By all indications, the Red Sox will have John Lackey serving as their No. 3 starter this upcoming season. The right-hander inked a five-year, $85 million deal which is exactly market value for his services.
Lackey is a solid signing for the Red Sox, as long as they don’t attempt to stretch him into an ace. The 31-year old is in the mold of Josh Beckett, Dustin Pedroia and Kevin Youkilis: hard-nosed, fiery people who want to be out there every day kicking butt and taking names.
Before two consecutive years with injury troubles, Lackey was surprisingly durable. In the five seasons spanning 2003-2007, Lackey finished with over 200 innings pitched four times, with the fifth just under at 198.2 innings. His 3.01 ERA in 2007 led the American League, and for the past three seasons has displayed exceptional command. Back in 2006 and 2007, Lackey was a bit jittery with command, but also displayed a strikeout rate of 8.6 and 7.9 whiffs per nine innings, respectively. Those two seasons were also the first where Lackey was sitting at 91-92 as opposed to 90-91. From 2007-2008, Lackey fell back down to his more traditional 90-91 range and saw his BB/9 decline from 3.0 (2006) to 2.1 (2007).
Lackey dialed the fastball velocity back up in 2009 back to 91-92 mph, and was able to corral it this time. Unfortunately, while his walk rate remained constant, his strikeouts dipped to 7.1, his lowest mark since 2004, the year before he vaulted himself into top pitcher status.
Looking deeper into his decreased strikeout rate, we learn from David Golebiewski that batters have gotten a far better handle on Lackey’s stuff. The contact rate of balls pitched into the strike zone has risen for five straight years, and has been over the MLB average for four straight years.
As Golebiewski notes, however, Lackey is fantastic at nabbing the first-pitch strike and is particularly adept at getting batters to swing at pitches out of the strike zone.
Another concern I have with Lackey is his injury history. We talked about his remarkable durability earlier, but that streak ended in 2008 when he landed on the disabled list to open the season with a right triceps strain. (A red flag popped up in mid-2006 when he was day-to-day with right shoulder stiffness.) A year later, he was right back to the disabled list, this time with right elbow triceps inflammation.
In the 2010 Hardball Times Annual, Corey Dawkins speaks of injuries and how to see warning flags. Well, I’m here to tell you that given his article, I’m seeing major red flags in Lackey’s recent injury history that could lead to either Tommy John surgery or a labrum tear. Fortunately, loss of command is the first indication of a severe injury looming and Lackey doesn’t have that. Keep an eye on his walk totals in 2010, though. If they’re poor or not characteristic of Lackey, a visit to Dr. James Andrews may not be far off. (Interestingly enough, A.J. Burnett, who is a great comparison to Lackey in terms of talent and contract, was named by Dawkins as a major candidate for an extended DL stint next year.)
(Troy Patterson spoke to Dawkins and relayed Dawkins’ opinion on the recent Fireside Chats, essentially saying that he feels Beckett is at far more risk for a significant injury than Lackey.)
I’m not paying much attention to the struggles Lackey has had in Fenway Park, really. For his career, he has a 5.25 ERA against Boston, with a 5.75 ERA in Fenway. Given that the Red Sox offense has been built to Fenway in recent years, plus the fact that Fenway is more of a hitter’s park than Angel Stadium, the 0.50 ERA difference isn’t worrisome. Plus, he has shown the ability to dominate Boston: he went into the ninth inning on July 29, 2008 with a no-hitter against the club as well as several other gems to his name.
The five years is more a point of contention. Boston has always been steadfast in its refusal to commit extended years to a pitcher. This is Theo Epstein’s first five-year commitment to a free agent pitcher. Jon Lester was his first five-year pitcher, but of course, Lester is six years younger with three arbitration years factored into the contract — so really, only two free agent years were bought out.
That five-year commitment to Lackey scares me, especially when the final year will be when Lackey is 35 years old. Coupled with his injury red flags and contact numbers, and I can’t really figure out what Boston saw in Lackey. Does he have a good chance of repeating his 2009 numbers over the next five years? Yes. But there is an equal chance of something going horribly awry. It doesn’t seem characteristic of Theo to commit this risk to a pitcher. To a position player, sure. But he’s been very good on the pitching ledger, so he’s stuck his neck out a bit with this pact.
Moving away from looking strictly at Lackey, he also impacts the potential future of the club in multiple ways. Let’s take a brief spin through the scenarios.
Josh Beckett: This signing means that there’s zero chance Beckett accepts any less than five years in an extension with Boston. Lackey certainly has to be considered the worse pitcher than Beckett. If Boston is truly serious about extending Beckett, they better realize the impact this deal has on their Beckett prospects. Beckett may be more interested in playing the year out and hitting the market, chasing a six-year deal but I wouldn’t rule out a five-year, $95 million extension. Either way, any shot Boston had of keeping Beckett’s deal under five years is kaput.
Clay Buchholz/Tim Wakefield: Where does Wakefield fit in all this? He has to be considered the odd man out of the rotation at the moment. If Boston stands pat with pitching, Wakefield would become the long man and spot starter. Wakefield would provide excellent value with that, so I’m not discounting this scenario. Then there’s Buchholz. Is there any logical reason to force him out of the rotation? Nope. He’s in the rotation if he stays. Could Boston gut through one year of Wakefield in the bullpen, using Buchholz as Beckett’s eventual replacement? Sure. After all, Lackey doesn’t push anyone (Wakefield) of tremendous value out of the rotation. It’s an upgrade to the team even if you stand pat.
Don’t forget, though, that Boston has tremendous depth behind Buchholz/Wakefield. You’ve got Boof Bonser, Junichi Tazawa, Michael Bowden and a host of other candidates. To be sure, those aren’t names you clear space for. But we’re talking No. 7, 8 and 9 starters here. That’s a great amount of depth, and while it could technically be hung onto, I have to think there’s a second domino falling. And you all know the name I’m about to bring up.
Felix Hernandez: Ha! Faked you out. Adrian Gonzalez is actually next on the list, but let’s tackle Felix first. For the Red Sox to pull off a blockbuster trade, Clay Buchholz was always going to have to be included in the deal. It’s not a leap of logic, then, to wonder if something is brewing in this end. Seattle is about to acquire Cliff Lee from the Philadelphia Phillies in a three-team deal that will net Philadelphia Roy Halladay. I have nothing concrete to base this on, but it’s tremendously risky for Seattle to put all their eggs in one basket with Lee and Felix Hernandez both seeking $20 million annual deals. I would not be surprised at all if Seattle sent Felix to Boston for a deal structured around Buchholz, Jed Lowrie and others.
Adrian Gonzalez: The more likely outcome is Adrian Gonzalez coming to Boston. There has been smoke around A-Gon for eons now, and while I completely subscribe to the notion that Hoyer is likely to let 2010 play out with Adrian on the team due to a needed evaluation plus Gonzalez’s club-friendly contract, the flip side is this: Adrian is a hot commodity now. Will he be as hot next year? He’ll be one year closer from free agency with a strong free agent class to contend with… plus additional bats available on the trade market. Prince Fielder is a possibility, for example. Right now, the signal-to-noise ratio is heavily in favor of Gonzalez. Next year, that changes.
Others: There might also be dominos that we don’t know about. Epstein may be about to strike for a different first-baseman or even third-baseman. Heck, Epstein may elect to sign Adrian Beltre and call it a day, hoarding Buchholz and slipping Wakefield in the bullpen. Let’s all not pretend we know what Theo’s thinking. All we can do is debate the various scenarios and see which one Epstein chose. I love Clay Buchholz, but I think he has to go. I don’t like this team’s offensive potential at all. Looking at this team next year, there is not one player that I can consider a verified power threat. Youkilis never struck me as someone who can keep up his power output long-term, while David Ortiz’s power is strictly best-case scenario. If things don’t break our way, we could approach 2009 Mets-level futility when it comes to power. Is Theo prepared for that?
The flip side is that our pitching and defense should be at elite levels next year. Could we get by with a relatively punchless offense? Yeah, we could, but it’ll be tough. If you told me today that Youkilis would repeat his 2008-2009 output and David Ortiz would crank 30 home runs with a .250 average, I’d go home happy. That’s a hell of a lot to assume, though. Just like it’s a lot to assume that Adrian Beltre can rebound to 2007 levels, assuming we sign him. Plus, as much of a fan of Cameron as I am, it’s a lot to assume his usual .270/20/70 from him.
I’m trending towards pessimism when I evaluate this offense, and I admit that. I’m just not overwhelmed… or just plain whelmed by this offense, even including Beltre. The offense has the potential to be “solid,” and that should be more than fine over the next two years given our pitching and defense. After two years, though? Not pretty.
To tie everything in a nice little bow, I’m not a fan of the Lackey signing. I am, of course, excited to see what he can do in Boston and will root for him. Strictly from an analytical perspective here, I do not understand the deal. It flies in the face of everything Theo seems to value: Not marrying himself to a pitcher long-term — especially one that is entering his age-31 year, and one with red flags all over the plate statistically and physically.
It’s for this very reason that I think something else is on the ledger involving Clay Buchholz. At that point, the Lackey deal makes more sense, as Lackey then becomes that much more important to the success of the rotation.
Loading ...
Can anyone post a featured article here, or just those with no sense of reality?
Felix Hernandez for Jed Lowerie, Clay Buckholtz and a few also-rans?
Makes no sense at all Felix Hernandez isnt anywhere near free Agency, they have absolutely no reason to trade him if they want to be in contention, The Mariners apparently signaled and assume they can contend in the al west, as evidenced by the trade for Lee,and signing of Figgins. Infact id argue seattle trading away that many prospects signals they want to win NOW.
anyhow, Incase someone might read this, heres something to consider for the Sox
Option a
Adrian Gonzalez for Buckholtz,Westmoreland,Kelly or Tezawa.
Youk to 3b, Cameron/Hermida Platoon in left
Option B
sign 3b Beltre nothing else is done. sox overpay for Beltre in much the same way we did for lackey.
(no way worth roughly 17 mil a year)
Option C
Move Youk to 3b Victor Martinez to 1b and platoons Jd Drew to 1b on occasion allowing the sox to play varitek more, and Hermida to the corners.
I… never said the rest of the deal would be also-rans.
Can anyone post a comment here, or just those with no sense of reality?
Jed Lowrie IS an also-ran.
Please take Firebrand seriously, get the names spelled properly.
Lackey is a better baseball player than Bay. Lackey has less flaws than Bay.
At this point, the AL West should be concerned that between the pitching staff and that stellar defense that the Mariners have enough in the "Run Prevention" department to make a run at a playoff spot. I think the Lee trade effectively removed Felix from the market(not that I believed he was going anywhere anyway)
I think the Cameron signing opens the door to add Ellsbury into trade rumors. Why acquire a centerfielder on the market to simply plug him in left field? My guess is that if the Sox truly believed Ellsbury was the long term solution for CF for the next 4+ years, the Holliday signing would have made more sense, or they'd be more apt to move Westmoreland (unless they think he projects to RF, which he might).
This now enables them to trade for a bat using Ellsbury instead of Clay. Keeping that rotation intact could be huge.
I think you raise a good point. A lot of people–including the writer of this article–seem to think that the Lee acquisition frees up Felix. I think it's the opposite; with the Mariners in position compete in the West, no way do they trade away half of their right-left ace combo.
Seattle doesn't have to move the King now, and when they added Figgins, and Cliff Lee, I think they are primed for a run. Will they eventually trade him? Maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if they go high price, short term just to please him for now (like 3/65), and then move him in his late 20s. Who knows. Z is an excellent GM, so I don't doubt he has a short and long term plan.
That team really just lacked one elite 900 OPS bat and another starter. If they sign a DH that won't turn into Richie Sexson, I think the West goes to Seattle.
I'm getting annoyed. I never said that the Lee acquisition would free up Felix. I even said that "I have nothing concrete to base this on."
You may be annoyed but you did say that "I would not be surprised at all if Seattle sent Felix to Boston for a deal structured around Buchholz, Jed Lowrie and others."
These posters are simply saying that they would be surprised.
I wouldn't be, but it doesn't "free up Felix." There's a difference between not being surprised and expecting it to happen.
The difference is…50% vs. 51%? To me a surprise if I rated a move as 49% likely or less and it ended up happening. I'm expecting it to happen if I rate it as at least 51% likely. I guess if I'm neutral I'd rate it at 50%. So to me (and I realize that not everyone is so quantitative) people are almost always either surprised or expecting something to happen, although there are many shades of surprise and expectation, i.e. Red Sox trading Buchholz for Teixeira would be really surprising while trading for Felix would be surprising but less so.
So I guess I just don't know what you mean when you say that "There's a difference between not being surprised and expecting it to happen," although I understand that my point of view may be out of the mainstream.
No, I am certainly not as quantitative as you.
I'm not sure if I can explain it, but I will try. If I said to you that I expect Felix to be traded now that they've acquired Lee, that is wishful thinking. The fact remains that it is extremely unlikely Felix departs Seattle anytime before he himself has the choice to do so.
But there is a smidgen — just a smidgen — of a possibility that this could portend a trade of Hernandez, so I mentioned it. And to me, a smidgen is enough to not surprise me.
So I suppose if I was to quantify this exact situation, I would say…
95% probability Hernandez is not traded. That 5 percent is enough for it to not be surprising. Also, we know for a fact that Felix to Boston was discussed at the trading deadline, which does influence this. History helps dictate being surprised. I'd be less surprised, for example, with a Felix to Boston trade than I would with a Felix to Yankees.
That certainly makes your position more clear. It seems like you might be defining a surprise as "that which happens which I hadn't thought of." To me a surprise is something happening in a way quite different from the way that I had anticipated that it would happen. So if I think there's a 5% chance of Felix being traded to Boston and he does get traded then I am surprised, even though I had thought about the possibility before it happened.
Based on the other comments I think that there were others who took your "I wouldn't be surprised…" comment to mean something much greater than a 5% chance when, if that is your approximate guess for the likelihood of the trade, those commentors probably agree with you pretty closely about the chances of King Felix gracing the Fenway mound on a regular basis.
Thank you for helping me understand this. I'll be more judicious of my phrasing later on to ensure what I mean to say is accurate. I always say "not surprised" among events that cross my mind with a shred of credibility — but that doesn't seem to be the popular notion. Thanks.
I'm glad someone else is scratching their head about this deal Evan… most of RSN seems very excited just to see Theo do "something."
They gave Lackey too many years and too much money and it's going to impact the future negatively in all the ways you mentioned above.
Bottom Line: After preaching about the future, the Sox look balanced at the moment, but if they trade Buchholz, etc for a bat… they will be good for two years and then they will be old and expensive going fwd.
I look at them overpaying a little per year and one extra year here in the same vein that they did with JD Drew. We ask the Red Sox to throw their payroll rate around often, and when they do…I don't think we should be critical of the efficiency of those dollars.
*you could easily argue that the same thought (more years/more dollars) would have landed them Teixeira last offseason and of that criticism, I wholeheartedly agree.
I look at this signing as one that allows them to overpay for consistent predictable production that allows them tremendous flexibility in roster construction over the next few years.
In one impact move we've held on to all of our prospects, hedged against Josh Beckett's expiring contract, kept the fire burning for any potential trade target on the market.
The addition of Cameron also brings flexibility. Suddenly Ellsbury is a "chip" that can be used if needed in lieu of others (Buchholz/Kelly/Westmoreland) should they want to go that route.
On its own merit, overpaid in years and dollars. But I view those dollars as an investment in future roster flexibility that giving that same money to Jason Bay would not have allowed.
Lackey's injury history don't suggest a major injury is looming in my eyes at all. Lackey had had problems with his triceps where it attaches to the bone in the back of the elbow which at worst, suggests he may have bone spurs but that is a relatively quick and easy fix with no long term problems. He has not had problems in the inside part of his elbow near where the Tommy John Ligament is nor has he had any injuries to his biceps. He has suffered from a two bouts of shoulder stiffness that I've seen referenced to in the past but the last one was in 2007 in which he didn't miss a start. Command is generally the first thing to go with elbow injuries and velocity is the first the usually go with shoulder injuries. Neither of the things occurred with lackey over the last couple of years where his command and his velocity have actually been improving over the last 3 years. So nothing I see in this profile makes me worried about a Tommy John or Labrum surgery candidate.
Beckett on the other hand does have issues which I worry about. He's mainly got over his blister issues from before but now other things pop up. Last year he suffered from back spasms, neck spasms, general groin soreness and of course the neuritis while this year he stayed relatively healthy in terms of not missing time. The back spasms and neck spasms could be a protective mechanism from a herniated or bulging disc or at the very least the spasms could be the result of a severe muscular imbalance. The muscles of the core work to maintain stability at all costs and when they can't they strain or go into spasms.
The ulnar neuritis though is what really worries me. Ulnar Neuritis is a relatively benign issue in isolation but combined with other factors I'm beginning to worry. From my experience, Ulnar neuritis in throwers is from instability of the elbow leading to a compressive force on the nerve while it's being stretched. As I said, instability in the elbow usually leads to a loss of command which he exhibited over the end of last year and the beginning of this year. He had a stretch of about 6-7 starts where his command improved but then his command started to suffer again. His velocity decreased over the time of the year which is another concern.
So from where I stand Lackey is a much much safer bet to stay healthy than Beckett is and I don't see anything that could cause Lackey to miss entire years in his injury profile.
Expertise in the comment section?! What a refreshing surprise. Frankly, Corey, that four paragraph comment made me feel better about the Lackey signing than any of the dozen other pieces I've read.
Thanks for the comment, Corey! Appreciate it.
Josh will ask for, and deserve, a deal somewhere better than John Lackey. I can't see the Sox going for this without a complete medical workup, including current scans and other hard data, with readings and opinions from the top medical staff from a variety of disciplines in Boston & elsewhere. No diagnostic procedure is perfect, but today's remarkable imaging tools and tests can eliminate the possibility of such things occuring; and if such issues are discovered, we can be certain that all the risks of damage, repair and recovery are all worked out before that contract is signed.
If Theo extends Josh, and I hope he does, IMO it will be with full awareness of potential problems, and full confidence these problems won't jeapordize his performance long term. That's about all they can do.
And by last year in reference to Beckett I meant 2008 obviously.
It seems a bit ridiculous to throw around an '09 Mets comparison when talking about the Red Sox offense going forward. The only guys who probably won't break 12 HR next year (the team high for the Mets in '09) are Ellsbury and Scutaro. The Mets wOBA last year was .321 while Boston's was .352 and even if we're losing about fifty points of individual wOBA by replacing Bay with Cameron we're gaining about the same by upgrading the SS position, assuming Scutaro regresses to around a .340 or so wOBA. Something would have to go historically wrong, just like it did for the Mets this year, for the Red Sox to come close to being as bad as the Mets were. It's always nice to have a Manny/Ortiz in their primes type middle of the lineup but that's just not the only way to score lots and lots of runs, which is what the Red Sox are going to do next year.
"but that's just not the only way to score lots and lots of runs, which is what the Red Sox are going to do next year"
The 2005 White Sox World Series winning team would agree with you there!
And even if these are the only changes being made(Beltre is most likely still in play), the amount of runs
being saved defensively and via the pitching staff is extremely significant.
We will have a better offense than the Mets did in 2009, I was just being hyperbolic.
And with a full year of Victor and Papi, Cameron & Scutaro, Lowrie, Hermida, Kotchman, plus Beltre/Atkins or Johnson, and a back up role by Tek (who, rested and motivated, could maintain his first half SLG #'s past the ASB) the Sox have more than offset the loss of loss of Bay's exceptional season, scoring at least the same # of runs as last season. It's also significant, IMO, the increase in # of doubles & triples from the wall and gap with this lineup that, with the enhanced speed of this team, will generate surprising run production. Complaints last year included boring. This will not be a boring team by any stretch.
Shying away from a player just because he wants one more year than you would give him in a perfect world doesnt make too much sense to me….the market isnt a perfectly efficient place and if you want to obtain good players, you need to stretch a contract or two sometimes…and as we all know, good players help you win
It seems clear that the Sox dont really want Bay for any more than 3 years, and that's why they wont offer him 5. They'd stretch it to 4 if they had to, but 5 is two years too much for them…it's obvious they dont like his defense or his ability to age well
Do you really think in a perfect world they would have given Drew 5 years or Lackey 5 years? Do you think they really wanted to give Cameron 2 years? Probably not. The thing is, eating the last year of a contract isnt the worst thing in the world (see Lugo, Lowell).
the point of this post is…let's not complain too much about Lackey getting 5 years. He's a pretty safe bet to be very good for at least 3-4 years, and for that kind of security in the rotation you need to pay, in dollars and years
I'm not a stat cruncher, but could someone that is try and figure out the difference in wins if we stand pat with what we have now V replacing Buccholz in the rotation and having Gonzo and Youk at 1st and third? I dont even know if thats possible actually but I see the wins added stat a lot, and I'd be interested to see how it works out.
As cool as having our worst SP be a number 2/3 on most teams would be a line up going: Els, Pedey, V-mart, Gonzo, Youk, Ortiz, Drew, Cameron, Scoots sounds pretty freaking amazing. I cant imagine that Lackey would have been signed if we didnt have the framework of a deal for a big bat lined up with Bucc as a huge part of it.
Mike,
I know Troy is working on something like this at the moment with the current configuration and some other possible ones. Give it a couple days and you should get your wish in proper detail :)
I do agree with you, I think Lackey could be an indicator a trade could happen. I do think now the acquisition of Cameron means Ellsbury could possibly be used in place of Clay in a trade.
If anything, Theo just made himself a whole slew of options without making a 8/126 offer to Holliday like the Cards did (yikes).
I agree with almost everything you say in this article, except for your skepticism about Youkilis. I think he has the potential to be a 30 HR guy consistently.
I have to agree Daern, about this great article, and about Youk. Every single year of Youk, the sentiment is that he started too late, and just had his breakout year. Sure he'll regress evenually, but I don't think quite yet. His goal, I am certain, is for long term offensive and defensive production, including being a 300/30/100/100/1.000 force for a couple of seasons and another GG, maybe an MVP. 2009 he was .305/27/99/99/.961, so he's close and he is definitely in his prime.
If only he could settle into 1b (Beltre) or 3b (Agon/Johnson/Kotchman), he would reach those goals sooner. His regression, then, would be gradual and he would remain a force deep into his 30's. When he was labelled the fat Greek god of walks. When he kept getting sent up and down like a yo yo. When he carried the team on his back, yet Papi said he needed protection behind him. When media remain convinced he is lucky to have performed so well, and he has reached his peak. These sting a bit, and he's a feisty guy with something to prove. IMO, expect another great year from Youk. Captain Youk? Co-Captains Youk & Pedey?
Like Tim emphasized, " we held on to all our prospects" and maintained roster flexibility.
This outfield, of Cameron, Ellsbury, Drew and Hermida with Reddick and Kalish ready in AAA, will run down some balls. Now we need help with the depth at third base. With Mike Lowell traded or on the DL, which tack will the front office take to give the best chance to get to the playoffs ….after Youk, and Lowrie (who will be at AAA for the first half of the year) we have no one ready in the minors.
Adding Tug Hulett to the depth at third doesn't let me sleep any better.
I'm guessing Jed, if healthy, will come on strong in ST and make the team, and it is more likely that Tug spend the first half in Pawtucket, coming up if, God forbid, Jed isn't fully healed. However, if the TX deal falls through, expect Mike and Mike's bat to backup 3b & Papi, which would be a good thing.
I have to say, like most of the Firebrand community I was a little upset when I found out that Heyman was actually right about the 5th year being guaranteed. I really didn't think Theo would prostitute a long-held organizational creed for a player who I have always liked, but has failed to show that he actually deserves it.
That being said I am not terribly upset with the Lackey deal. I have the feeling that Lackey and Beckett are going to become very good friends and Beckett will accept an extension that effectively mirrors Lackey's contract. (Maybe $1 mil more per season).
There is no way that Theo made this signing without having something else seriously cooking. I am going to say it now, and I am glad to say it, Clay Buchholz will not be a hub-hurler on opening day. I have never liked Clay "Laptop" Buchholz and needed to get it off my chest. To me he is the next generation Jon Garland (Who has a better attitude than Buch).
Theo has something cooking and IMO in typical Red Sox fashion, it will happen fast (when it does happen) and surprise everyone. I wouldn't rule out Prince Fielder talks (if only to bring Jed Hoyer back to earth on A-Gon).
So bring the noise on me for hating Buch, I know its inevitable. Sean-O you with me on this one?
The Angels current offering to John Lackey was 5/70, and willing to negotiate to keep him. By Theo doing the swooping this year, he prevented the Angels from negotiating higher (5/82 next offer?) and quickly sealed the deal. This kept him away from arch-competitors Yankees & Angels and strengthened our rotation. I'll bet he heard something through the grapevine that Halladay was going to the NL, and that Holliday was getting a solid offer from the Cards. That makes signing Cameron at 2/$15 & Lackey at 5/$85, on the same day, somewhat of a coup. BTW, add Scutaro & Hermida and Theo has significantly strengthened the rotation, OF & IF with 4 players at a bit over $100M, 3 on short term contracts that block no one. Since that is less than the asking price just for Matt Holliday, he did pretty good alright.
And Harold, time will tell about Clay. I look forward to him staying in this amazing rotation, and would be very, very, very happy with Beltre or Johnson or Kotchman behind this kind of incredible pitching. However, in the NLWest, at Petco, he would be overwhelming, and compete with Lincecum for the Cy Young. I wouldn't begrudge him a fresh start away from the incredibly judgemental Boston media and fan base.
I'm hoping that Buch and Ellsbury + prospects can be swung for a Mauer deal, assuming Minny balks at the cost of extending him post-MVP. If Beltre is being used as misdirection, that is genius move by Theo and the only type of interaction with Boras that I like to see.
Move VMart to 1st, Youk to 3rd. Stellar, if somewhat unrealistic and costly.
Disturban you're speaking my kind of language.
I wouldn't make any quick trade for A-gon or anybody until Mauer signs an extension. I don't think Hoyer is in any hurry to trade Gonzalez. If the Twins can't get a deal done, and decide to get what they can for prospects instead, that would be who I'd rather sell the farm for. I'd be far more ecstatic about having Mauer behind the plate with Vmart as his backup/DH/1B. Chapman could replace Buchholtz as an ace-in-waiting prospect. The Sox could move Papi in a deal. Anyway that's my pipe dream.
Look at all the possibilities signing Lackey just gave the Sox.
With the Cameron signing and probable Lowell deal you could add Ellsbury and Max Ramirez to the following list of trade bait:
Buchholtz
Bowden
Bard
Tazawa
Lars Anderson
Josh Reddick
Jed Lowrie
Westmorland
Casey Kelly
The Sox obviously won't trade all of them. As unpopular as it would be to see some of those names go, for the right player, say goodbye. Don't let anybody BS anybody here that the Sox can't afford to carry that payroll for a few year. They can. This team would be set for years while the farm gets restocked.
If Mauer does resign, then give Jed a call.
I'd also like to add Ryan Kalish to the list. Don't want to leave him out in considering a trade candidate with value. And before anyone screams that Max Ramirez can't be traded until such and such a date, he can always be a PTBNL
I would rather have Gonzo than Mauer. Gonzo is a legit power hitter, but this was the first season we've seen it from Mauer, and who knows if he can repeat that consistently. Its not that i dont like Mauer, but i think that we need a frightening bat in the middle more than we need another high average, high OBP player with limited pop.
I'd take Mauer over A-Gon. Yeah A-Gon might have more power, but Mauer is a better pure hitter. But I don't see the Twins not extending Mauer, so it doesn't matter.
Also–Mauer is a catcher. And a damn fine one at that.
With Beckett on for another year at reasonable money, what would a team with a 'win now' mandate give up in prospects for that last year? If we're keen to keep Buchholz (ME!) and Kelly then perhaps those 'free' prospects could be turned into .5/.3/.25 % (etc.) an Adrian Gonzalez/Fielder/Mauer/Cabrera?
Hermida
Boof
Maximiliano Ramirez
"The Deuce"
+ hypothetical Beckett return
In this scenario you're passing on a decent wad of talent without actually touching your farm. Spending Money to acquire talent instead of spending money AND talent to acquire talent.
Dangle Beckett between Seattle and Rangers, (both of whom are gearing up to usurp LAA and make a run for it) pssst same division. See who gives you a better load, to the Hoyer go the spoils.
You get the idea, but what does the Fire brand folk think?
*I mean that Beckett's numbers say "nice season (3.40 ERA) coming next season".
personally I love both signings. Sure giving Lackey 5-years is a risk, but it gives the team a ton of flexibility to go get another bat. They can deal Buchholz now, which is a precondition to about every trade we've discussed. It will also make it easier to hold on to Kelly, who could be in Boston by 2011. And if the Sox elect not to deal for a bat then they have easily the deepest rotation in baseball.
As for Cameron, he makes a lot more sense than Bay, but he should be the starting CF next year and Ellsbury should be dealt. Ells is probably what he is at this point and while he'll probably be better defensively next season, the Sox have plenty of outfielders in the system.
I'd offer Buchholz, Ellsbury, Anderson or Rizzo, and one of Bowden, Doubront, and Pimentel and see if that's enough to get Gonzalez. If not then maybe throw in Reddick or Kalish, but beyond that don't go too far. Or see if Milwaukee would consider Buchholz, Ellsbury and one other for Fielder. I would hold on to Kelly or Westmoreland.
I'm hoping with all my heart that Mauer decides to stay home, and that MN can reward him for doing so, but in ways that don't hurt his team. I think, with valid logic, that he will want to stay home rather than give up the terrific lifestyle he has created in MN with his friends and family. He knows that, as someone here suggested, $20MM in MN is equivalent to $37MM in NY or Boston. Why on earth would he uproot the entire fabric of an idyllic life to achieve financial parity. He KNOWS money can't buy happiness, and also knows that his next contract with MN will give him more money than he and his family can spend in generations. Why would he move? For a ring? The Twins are never that far away from the ring. Personally, I'd like to see Joe Mauer start a retro-trend of team loyalty so every fanbase will have their Williams, Dimaggios, Pucketts, Ripkens, Mays, Bonds, etc. as well as Mauers, Pujols and in a few years, maybe even Gonzalez.
Gerry,
Putting Mauer or anyone else completely aside – That's the most naive sentimental drivel I've read in a long time. You have me picturing all these ballplayers dressed up like Mr. Rogers making Jiffy Pop on the stovetop for their family, whose waiting eagerly by the fireplace next to a newfangled tube radio for the latest episode of the Lone Ranger. Did you just watch It's a Wonderful Life and The Wizard of Oz or something?
Why would he move? For the M O N E Y. They almost always do. And you seem to forget, though being a Sox fan I don't understand how you could (Lowell most recently), that loyalty works both ways. If the Twins can't get him to sign at what they feel is fair, why wouldn't THEY trade HIM? He doesn't have any control over that at the moment. Business being business, and the Twins a mid-market team, they can't afford to just let him walk. It would be completely irresponsible. And what about the happiness of the Twin fans? If he were the idyllic hometown hero wouldn't he have already signed for $1million a year and every fan gets a free lollipop and cotton candy and lives happily ever after? – And Williams, Mays and Dimaggio played before free agency.
bonds was originally a pirate before he went to the giants so no loyalty there either
There's a little formula I like to use to compare pitchers; it basically translates performance in FIP, xFIP, and ERA over the past 3 years into a simple number of runs–from ERA–over or under the average of FIP and xFIP. I ran the numbers on Beckett, Lackey, Halladay, Lee, and the man with the same contract as Lackey, Burnett.
I discovered some interesting things. Beckett has allowed 20 ERs more than his peripherals would suggest over the past three years, which says "really nice season (3.40 ERA)" to me, given a little luck. Lackey has been 30 runs luckier than his FIP/xFIP account for the past three years…he could be due for a downturn, especially entering a stronger division in a smaller park. Halladay was 20 runs better than his peripherals suggested, but even at his projected level, he's better than any of the others. Lee's numbers are thrown off by his atrocious 2007. Burnett…well, he was a funny surprise. At exactly 0 runs of difference, Burnett has been literally the same pitcher that my FIP/xFIP-amalgam predicted he would be.
In terms of best peripherals, Halladay leads the pack, followed by Beckett, then Lee, then Lackey, then Burnett. So while Lee had a terrible 2007, his 3-year numbers still beat Lackey. And Lackey is better than his contract-mate, Burnett. However, everyone but Becket is predicted for a downfall by my metric.
We'll just have to see–the formula may need tweaking. I just thought the results were worth sharing.