The Contractual State of the Starting Rotation
Entering 2010, the Boston Red Sox’s starting rotation boasted six World Series rings, five All-Star game appearances, both an American League Championship and World Series Most Valuable Player award and two no-hitters. Better yet, two of those starting five came into the early parts of the season having just inked fresh, multiple year contracts.
An impressive mixture of youth and experience -- almost all contractually locked-up for what is considered in the world of professional sports as long-term -- led many to believe that Boston would feature one of the MLB’s best starting rotations not only in 2010, but for the next few years as well.
It’s hard to find anything negative to say on the topic of having Jon Lester guaranteed in a Red Sox uniform through at least 2013, that’s for certain. However, that’s where the acclaim stops, or at least that of the unanimous nature.
With such an accolade-laden group commanding rotation spots for multiple seasons beyond 2010, would it be blasphemous to consider that the organization is actually worse off now than before they signed last off-season’s most coveted free agent pitcher, John Lackey, and extended the contract of Josh Beckett who, like Lackey, had won the deciding game of a World Series before he had reached the age of 25?
First, let’s take a look at the contractual statuses of the team’s ideal starting rotation at this particular point in time. The off-season signing of John Lackey conjured as much skepticism as it did excitement in Boston. With a void to fill in the lineup due to the departure of Jason Bay, a power-hitting outfielder was clearly, according to majority opinion, the best way for the Red Sox to allocate their off-season spending allotment. Instead, they awarded the 31-year-old pitcher a five-year contract worth $86 million (including the $3.5 million signing bonus). During the duration of the deal, Lackey stands to make $18.7 million in 2010, followed by $15.25 in each of the remaining four years, with the club holding a conditional option for 2015 at the league’s minimum salary in the event that he would miss a significant amount of time as a result of a pre-existing elbow injury. General Manager Theo Epstein made good on his promise to do everything in his power to re-sign Josh Beckett following the acquisition of Lackey; in early April the team extended Beckett’s contract through 2014. The four-year deal is worth a total of $68 million; $15.75 each season on top of a $5 million signing bonus. After posting a high-bid of $51,111,111 in 2006 merely for the rights to a thirty-day negotiation window with Seibu Lions’ pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka, the Red Sox managed to sign the international free agent to a six-year deal through 2012 worth $52 million. Matsuzaka, after making $6 million in 2007 and $8 million both this season and last, is promised $10 million in each of his contract’s final two seasons [2011-12] before becoming a free agent. The lone left-hander of the group, Jon Lester extended his contract with the Boston Red Sox in March of 2009. The five-year contract worth $30 million total awards Lester $3.75 million this season, followed by sums of $5.75, $7.625 and $11.625 each of the next three. The Red Sox also hold a $13 million club option for 2014 (the option is void in the event that Lester finishes either first or second in Cy Young voting anytime from 2009-13 and is subsequently traded). Lastly, but perhaps most intriguing, is pitcher Clay Buchholz. Buchholz makes just $443,000 here in 2010, but is arbitration-eligible for the first time following the season. Despite being a model of inconsistency his initial few full seasons in Boston, Clay has been arguably the team’s most reliable pitcher this season en route to a team-best fourteen wins and an American League-best 2.36 ERA through his first twenty-one starts. Though he is currently the only member of the rotation who isn’t guaranteed at least two more seasons in Boston, contractually speaking, the organization’s reluctancy to part with Buchholz during trade negotiations, even before his recent on-field maturation, means that it’s just a matter of time before he, too, is signed to a long-term deal. Clearly, the Red Sox value starting pitching, and with good reason. After all, as the old adage goes, ‘pitching wins championships,’ and in Boston’s case, it had better. The Red Sox were owners of the second highest opening day payroll in Major League Baseball this season -- only behind the Yankees -- at $162,447,333. Of those who comprise the ten highest 2010 payrolls, Boston’s 33.34% increase from where it stood the season prior ($121,745,999; 4thin MLB) is only surpassed by that of the Minnesota Twins, who experienced a 49.4% increase from 2009. That same value placed on starting pitching is the driving force behind such a substantial increase in payroll. For instance, the combined 2010 salaries of those five pitchers is $43,326,333, which equates to 26.67% of the team’s entire payroll. Ironically, it’s been Buchholz and Lester -- owners of the group’s two lowest salaries -- that have offered the most return this season. Lester’s 2.80 ERA and 13 wins are second on the team only to Buchholz’s 2.36 ERA and 14 victories. Both appeared in their first All-Star games in 2010 and are amongst the league’s top-five in ERA. With neither turning the age of twenty-seven until Lester does so in January, the future bodes well in Boston as long as these two are around. Conversely, the rotation’s two most disappointing performers thus far have been the two oldest and highest-paid, Josh Beckett and John Lackey. Beckett spent a significant amount of time on the disabled list this season, starting just thirteen games for the Red Sox and going 3-2 with a 6.51 ERA. Opponents are hitting .294 off of Beckett and he’s allowed 91 hits in 76 innings -- compare that to Buchholz, who has surrendered just eighteen more hits in 133.3 innings. Beckett has also amassed career-worst marks in ERA+ [67], WHIP [1.539] and H/9 [10.8]. Lackey, the Red Sox’s prized off-season acquisition, hasn’t quite delivered as Boston had hoped in the first of his five-year deal. While he’s proved durable, starting 24 games and alleviating concerns over any lingering effects of his previous elbow injury, it’s his effectiveness in those starts that has left something to be desired. The 10-7 record currently held by Lackey is hardly indicative of how he’s pitched. His 4.54 ERA is the highest it’s been since 2004 and his SO/9 [5.8] and ERA+ [96] are the lowest since that same year. He’s also set career-worst marks in WHIP [1.519], H/9 [10.2] and SO/BB [1.68]. Plus, in his twelve starts at Fenway Park this season, a place he figures to pitch at a lot in the next few years, opponents are hitting .299 off him. Not exactly what you’d expect from your highest paid starter, especially after just signing him to a five-year deal worth a large sum of money. With both Lackey and Beckett contractually locked-up through 2014 at a collective $31 million per season, and judging by this season, the future may all of the sudden appear a bit more grim despite the presence of both Lester and Buchholz. So, with Lackey’s signing initially leading many to believe that management wouldn’t opt to bring Beckett back to Boston following 2010, the question is, why did they? Well for one, there doesn’t figure to be a surplus of available marquee starting pitchers in 2011. By securing both Lackey and Beckett in what was originally assumed to be a defense and pitching oriented ‘bridge year’ anyway, the organization seemingly had intentions of acquiring what they believed to be an imposing 1-2 punch at the front end of the rotation while the market offered it, rather than waiting and potentially having to deal the prospects that they were attempting to ‘bridge’ to in the first place in search of a quick fix down the road. Besides, if the organization was under the impression that starting pitching help internally was a few years from fruition, and rightfully so, then it was hard to argue against a veritable bridge consisting of Josh Beckett, Jon Lester and John Lackey to help get them there. Not to mention, at the time that Beckett’s deal was extended, Buchholz had yet to truly establish himself as a reliable option that they could count on. Had they known that Clay would carry-over the success he had towards the end of last season and pitch as well as he has to this point in 2010, they may have thought twice about reconfiguring Beckett’s contract. Entering the season, the Red Sox assumedly believed they had three starters that they could rely on -- Beckett, Lackey and Lester -- had they known they could complete that list with Buchholz’s name rather than Beckett's, it appears less likely that they’d have felt it necessary to designate so much money towards extending Josh. A front of the rotation in 2011 consisting of Lester, Lackey and Buchholz now looks just as appealing as one that includes a 30-year-old Beckett when you consider the remarkably cheaper price tag accompanying it; that’s an additional $15.75 million dollars that the Red Sox could have used each of the next four seasons on other areas of need -- perhaps a some bullpen help or an extension of Clay Buchholz’s contract? However, here Boston stands, owing over $30 million per season over the next four years to a pair of thirty-something pitchers who are becoming increasingly regarded as undependable even before they've had a chance to spend their signing bonuses. All that without even a mention of Daisuke Matsuzaka’s return on investment, simply because it’s almost too frustrating to touch on and would require an entire article itself to address all the issues. And yet, as mentioned earlier, the rotation isn’t without its bright spots. Jon Lester has emerged as one of the most dominating left-handers in the league, and thanks to Buchholz’s expedited development, Theo Epstein now appears to have been correct in sticking with the once struggling young pitcher, even through temptations like Roy Halladay and Adrian Gonzalez. That being said, what can the Red Sox ultimately expect from their core of starting pitchers for the next few seasons, or the duration of their current deals? The success and production of both Beckett and Matsuzaka remain heavily contingent on health. Daisuke has flashed the ability to be a dominant starter but has yet to put it together consistently. This season, however, was the first in which Matsuzaka really showed a determination to get back to the level of play that made him a legend in Japan. He came into the spring with a visably altered attitude and if he can stave off the injury bug for the entirety of 2011, we may finally see him morph into the player we paid so handsomely merely to speak with -- the operative word there being, if. There’s no questioning Josh Beckett’s drive and desire to compete at the highest level. Unfortunately, durability and health aren’t exactly things you can have complete control over. Whether it be blisters or back spasms, Beckett had seen his fair share of time on the disabled list due to injuries more typical of your average 30-year-old beer league softball player than those of a professional athlete. When he’s healthy, however, his prowess is well-documented. The only other time he failed to start at least thirty games for Boston in a single season, he came back the following year and won nineteen games. The poor results from both an individual and team standpoint this season should give Beckett some extra motivation in 2011. However, beyond that, one has to question how each additional year with effect his terrible luck with nagging, minor injuries. In his first five seasons with Boston, including 2010, Beckett has turned in just two quality seasons from an overall standpoint. As his age increases, so does the feeling that we may be lucky to get even another two good seasons out of his new four-year deal; at almost $16 million a season, will it end up being worth it? With Lackey, it’s difficult to imagine him regaining his 2007 form that saw him go 19-9 with a league-best ERA [3.01] and ERA+ [150]. However, while he has never won more than fourteen games (aside from 2007) and only averaged 25.5 starts in the two seasons prior to joining Boston, the durability questions that ultimately led to the conditional club option in his deal with the Red Sox seem to have dissipated, and he’s back on track to being the pitcher that started thirty-three games in each season from 2003-07. Before coming to the Red Sox, Lackey had a string of five consecutive seasons with a sub-four ERA. What has saved him to some extent this season has been his ability to induce the ground ball with men on base, if he can continue to do that while getting back to his typical SO/BB ratios, Lackey could still potentially have some of his best seasons in a Red Sox uniform. The problem being, even his best seasons may not be able to justify the type of money that Boston invested in him. As far as Lester and Buchholz go, it wouldn’t at all be a stretch to expect things to only get better from these two production-wise. Lester has already cemented himself as a certified ace at the age of just twenty-six. Because he has been elected an All-Star, thrown a no-hitter and clinched a World Series title in such a short period of time, people forget that he is still developing and learning how to pitch at the major league level. His mechanics and frame make it hard to imagine injury concerns creeping up on him at any point and his immunity to prolonged struggles makes him one of the most reliable pitchers in baseball. And again, he’s just twenty-six years of age. Buchholz is an interesting case. Having hardly pitched one full season at a consistently high level, he’s still already being regarded as one of the league’s better pitchers. With an arsenal of pitches as devastating as the one he was blessed with, it was simply a matter of time before the talents outweighed whatever had plagued him to this point. Despite taking the scenic route, it appears Buchholz is finally at the stage Lester was just a couple seasons ago -- enjoying a breakout year and beginning to establish himself within the context of the league’s other great pitchers. It won’t be long before Boston locks Buchholz up long-term and fans can begin an annual "Lester or Buchholz for staff ace" debate. Overall, the Red Sox seem to have effectively solidified their rotation for a good deal of years to come. However, that may not necessarily be entirely positive. With so much importance on starting pitching -- and such a large percentage of the team’s overall payroll invested in it -- it’s hard to feel good about something so heavily dependent on virtually uncontrollable factors; those of course mainly pertaining to health. When healthy and productive, the Red Sox have arguably the best starting rotation in all of baseball. However, it’s a different story when not -- which, unfortunately seems to so often be the case.
57 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I have just received word that the angry mob of Theo bashers is on it's way.
Watch out later today.
"If I was being paid $30,000 dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400."- Ted Williams
I hate Hermida
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Aug 18, 2010 11:43 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
good article, I like it a lot
but I’m gonna nitpick and say that I think your Lackey contract numbers are wrong- the $82.5 million figure includes the signing bonus
ah
Correct you are, sir.
I figured on making at least one or two minor mistakes like that….those were a lot of numbers to track down an sort through.
Hi, I'm here for the laser show...?
by Logan Lietz on Aug 18, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Fantastic article.
Good show, Logan.
With an arsenal of pitches as devastating as the one [Buchholz] was blessed with, it was simply a matter of time before the talents outweighed whatever had plagued him to this point.
That “whatever” was entirely mental. It was confidence. I remember a start this season where shoddy defense and bad luck led to a rough first inning and a lot of pitches. In the old days, that would have led to a complete breakdown on Clay’s part. But he calmed down and pitched very well for the rest of the game.
I remember mentioning in the game thread at the time that it was indicative of a new Clay Buchholz.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Does someone wanna tell me where the @#$% Drugs Delaney is?
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
agree 100%
I know I’ve gone into that a couple times in articles here on OTM, so I thought I’d keep it vague so that it wasn’t longer than it already ended up being….
I had even planned on dedicated a whole section to how our rotation compares to the likes of NYY and TB in that same age/contracts/return on inv. type discussion, but that could be a legthy article in itself…
And thank you for the compliments, glad you enjoyed it…again I start my day sleep deprived!
Hi, I'm here for the laser show...?
by Logan Lietz on Aug 18, 2010 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I've said it before, and I'll say it again
It’s Buch’s new flowing locks
Hi, I'm here for the laser show...?
by Logan Lietz on Aug 18, 2010 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions
idk, I feel like that'd just be more of a distraction
I mean, remember when Beckett had that too-unimportant-to-remember country singer gf, then she broke his heart so he proceded to break the hearts if all Indians fans in ’07?
We need him to start dating a supermodel then have her dump him quick so we can ride him into the playoffs somehow…
Hi, I'm here for the laser show...?
I can tell you from experience
that sleeping with supermodels is very helpful in focusing your talents. It is especially helpful if they are female supermodels.
Seriously, though, I theorize that being in Pawtucket that extra bit was a big help for him. Not “stuff”-wise, but maybe put a chip on his shoulder because he “knew” he didn’t belong there anymore. Just a theory, but it makes sense to me.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Does someone wanna tell me where the @#$% Drugs Delaney is?
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Great Post...
But I don’t see the problem here. At this time, with Lackey just OK and Beckett a question mark, who has a better rotation in the AL? How about in MLB? I would have to say the pitching is in pretty good shape when Beckett is the biggest question mark. I don’t worry about the money; the FA’s are always expensive, see Drew. The Sox made a great investment in Lester, and I expect they soon attempt to lock up Bucholz with a similar plan.
Hell, let the Yankees sign Cliff Lee to go with Sabbathia, and I sill like the Sox rotation beter in 2011
well
plenty of teams with better rotations than us this year. On paper it was one of the best. In practice, there’s a couple of really good pitchers.
Have to give the Rays a strong consideration.
Even though Garza and Sheilds are two of my most loathed players in the game.
Garza, Shields AND Price
I would have to say the Rays are at least the second best in the AL, but I still like the Sox depth here over the Rays.
Don't laugh, but have you seen what the small market Padres and Reds are doing this year?
As well as, of course, the MFY and Rays. Cardinals and Giants, though not complete, have an outstanding 1-2-3. We have an outstanding 1,2, and then mediocre Lackey, the inconsistent, wild-throwing, space-cadet DIce-K, and the just plain bad Beckett.
Who else in the organization is even in the discussion? Wake, who everybody loves, but is basically looking at cashing Social Security checks the 1st of every month. Doubront and Bowden just aren’t there yet. Tazawa has to rehab before he enters the conversation this time next year, at which time we may also be wondering if Ranaudo gets some September time.
Dice-K has been good all year
and Lackey is pitching better lately. NL is a different league, hard to compare, but the Rays are excellent. Hughes has saved the Yankees butts this year as Burnett is as bad as we all know he can be.
Lackey hasn't just been OK, he's been pretty bad.
"If I was being paid $30,000 dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400."- Ted Williams
I hate Hermida
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Aug 18, 2010 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions
not to say Lackey's been good
but a lot of that suffering has been coming from a significantly career high in BABIP despite allowing 15% less line drives than his career average.
good point about the LD, but Lackey had a worse BABIP in 2005,
and still a better WHIP
"If I was being paid $30,000 dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400."- Ted Williams
I hate Hermida
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Aug 18, 2010 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
yes good point
back in the glory days when he could strike a ton of guys out. Which really were only that year. Really an odd year for him, statistically. He did allow a silly number of line drives that year, somehow. But yes, mainly what I wanted to say was good catch, I completely missed that :)
In slight (very mild) defense of Lackey
I honestly don’t think he’s pitched all that bad. Yes, most of his losses and earned runs are genuinely on his head.
But man, he has also been just rotten un-lucky in a lot of his starts. In several of his best starts, the bullpen, our defense or our offense has let him down wicked. He could probably have 3 or 4 more wins and a couple less losses if not for those events. And he might easily have a significant fraction shaved off his ERA if the bullpen doesn’t surrender a ton of inherited runners.
Now – a counter argument fairly points out that the great pitchers make their own luck by shutting down the other team and not being dependent on their bullpen. I won’t argue about that other than to note that Lackey HAS consistently at least gotten us into the 7th in most of his starts and that’s a lot in the modern age.
Ultimately, I’m just saying what I’ve watched – but for a handful of really bad luck games, Lackey’s numbers could easily look a LOT better.
Oh well – maybe he’ll get some good, balancing karma in the closing stretch of the season.
What goes into the WAR for pitchers?
Because I don’t understand how a pitcher with a 1.52 WHIP can be that close to one with a 1.19 WHIP. There could be some BABIP luck involved, but are you serious…a 1.52 WHIP?
"If I was being paid $30,000 dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400."- Ted Williams
I hate Hermida
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Aug 18, 2010 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions
FIP
Buchholz has had results significantly better than his K and BB rates would typically dictate. I’m hoping to have some more on this tomorrow.
A lot of it is playing time
but the other factors here are:
1) Buch hasn’t been as good as his ERA would sugges; and
2) Lackey really hasn’t been terrible… he’s been okay, and far below our expectations… but not terrible.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
I know Buch is lucky,
but I actually think Lackey is performing better than his peripherals.
"If I was being paid $30,000 dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400."- Ted Williams
I hate Hermida
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Aug 18, 2010 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions
which peripherals?
and to expand on the earlier question, you won’t really see any kind of SABRish stats that take WHIP into account- because it counts a walk and a home run equally, for example.
When I think peripherals, I usually immediately think K and BB rates, then BABIP
OK, I don't think peripheral was the right word to use there.
Maybe I’m being overly dramatic, but he’s just looked so bad to me this year. When I said peripheral, I was referring mainly to control. His BB/9 might not be terrible for a starter, but I think he’s been atrocious. He gets up 0-2, and throws it right down the middle. When he’s missing the target, he’ missing all the way across the plate. I’m suprised his FIP is where it is. Let’s face it, he’s not gonna have a high K/9, but if he can get his control back, he can work for more strikeouts. He’ll allow less walks, which in turn will allow fewer runs. You can’t have a 1.52 WHIP and not expect to give up a bunch of runs. If he can get back his control, I don’t see why he can’t be the 09 Lackey in 2011.
"If I was being paid $30,000 dollars a year, the very least I could do was hit .400."- Ted Williams
I hate Hermida
Twitter: @BoldandBrash
by BoldandBrash on Aug 18, 2010 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
It really comes down to an inability to command his curveball this year.
Used to be a real weapon for him.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
Looking at Rally's WAR gives another interesting perspective.
I’m pretty sure Rally’s is based on a park/league adjusted ERA, so it’s more of a “what-happened” rather than a “how-skilled” measurement.
Buchholz: 3.9 WAR
Lackey: 1.3 WAR
And the karma gods promptly answer
On a night when Lackey gives up enough runs (5) where he deserves to lose, the offense bails him out and gets him the win.
To be fair – up until he gave up that sneaky just-inside-the-Pesky-Pole 3-run HR to Callaspo, Lackey was grinding it out, having only given up 2 runs. And he jumped back into control from that point, getting through the 7th with a nice 1-2-3 inning, and arguably giving his team a chance to mount a comeback.
But still, this really reeked of karmic balancing. We could use a little more of that good karma down the stretch!
#$%^&(*&^%$^&*()()(_(*&^^*()_(*&^%$#@!
i don’t understand how TEXAS can play us and theANGELS so well then fold on tampon bay!
by RED SOX are #1 in my heart on Aug 18, 2010 2:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Still four innings left to play
and Texas can be explosive in the late innings. 5-1 rays. go rangers
Im just getting really irritated.
Beckett and Papelbon may have literally fucked us out of this thing
It's been a bumpy road for both of them
but they can still save face with all the head to head games remaining. If not, they will be roasted bigtime this off season.
5-2 rays. go rangers.
7 - 2
:(
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Does someone wanna tell me where the @#$% Drugs Delaney is?
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
Again.
Not gonna be much of a race. We missed our chances to gain ground…The rays and yanks arent gonna tank.
I’m just hoping we get real hot for 2 weeks and cut the lead to about 2 games…then anything can happen.
That’s a stretch though.
so? No reason to not be hoping for them to tank...
I understand the annoyance with relentless over-optimism, but no need to be spreading pessimism needlessly either. Us gaining ground starts with us winning and them losing, so you’re kinda saying the same thing anyways.
We'll need help to catch one of 'em.
Our first break is that the MFY will face King Felix in the Seattle series and we will not.
One game at time. Go Lackey. Suck Kazmir.
Now Hernandez has been moved up a day to pitch
on the 20th vs NY, so we may see him on the 25th. dogshit.
Two young studs.
Glad it’s Lester and not Lackey in the day game match up.
We’ve got the bat advantage vs Seattle, which is nice…
Sox rotation in great shape for years
Pitchers will have their ups and downs and some teams will have their phenoms come and go, but we should all feel pretty good about the Sox rotation for years to come. We don’t have to look any further than this season to understand the value of good, deep and consistent pitching. Even with all the lineup injuries, including 3 All-Stars, the Sox find themselves withing striking distance of the playoffs. An excellent rotation ensures a team is in most games. And how many teams will go into the offseason NOT looking for any starting pitching, like the Sox?
Great stuff
That was a great, in-depth column Logan. Excelleny read.
errollknight22
by errollknight22 on Aug 19, 2010 11:27 AM EDT via mobile reply actions

by 

























