Lester is More For Billingsley
Jon Lester has signed a 5-year extension with the Red Sox for a total of $30 million, and a club option year for $13 million in 2014. Per Jeff Passan of Yahoo! Sports:
The deal is contingent on Lester passing a physical Tuesday. The impending deal is the largest given to a pitcher with around two years of service time, doubling the four-year, $15 million deal Cleveland’s Fausto Carmona signed at the beginning of last season. If the Red Sox exercise the option, they will have kept Lester off the free-agent market for two years.
The Red Sox have been locking up their young stars this offseason, signing Dustin Pedroia, Kevin Youkilis, and Lester to contracts that bought out at least two years of free agency. This is something the Dodgers need to seriously consider, and soon.
Let's compare Lester with Dodgers' ace Chad Billingsley:
| Pitcher | Age* | Service Time | IP | W-L | HR/9 | BB/9 | K/9 | ERA+ |
| Lester | 25 | 2.072 | 354.2 | 27-8 | 0.79 | 3.55 | 6.65 | 123 |
| Billingsley | 24 | 2.110 | 437.2 | 35-19 | 0.74 | 4.15 | 8.25 | 132 |
*Age is as of June 30, 2009
Billingsley more than holds his own compared to Lester. Billingsley is even comparable to Cole Hamels of the Phillies, who also signed an extension this offseason. However, Hamels' "Super Two" status blurs the comparison somewhat. Jon Lester, in the same service class as Billingsley, is as close a comparable player to Billingsley as you will find.
There are no details of Lester's contract as of yet, but this is clearly a good rubrick for Billingsley's multi-year deal with the Dodgers, whenever that may be. Think about this: if the Dodgers had signed Billingsley to a long-term deal after 2007, he may have received something similar to what Ubaldo Jimenez signed for with the Rockies earlier this offseason. Comparing the two at similar service times:
| Pitcher | Age | Service Time | IP | W-L | HR/9 | BB/9 | K/9 | ERA+ |
| Jimenez | 25 | 1.087 | 288.1 | 16-16 | 0.69 | 4.46 | 7.58 | 115 |
| Billingsley | 23 | 1.110 | 237.0 | 19-9 | 0.84 | 4.63 | 7.59 | 130 |
Jimenez signed with Colorado for 4 years, $10 million, with two club option years that could take him through one year of free agency, and bring the total value of the deal to 6 years, $22.75 million.
Removing the first year of the deal for Jimenez, his final five years of his deal -- his 3rd through 7th year -- could be worth $22 million.
Lester's five-year deal -- also through his 3rd through 7th year -- is worth $30 million. That doesn't even include the $13 million option for 2014, which is sure to be below market value for a top flight starter like Lester, or Billingsley.
Basically, by waiting a year to lock up Billingsley, the market for his services has gone up about 36%. We all know Billingsley is one of the best pitchers in baseball, even if the rest of the world hasn't recognized it yet. It's time for the Dodgers to capitalize on this information gap and sign Billingsley before he gets even more expensive.
The sooner the Dodgers get a long-term deal done with Billingsley, and all of their young talent, the better.
UPDATED 3/8/09 3:42pm -- Ervin Santana's contract signed earlier this offseason is four years, $30 million, and takes him through his first free agent year plus a $13 million option for his second free agent year, just like Lester. Santana has one more year of service time than both Billingsley and Lester, but is still comparable.
| Pitcher | Age | Service Time | IP | W-L | HR/9 | BB/9 | K/9 | ERA+ |
| E.Santana |
26 | 3.104 | 706.2 | 51-37 | 1.11 | 2.83 | 7.39 | 101 |
| Billingsley | 24 | 2.110 | 437.2 | 35-19 | 0.74 | 4.15 | 8.25 | 132 |
Billingsley has a good chance to catch Santana in wins, and will certainly have a better ERA+, albeit in less innings. It seems clear the market for the next five years of a pitcher of Chad Billingsley's caliber is roughly $30 million.
0 recs |
11 comments
|
Comments
I'm guessing no extenisions will get done for the young players this offseason
Maybe because McCourt is worried about upping payroll this year. Unfotunately, things are starting to look more and more worriesome for upcoming years with all of the deferred money and the refusal to extend the young core.
by Brendan Scolari on Mar 8, 2009 1:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Extending Billingsley
wouldn’t really increase payroll for this year anyway.
Chad is already scheduled to make $475,000 this year anyway, which is roughly what he would have made if an extension was signed. Perhaps he would get $500,000, or a signing bonus of $1 million or so, but nothing gets substantially added to the 2009 payroll.
by Eric Stephen on Mar 8, 2009 3:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adding
I still haven’t seen the breakdown of Lester’s contract but it might be something like this:
3rd year – $500k
1st arb yr – $3.5m
2nd arb yr – $5.5m
3rd arb yr – $8.5m
1st FA yr – $11m
2nd FA yr – $13m option ($1m buyout) — this amount has been reported, but I assumed the buyout
If Billingsley goes to arbitration next year, he’s almost certain to make more than $3.5m, and probably more than $4m, so this would save the Dodgers money in the short and long term. The risk of course is if Billingsley got hurt, but last time I checked Will Carroll wasn’t on the Dodgers’ payroll.
by Eric Stephen on Mar 8, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree with you
That’s just the feeling I get, McCourt is worried about adding more payroll or committing payroll for the future, which is really worriesome. Also, it seems there is a general mistrust of the young players. I doubt Frank and Ned really think Billingsley is an ace. Imagine if we traded Chad right now, do you think Ned would get fair value for him?
by Brendan Scolari on Mar 8, 2009 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At this point I'll be thrilled
if we can get Maritn or Billz extended before the season starts. Have we ever heard anyone within the organization mention it as a priority?
by Brendan Scolari on Mar 8, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The key
is not necessarily money, it is risk aversion. The Dodgers are not a financially sound team comparable to Boston, NY or the Cubs. Locking young talent up is financially sound, but only for teams that can afford the risk. The Dodgers could save themselves $20+ million by signing Bills, Kemp, Martin, Ethier, and even Kershaw through their arbitration years and possibly save another $15+M signing all of those guys through their first couple of years of FA. But that only makes sense if you can afford a total loss. They could also, buy signing those guys early, end up costing themselves $70M+ if disaster strikes and three or more of them end up busts or injuries. The Dodgers are probably right in thinking that they cannot afford the consequences of catastrophic failure, so are taking the safe, but more costly, route of one year at a time with theh young players.
by Paul Scott on Mar 8, 2009 6:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If the Rays can afford to lock up young talent
then the Dodgers surely can.
by Brendan Scolari on Mar 9, 2009 7:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree about risk aversion
But I don’t think the Dodgers are in such dire financial straits that they can’t afford some of this risk. They don’t have the media revenue like the Red Sox and the Yankees, but the Dodgers are still a top 5 revenue club. If clubs like Cleveland and Colorado can lock up some of their young talent, I refuse to believe the Dodgers can’t.
by Eric Stephen on Mar 9, 2009 1:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Dodgers had to give up Santana
to save less than $2M…
by Paul Scott on Mar 9, 2009 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Did they have to?
Or was it a (bad) choice? It seems the Santana error was one of valuation and not necessarily an absolute desperation to not pay $2 million to Casey Blake.
Of course, the valuation mistakes are just as troublesome as the financial ones, but that’s a different issue.
Locking up the young talent will keep the payroll at or below the $100m range at least through 2011, which seems to be the current budget (although with incentives the 2009 payroll could easily hit $110m).
by Eric Stephen on Mar 9, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 













