The Red Sox Should Not Trade John Lackey
by Matthew Kory on Oct 20, 2011 7:01 AM EDT
in Analysis
Email
PrintThe Boston Globe is reporting the San Diego Times Union Leader Tribune Gazetteer Times Post (silly newspaper mergers) says the San Diego Padres have had internal talks about possibly maybe potentially considering trading for John Lackey if IF! the Red Sox pick up just about all of the $45.75 million left on Lackey's deal.
[Cue fireworks]
[Cut to people dancing in Kenmore Square]
Since arriving in Boston two seasons ago, Lackey hasn't done much to endear himself to the fan base. His success in Anaheim with the Angels coupled with the $82 million contract he signed to come to Boston created what we in the biz call expectorations. No, wait, that's Matt Garza. I'm thinking of expectations. Lackey wasn't terrible last season, his 4.40 ERA translating to an ERA+ of 99 (i.e. 1% below league average), but it was his worst season since he was a 25 year old six years ago.
And yet it barely registered on Ye Old Crap Scale compared to this past season. In 2011 Lackey's ERA jumped to 6.40, an increase of almost 50%. His ERA went from 1% below league average to 34% below. The gratuitous eye rolling didn't help matters either. Mostly though, it was his pitching, which was so bad I have to coin a new term for it: supercrap. It sounds like a movie written by Judd Apatow, but directed by William Shatner.
Bad as Lackey's was, ERA isn't the best predictor of the future. Considering that Lackey's ERA was way above his established norms, you could make a case for holding your nose and looking deeper into the numbers to see if maybe somehow there might be some silver lining hiding in that thick stench of baby diapers and old cheese. So, grab a clothespin. I promise we'll do this quickly.
Lackey's numbers tell two stories. The first is of a pitcher who has been in decline for some time. His K% (the percentage of strikeouts divided by total batters faced) fell for basically the fifth year in a row. The same is true of his K/9, while his walk rates have been on the rise for a while.
The second shows Lackey got maybe a bit unlucky and/or there may be some room to expect growth. Lackey's FIP last year was 4.71 and his xFIP was 4.70 so at least according to those metrics, he wasn't as bad as his 6+ ERA would lead you to believe. Not that a 4.70 ERA would be anything wonderful, but compared to the most recent version of Lackey that took the mound for the Red Sox he'd look pretty good.
Over the last two seasons Lackey has gone from an above average pitcher to an average one to a terrible one. He is owed $45+ million over the next three seasons and the Red Sox will have to pay that bill whether Lackey pitches in Boston, San Diego, or Japan for the Nippon Ham Fighters next season or buses tables at the Sizzler. Nobody is going to take on anything resembling a significant portion of that contract. If the Red Sox want to get rid of Lackey, that's exactly what they'll be doing; just getting rid of him. They will get nothing useful in return and they will get no relief from his salary.
But when looking at the state of the Red Sox starting staff next year, giving away pitching, even pitching in the loosest sense such as in this case, should give pause. Yes, Lackey was horrible. He was, in a word, supercrap and he may continue at that level next season. But he may not. Hard as it is to remember, Lackey is traditionally a well above average pitcher and he's at an age where most guys with his track record don't just fall off the table.
If Lackey is hurt he should stay with Boston and rehabilitate with an eye towards returning at some point in the next three seasons as an asset. If he is healthy, maybe a fresh start to the year, one with fewer personal problems (hopefully) would be an elixir. Maybe the time spent this off season will be put to good use looking at video and figuring out why he hasn't had the level of success he's accustomed to.
With Daisuke Matsuzaka out for almost all next season at best and Clay Buchholz returning from a broken back, the Red Sox aren't in position to give away pitching, even pitching as bad as John Lackey was last year. They need more starting pitching for next season, not less.
Lackey may end up as a complete and utter zero. It's as likely an outcome as any, sadly. But even if that happens it won't be like the team missed out on salary relief and/or a minor league prospect. Cutting John Lackey tomorrow would net the same level of salary relief and improve the minor league system similarly.
But, if Lackey can wind the clock back just one year, he could be a valuable asset to the team. Oh, sure, it won't be close to what he's being paid, but that ain't happening so divest yourself of that thought now. If Lackey can be a league average starter next season, he could be exactly what the Red Sox need to find. Since they're paying his salary anyway, well, why give away that lottery card for nothing?
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hey!
The second shows Lackey got maybe a bit unlucky
It’s just like I’m in a John Lackey press conference!!!
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
I mean, seriously.
In any other park, that’s [choose your own adventure]:
- not a homerun
- an out
- a foul ball
- two free men
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
He may whine about it like a big baby
To cover up for his obvious inadequacies, but that doesn’t necessarily make him completely wrong. If there is any value in FIP and xFIP, anyway, that would seem to be the case. If he can go five or six innings of three or four run ball, he can be upgraded to depressing from catastrophic. Hopefully his bluster also hides a desire to legitimately work on correcting his flaws.
there's two ways you can look at it
and I’m going to use John Lackey’s viewpoint and Johnny Damon’s viewpoint to demonstrate them. Obviously, despite the misuse of quotation marks, these are not real quotes from either.
The Red Sox lose a John Lackey start and he says “I pitched well but balls slipped through defenders and they hit that home run that wouldn’t have been a home run if I was playing somewhere else”
If the Rays lose a game, Damon says “it’s my fault because I didn’t get on base in the third inning and keep the inning going”
I dunno, accountability is nice. Not everything is in everyone’s control, but when a pitcher has a shitty game, I want him thinking about how he can improve his shitty pitching rather than just saying that next time he’ll be less unlucky.
Same goes for position players. If Sabathia throws a nasty, unhittable pitch that Pedroia strikes out on, I don’t want Pedroia to be saying “Damn that pitch was nasty, couldn’t do anything about that,” I want him to be thinking how he can be prepared for it next time.
So I guess what I’m saying is that while he isn’t necessarily wrong per se, there is nothing in his attitude to make me believe he is trying to actually improve himself, which pisses me off. I only see a limited amount, so if I’m wrong, sorry Lackey, but that’s sure as hell the impression he gives off.
Good point
Quantum Woodworking: Hand crafted pens, bottle stoppers, bowls and more.
Check out our blog
I appreciate that you feel that way - and it is not an uncommon position
to desire that particular attitude in players.
But personally, I really don’t care one way or the other about a player saying the right words to sooth fans sense of ‘personal accountability’.
Most of these guys very simply aren’t always very good with ‘public speaking’. Some get it. Some don’t. If they are or are not doesn’t mean anything as to what is going on inside their head.
For example a player could say all the right things (“I’m sorry – my bad. I just couldn’t get that curveball to break today!”) but unless you can actually know what’s in his head, he could still be thinking the exact same things as the guy who says all the wrong things (“That little s—- in right field should have caught that ball!”).
We just have no way of knowing. We can only pretend we know.
Reporters shove microphones into these guys faces and they are expected to talk. Talk is talk.
What matters is what they did on the field and what they might be able to do on the field in the future.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
Oh come now
Of course the Red Sox should not trade pitching. But John Lackey does not count as pitching. He was the worst starting pitcher in the major leagues last year, and the trajectory of his decline promises that he will get even worse than that. The Sox can’t win starting this guy every five days. Any alternative would be better, even the aging, ineffective, creaky Tim Wakefield, who’s also horrible. They have to get rid of Lackey, and if they can get anything in return, they should jump at the chance.
I agree.
Mostly because the Red Sox won’t get anything close to equivalent value for Lackey. Better to start 2012 with him in the rotation and hope he’s good. If he’s still the worst starting pitcher in baseball by the June/the break, cut him.
by Sologub on Oct 20, 2011 8:39 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
+1
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 8:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Don't cut him
Send him in for TJ surgery. That would presumably invoke the injury clause in his contract, which would make him a lot more valuable the following season since he’d be both healthy and cheaper per-season (with the additional year at league minimum). Then he might actually be tradeable, or even worth keeping.
um
you can’t just send him for TJ surgery for the sake of invoking an injury clause. First of all, if it was going to invoke that clause, He’d probably need about 4 or 5 different doctors telling him it was absolutely necessary that he have it, and second of all, we don’t know that the clause would necessarily be invoked- the public information available on what it is is quite vague.
If he does genuinely need it, then perhaps. Still, he’d only kind of be cheaper per season as he would be lost for an entire season that we’d still be paying full price for.
I think he does need it...
and the only thing keeping him from getting it is the injury clause.
We know he has a pre-existing injury to the elbow, which is probably a partial tear of the UCL that doesn’t heal itself. We know his elbow hurt last season, and he even received a cortisone shot mid-season (after which he pitched his best baseball). And, he’s been pitching like a guy with a hurt elbow—he hasn’t lost velocity, but he has lost his control and the effectiveness of his breaking stuff.
That could be it. 'Not completely sure.
Comparing his pre-Red Sox stuff to what he’s shown since joining the RS, there are some very distinct things one can see from the Pitch F/X data.
1) First and foremost, his velocity seems fine. Pretty much the same as prior years on all his pitches.
2) His ratio of pitches thrown in the strike zone vs out of the zone is the same.
3) His miss rates for pitches in the zone is the same.
4) His miss rates for pitches out of the zone are much, much worse. This really jumps out of the data. This made getting that elusive third strike impossible because people kept fouling his junk pitches off.
That kinda suggests a loss of movement on breaking balls, maybe? Which would go to your point.
Looking at individual pitch types, we see another big change: While his overall % of fastballs did not change much, he switched dramatically to throwing more cut fastballs after joining the Red Sox. He has dropped a little his use of the curve and increased corresponding his use of the slider.
Historically, his curveball was arguably his best breaking pitch, but not so since he’s been with us. His slider has looked like his most effective pitch of late. That may be a utilization bias though – he may be throwing a slider now in situations that he used to use the curve and getting ‘success’ off it due to situational advantage.
Looking at his pitch movement, horizontally all his pitches looked pretty close to prior years except that cut fastball in 2011 – it was breaking only 2.0 inches this last year (2.8 in 2010 and 2.5 for his career). Vertically, all his pitches look like they were moving about the same as prior years.
So the two things that look ‘different’ are the moderate shift from using the Curve to using the Slider as his favorite breaking pitch and a huge shift to using cut fastballs for his main fastball.
Were any of these changes due to injury or due to differences between Angels’ & Red Sox pitching philosophies? Or a mix?
The consistent velocity and movement numbers kinda give me hope that this is not injury but instead a coaching / pitch selection / mechanical issue.
Of course, apparently we might be losing Curt Young so now we lose any continuity of oversight by the pitching coach again. Whomever comes in needs to really review lots of video backlog to figure out what changed without waiting and just watching him in spring.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt? Incompetent? Which is worse? Does it matter? It sucks.
Well, what would the Red Sox get in return?
How can I rule out trading Lackey without even taking into consideration the potential return? The article assumes it would be nothing, but surely they wouldn’t dump him and his salary without getting anything back (as much as some crazy mad fans would accept even that). So there’s a missing half to this article. I’d be interested to know what teams like the Padres think Lackey plus salary relief is worth.
Hmmm...
From Kaplan’s article that Marc posted:
Epstein is expected to be the head of baseball operations but he is also expected to bring a GM into the Cubs organization to work directly for him as they begin a massive overhaul of the Cubs baseball operation…. Current San Diego GM Jed Hoyer could be in line to receive an offer to join Epstein in Chicago….Jed Hoyer is under team control for three more years in San Diego (according to Cot’s). But… but what I’m thinking is crazy … right? Yes. Yes, it is. Such a thing would not be possible. It’s just a weird synchronicity of rumors is all.
I get what your saying
But I think they have to trade him. Here’s why. I think the Sox are going to make a seprate trade for pitching, possibly using Josh Reddick. So while you may not get a lot in return for Lackey, there really wouldn’t be a void in the rotation. The second reason is more important however. Lackey’s performance made the whole drinking and eating chicken thing, less palatable to the fans. If the Sox are smart and they wantto get back some othe fans they lost to because the stories of this year’s team, Lackey is the posterboy for the collapse.
Reddick won't get you much
Pitching is hard to acquire through trades, unless you’re willing to give up a lot. Right now, the Sox don’t have much to trade. There isn’t much in the upper levels of the system that would interest other teams enough to make them part with decent major league pitching.
As for all the overblown clubhouse “issues”, most fans are frontrunners. They’ll forget as long as the Sox are winning.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 10:04 AM EDT up reply actions
The A's
have no outfielders. So if the Sox offered Reddick for say Trevor Cahill, because of how cheap Reddick is, the A’s would probably go for that deal.
by aubatron2011 on Oct 20, 2011 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Cahill
is pretty good and is signed very inexpensively for quite some time. He’s worth a lot more than Reddick, who still hasn’t necessarily proven he’s an everyday player. That said, Reddick could be part of a package for someone like Cahill.
Which is my point
Reddick could be the main player in a package. If the Sox get a prospect or two from the Cubs, if the Sox have a duplicate in their system, use Reddick and another prospect or two, to get a Cahill. The void in the rotation from moving Lackey is than mitigated, and the Sox get better performance for a whole hell of less money.
by aubatron2011 on Oct 20, 2011 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Beane doesn't just give players away
The Sox have very few players in their system that are major league ready. Oakland is going to want major league players or players that are close. Therefore, the A’s are not a good fit for a trade with the Sox. Few teams are right now. Remember, the Sox had to get another team into the mix just to get Bedard.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
well the Bedard trade progressed oddly
the reason why that three team trade happened was that the Sox had been in discussions with the Dodgers for Kuroda, and the Dodgers were interested in a number of players who were going to be Rule 5 eligible after the season, so they used those prospects to get Trayvon Robinson instead as they were likely to lose a couple of them soon anyways. I’m pretty confident that without the Dodgers, the Sox would’ve still been able to come up to a decent agreement for Bedard.
The Sox don't have much to trade
That’s why they couldn’t get Fister at the Deadline (Boston was interested). Boston’s system is thin at the upper levels (the Gonzalez trade didn’t help). And the idea that Oakland is going to dump Cahill for Reddick and a few Single-A (or Double-A) prospects is ludicrous. Cahill will be 24 next year and has already been successful at the major league level. Beane, who doesn’t give anything away, will ask for a lot for Cahill (assuming he even wants to move him).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions
as you can see
He’s worth a lot more than Reddick, who still hasn’t necessarily proven he’s an everyday player. That said, Reddick could be part of a package for someone like Cahill.
I agree that it would be significantly more cost than just Reddick for Cahill.
I was mostly responding to aubatron2011
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Look,
I’m not saying it will be easy to get him. I just think with the fact that the A’s don’t officially have a starting outfield right now, Reddick could be part of a package. How about adding Jed Lowrie to that package? WIth Aviles in Boston, who can essentially do the same thing the Red Sox have expected Lowrie to do, Lowrie in my opinion is expandable. Therefore the Sox could add a single prospect to get Cahill, and if they decide to get rid of Lackey, which in my opinion would be smart because I think people using xFIP to justify keeping a guy who had an atrocious year are making excuses for him, the loss of Lackey is mitigated.
by aubatron2011 on Oct 20, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Look,
You are expecting the A’s to trade something valuable (Cahill) for spare parts (Reddick and Lowrie) and promises (prospects from the lower minor league levels).
Billy Beane isn’t going to give a young, cost-controlled pitcher up for a borderline starter (Reddick), an oft-injured utility player (Lowrie), and a few Single-A or Double-A prospects. If the Sox ask for Cahill, Beane would be more likely to ask for Buchholz or Bard to be part of a package with Reddick, etc.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not the only
person who floated this idea. Jim Bowden, a former GM, now working for ESPN, proposed a similar deal, because it would make sense for both teams. I’m not saying it’s a definite trade to happen, but I think it would make sense. The A’s starting outfield doesn’t have anbody of note right now. Coco Crisp, Josh Willingham and Conor Jackson are gone, they probably don’t have the money to bring back Willingham, maybe they can afford Crisp, not sure about Jackson. Reddick would be their starting Right Fielder next year, so he’s not spare parts.
by aubatron2011 on Oct 20, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Take anything Jim Bowden says with a grain of salt
The trade proposal makes tons of sense for the Sox, but very little for the A’s. Young, cost-controlled pitchers like Cahill are a valuable commodity. OFs aren’t hard to acquire. The A’s can find OFs as good as Reddick fairly easily.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I know,
I’m basically just saying it’s worth exploring.
by aubatron2011 on Oct 20, 2011 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Without studying
Oakland farm system, I’ll bet they have a pitcher that they would be comfortable enough replacing Cahill with, and the Sox could get another team involved if necessary. I just think that Lackey needs to go and not because of the overblown off-field issues, it’s strictly performance in my opinion. Taking the hit of Lackey’s salary wouldn’t prevent the Sox from dipping into the FA market, but it would be nice if the Sox could get a young cheap starter, that would give them better performance consistently.
by aubatron2011 on Oct 20, 2011 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
When someone says "without studying" or "I'll bet" about a trade proposal, it's usually a bad sign
Lackey may “need to go.” But that doesn’t mean that other teams are going to line up and give the Sox promising young players for garbage. Beane rarely gives players up cheaply—even if there’s another player in the system “they would be comfortable enough replacing [the player] with.”
Good, young, cost controlled pitchers are very hard to acquire through trades, especially with small market teams like the A’s. Cahill is under team control until 2017. His salary doesn’t balloon until 2015. Why would the A’s move him now? When you consider that most of the prospects the Sox could package for Cahill are a few years away from the majors, there’s almost no chance that the A’s would be interested.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not so sure the A's do.
The only arm in the Top 10 of their prospect list that is a pitcher is 20-year old Krol, who was hurt this season in addition to getting suspended for some twitter nonsense. I think Cahill will be off the table, especially because Reddick has not yet proven himself to be the high-OBP guy that Beane would prefer and can probably get just as good elsewhere.
I would look at guys who are closer to free agency than Cahill is on teams that actually have starting pitching depth. Not sure if a guy like Jarr Jurrgens (spelling?) would be available, given the sheer amount of pitching prospects that the Braves have.
by The Name is Dalton on Oct 20, 2011 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
I was just throwing out
Cahill as an example. If the Sox get rid of Lackey, they could find somebody to fill in the void that he would create in the rotation, not that it would be much a void.
by aubatron2011 on Oct 20, 2011 2:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Definately wasn't meant to just dismiss your suggestion, more to downplay my own hopes of getting guy like Cahill. Who I would like to see here.
And I agree…that if they do decide to get rid of him I think there are ways to be creative and replace him with something decent. Heck, I’ve posted somewhere on this site about some of the benefits of a guy like Jon Garland, who might be cheap coming off an injury but before last year had pitched I believe 9 straight years of 190+ innings. Not spectacular stuff, but if healthy could do what we expected Lackey to do as a #4 or #5…eat a bunch of innings and keep the game within reach.
by The Name is Dalton on Oct 21, 2011 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions
Let's get real here-
So Lackey wasn’t as bad as his 6.41 ERA tells us, he was only as bad his 4.70 xFIP, right? That’s horrible! That’s really really bad. 7th worst among starters making at least 140+ innings 12th worst by FIP. Lackey was significantly worse last year then the average Orioles pitcher.
I don’t like the idea of paying all of Lackey’s salary, that seems excessive to me. Outside the toughest division in baseball, in a park less hitter-friendly, John Lackey might be a useful player, a fourth or fifth starter capable of being around league average. The team he goes to should be willing to pay something for that. However, there is no way I see that happening for him in Boston. His skills are eroding and whether he is unlucky or hurt by the division, the ball park or some off-the-field crap, he is a major long shot to become a solid ML pitcher in Boston next season.
Trading him now makes the most sense. If the team can get a useful player or two they should do it. I think it would be equally important to get some salary relief, but the players coming to Boston should determine that. For a pair of reasonably B level prospects, paying Lackey’s entire salary might make sense, for one or two fringe guys or AAA depth players Boston should get a few million back in the deal.
- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com
I don’t like the idea of paying all of Lackey’s salary, that seems excessive to me.
Nobody associated with the Red Sox does, but put yourself in another team’s shoes: Do you want John Lackey on your team AND feel like paying for the privilege?
That’s my whole point. Nobody WANTS Lackey, but the Red Sox have him and are paying for him regardless of whether he’s on the team or not. May as well see if he can be a semi-useful pitcher.
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Oct 20, 2011 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think the situation is so bad
That nobody wants John Lackey. If I was running an NL team like San Diego, LA or the Mets I would certainly be interested in getting Lackey on the cheap. He is a starting pitcher, and while his stuff is clearly not what it once was, a switch to the NL and a better environment could help him be a useful player once again. I would rather take on $3-$5 million a year in salary for him than trade a potential contributor.
As much as I want Lackey traded, I don’t think it should be done at any cost. The Red Sox paid him $15.25M and got back around $7M in value. If they should be looking for a deal that either takes $4-$5M of the books or provides close to $7M in value via prospects (ie 1 solid B level players or 3 C level prospects) I may be mistaken about the general impression of Lackey teams have, but it is hard to imagine it is so bad that he can’t net some combination of money and players that could reasonably be assessed to meet his realistic value, however that combination is reached.
FWIW, I don’t really care much about the perception that Lackey is a cancer on this team in the clubhouse. He’s an ass. So what? If he was also a good pitcher it wouldn’t matter.
- Matt Sullivan
"I would change policy, bring back natural grass and nickel beer. Baseball is the belly-button of our society. Straighten out baseball, and you straighten out the rest of the world." Bill "Spaceman" Lee
www.overthemonster.com
www.spacemanspancakes.wordpress.com
by Mattsullivan on Oct 20, 2011 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions
The best thing for this team is to rid themselves of Mr. Lackey
if not for the pitching, then for the attitude. If you save say 5 million per year off of his deal then I call it a successful trade
it’s not even about how bad he was at this point, this comes down to clubhouse stuff now.
In Lax We Trust - Official Pro Lacrosse Blog of SBN
Follow me on Twitter - In Lax We Trust
It's His Attitude
If he is unwilling to adapt to and work on his skills,and maintains the attitude that nothing is his fault, please ship him out.
I would rather see a worse, young pitcher trying really hard and learning, than what we have seen from this guy.
It would be like the ‘good-old’ days, and you would be able to get tickets again…….
Stick him in the BP..
..make him fight for a spot. It’s not rocket science. Mrs. Beckett told me.
Paying players to play somewhere else should no longer be in the Red Sox playbook.
An idea
trade Lackey to Baltimore and pay his salary….then when we face him 2-3 times next year you have just purchased 2-3 wins baby!
With our luck, he'd own us
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 20, 2011 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Someone has to be the sacrificial goat
to expiate the collapse. Because of his performance, attitude, marital issues, and role in beer-gate, he is the perfect goat, and statement that "this is not the Red Sox way. Beckett pitched well in 2011 and is an integral part of 2007. But he is being accused o negative leadership and I wouldn’t be surprised if he too was dealt, but in a package which brings back a comparable starter. He has real value. In either case we will lose more than we gain, but that is the nature of sacrificial goats. Lester will stay as he is younger, more valuable, one of our own, and has recently put himself in a key leadership role for the good. Buchholz was ready to pitch in Sept, so he will be ready in April and, with clique dissipated, will also assume more leadership roles. Bedard is a terrific pitcher and has an offseason to fully recover. Despite the likelihood of more injuries, even 20 good games would give Tazawa/Doubront/Wilson/or a ST pickup time to prepare for Fenway; and Daisuke will be available late in the season. Even with Lackey and Beckett gone, which could happen, a rotation of Lester, Buchholz, Bedard, Beckett’s trade partner, Bard/Acevas
is a plus rotation with reasonable depth and pieces to prospects moving up the ladder to trade in July. I am as concerned aboutetting Bedard go as Lackey, who won’t bring much, and Beckett, who can at least replace himself.
by GerryT on Oct 20, 2011 3:39 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
My only problem with Bedard
Is that the team would have to be realistic and get a sixth (or seventh, etc) major league ready starter. He has an offseason to recover but his injury history is famous, with him not going more than 130 innings since 2007. I also would not be surprised to see him sign elsewhere where it is a little more low key and he can get another fresh start.
by The Name is Dalton on Oct 21, 2011 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
By the time you said
“I promise we’ll do this quickly,” you had already wasted too much time on this topic of trying to sell us on “The Redemption of John Lackey”.
by Bertram Williams on Oct 20, 2011 5:04 PM EDT reply actions
Would Barry Zito please post here for some perspective
The Sox are stuck with him & if he cannot cut it as a starter (assuming he is healthy next year ) then he needs to be sent to the pen for middle and long relief. At least the Sox get something for him rather than nothing. The season is a minimum of 1458 innings – I am sure there is a job for him in there somewhere..
"Man that ball got outta here in a hurry, you know anything that travels that far oughta have a damn stewardess on it, don't you think?" - Crash Davis
I Would Like to Drop Him...
And as much as I love BZ’s idea of sending him to Baltimore, I don’t see it happening…in either way. Baltimore or NL. Granted there was a report on ESPN yesterday that said he may go to the Padres, I still think that’s a long shot.
Here’s the thing: there’s too much money invested in him. Even with that TJ surgery clause (which I think only takes effect at a specific time year-wise in the contract as well), I really don’t see Lackey leaving. Eating a majority of the salary and essentially getting little in return isn’t really a sound business practice. Like Matt mentioned above somewhere, the level and number of prospects in return should be equivalent to the player himself, salary aside.
However, do teams want him? That’s the question.
"Common sense is quite rare." - Voltaire
The Artist Formerly Known as PacoL250
Resident Psychologist and Tech Support at Over the Monster: SB Nation's Resident Red Sox Web Site
well the thing is
while level and number of prospects in return should be equivalent to the player himself, we have to keep in mind that the player himself was the single worst pitcher who pitched 100 innings in the majors this year- and not just by a bit. By an extra 0.7.
So the value of the player is not exactly sky high. The question we have to ask ourselves is- “Will John Lackey pitch better than any random scrub we sign for whatever?” His ERA tells us no. His peripherals tell us possibly, but they also tells us that he’s been consistently trending worse and worse every year.
So the decision the Sox need to make- and I know my answer- is, will the team be better served by having John Lackey on the team, or will having that extra open roster spot literally be addition by subtraction? If they decide that the team is better served with the roster spot than John Lackey’s pitching and whatever baggage he may/may not carry with him, then if someone else is willing to take him and pay even $1 million/year of his salary, the front office should be jumping for joy and looking for someone to sign dirt cheap that might give some value. If they don’t, then obviously, there’s no reason to move.
Personally, even baseball aside, from a business standpoint, keeping Lackey around does not seem like a wise decision. He’s pretty much made himself fairly universally hated (except apparently in the clubhouse, somehow) in Boston. If they’re looking for a relatively guaranteed way to end the sellout streak, they need to look no further than trying to let him start every 5 days.
Well Said....
there is more to this than just bring him back and hope for the best. The Red Sox are trying to sell a premium product here. Lackey has become the face of failure at this point. There is about an 90% (I feel that is generous) chance Lackey will suck agian in 2012, and the atmosphere that will bring (fans, media, bloggers, etc.) could be toxic to the team’s chances next season.
Better to sign a decent pitcher (Harden?) for a couple of years. and take a few flyers on some guys. For all Theo’s and the organization’s player evalution skills, why can the Yankees succeed with Colon and Garcia and the Sox seem to rarely hit with a flyer?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Over the Monster
Related FanShots on Over the Monster
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
