Dodgers Lester with the promise of multiple years, Kemp would be an abysmal return. He’s not even a good return for Lester as a rental. That was my point.

BlueSkyLA
BlueSkyLA
1 year 1 month ago

I see it just the opposite way, apparently. First off, the Sox cannot force Lester to negotiate an extension with another team, he has little incentive to do so, and it would be poor management indeed if the Dodgers gave up anything significant in the hope that they could. Especially since it seems like Lester is almost certain to become a free agent after the season, giving the Dodgers as good a shot at signing him as any team, assuming they are interested. Go ahead, keep thinking Kemp (plus most of his salary) is a terrible return for two months of Lester. He happens to be the most productive outfielder the Dodgers have right now, and he looks more like his old self every day, which is pretty much what you’d expect for someone coming back from two serious injuries. If the Sox have no use for him, that’s fine, but the Dodgers do.

Karkat
1 year 1 month ago

Just to be clear, in the “extension window” scenario, typically the completion of the trade is contingent on an extension being agreed upon (see: Halladay trade). This isn’t actually a thing that could happen at this point, but in that theoretical situation the Dodgers would be trading if and only if they came to agreeable terms with Lester.

BlueSkyLA
BlueSkyLA
1 year 1 month ago

I know, but what I am saying is, even if enough time remained, it still doesn’t make any sense. The player has to be completely on-board beforehand or it’s a waste of time and effort.

Bertin Lefkovic
1 year 1 month ago

That might be how negotiating windows normally work, but there is no reason that there cannot be a different kind of contingency if the Dodgers are unable to extend Lester. Kemp plus $57MM if Lester is extended and Kemp plus $32MM if he isn’t seems to make sense to me.

Considering how unlikely it seems to be that the Red Sox are going to pay Lester what he is worth (6/$150), making a trade that leads to him being locked-up long-term with the Dodgers seems to be a next best thing from their perspective. I also think that Kemp would be an offensive monster in Fenway and much better than Manny Ramirez was in left field.

As a Yankees fan, I hope that the Red Sox don’t trade Lester for Kemp, because if they keep him for the rest of the season, it increases the chances that the Yankees can get Lester through free agency and I would prefer to not have to play against Kemp in Fenway.

Matt_P102
1 year 1 month ago

A negotiating window doesn’t have that much value because the acquiring team has to pay full price. There won’t be a negotiating window in any event because the trade deadline is coming up soon.

Karkat
1 year 1 month ago

It does in terms of years, because it’s far more palatable to give up propsects if you know for certain that you’re keeping the piece you’re getting back is going to be with you for multiple seasons.

Though, as you say, this point is moot now.

Bertin Lefkovic
1 year 1 month ago

They could have a shorter negotiating window. 24 hours would probably be sufficient. Who is Lester’s agent? He should just come out and say that any team who trades for him and wants to extend him should be prepared to pay $150MM over the next six years. Since he wouldn’t have control over where he is traded, he could demand even more than that; maybe an additional $12-15MM.

Mark Kelevara
1 year 1 month ago

If we pick up Lackey from the Red Sox, I’m assuming Ned is hoping that he turns out as well as Ricky Nolasco did for us last season. I’m more open to picking up Lackey than to pick up Lester and/or Miller (or combination of both) and give up our top prospects. It’s more exciting when you have homegrown players like Kershaw and Kemp. More attachment to them, in my opinion.

Ed Duffy
1 year 1 month ago

Lackey’s contract next year is at the league minimum. They just got the Giants #2 prospect and another decent relief prospect for Peavy who is a rental.
Lackey will not come cheap.

Mark Kelevara
1 year 1 month ago

Yes, but he will definitely not come with as big a price tag (prospect wise) as Lester. If Ned is going to make a deal for one I’d rather he go for Lackey, since we would hold on to more top prospects. I highly doubt we would give up Urias, Seager & Pederson or even a combination of the two in a Lackey deal, where in a Lester deal a combination of any two is a great possibility.

Ed Duffy
1 year 1 month ago

I think you are missing the fact that Lester is a rental and would cost a small fortune to sign, where Lackey although not a number 1, is a top end starter, especially in the NL and in that park and will make league minimum next season. In that park you can pencil in 200 innings for Lackey next season. They may only have to give up one of the top three but there will be a lot more added to get him, if the Dodgers have it. The Red Sox cannot let Lackey go with that salary (next year) if they are in the mind that they won’t be able to sign Lester, and right now it looks that way.

Mark Kelevara
1 year 1 month ago

You said it yourself. They may only have to give ONE of the top three prospects for Lackey. My hope is to keep those three, since they have the best shot at becoming more than average MLB players. I’ll be ok with giving up a Zach Lee or Matt Magill. I understand your point though, Lackey still has value, no doubt, especially due to the reasons you stated above but again I would prefer him over Lester for the reasons I stated.

sherrilltradedooverexperience
1 year 1 month ago

the giant’s second best prospect isn’t even in the top 100 prospects in the game. Giant’s #2 prospect does not come close to value = 18, 19, 20 best prospects in baseball that the dodgers have. Lackey is barely pitching above water (era+ is 108). Peavy was below league average when he was traded (era+ of 83). Lackey doesn’t suck as hard as Peavy, but he’s no #1, 2, or 3 starter. Wherever he ends up, he’ll only pitch postseason if someone gets hurt.

I think I agree that Lackey will not come cheap. I’d add that he won’t net a top 50 prospect and will be quite fortunate to receive a prospect within the top 100

Ed Duffy
1 year 1 month ago

Lackey’s contract next year is at the league minimum. They just got the Giants #2 prospect and another decent relief prospect for Peavy who is a rental.
Lackey will not come cheap.