Life After Lester

The Red Sox not getting Jon Lester was a "debacle" of epic proportions, says The CHB.

Why?

Why is it so critical to bring back a guy who pitched on two teams that finished in last place in the past three years? As the saying goes, "I can lose just as easily without you..."

Why is it so critical to have him?

Answer: It's not. Lester is a terrific pitcher. He also has never won 20 games, he's had exactly one season with an ERA under 3.13, he's never led the league in anything except for K/9 ratio, which he did in 2010 -- four seasons ago. He's basically parlayed the best 143 inning stretch of his career into a world-beating contract. Bully for him, but that's not reason for the Red Sox to go batty. Has The CHB forgotten the lessons of 2011-12?

There is, in fact, a better pitcher available in Max Scherzer. If money is no object, which it isn't according to Shank, then the player the Sox should break the bank for is Mad Max.

Would I have liked it for the Sox to have brought Lester back? Sure. Is it the end of the world? Hell no.

Back to the hyperventilating of Shank. He complains that John Henry et al weren't available to comment on the "departure of Lester." Excuse me, but Lester departed in July, in a trade for Yoenis Cespedes. Cespedes, in turn, brought Rick Porcello, a player who is five years younger than Lester, and thus entering his prime, and whose overall value (WAR, or wins above replacement) was nearly the same as Lester's last year, and over the past three years has been less than one game less.

Let's remember one more thing. When the Sox failed to re-sign Roger Clemens at the end of the 1996 season, The CHB was highly critical. One year later, the Red Sox landed the reigning NL Cy Young Award winner. And Pedro Martinez was even better than Clemens.

These things have a way of working themselves out. Just don't expect The CHB to admit that.