The John Lackey Thread

[farmball]

Right' date=' I don't get this. Buchholz may very well be traded, but signing Lackey is hardly proof that it's going to happen.[/quote']

 

For all of the reasons I outline in my first post (near top of page 8- I'd link but I need 15 posts).

 

The Sox aren't about to get to the playoffs only to have guys like Buchholz and Daisuke riding the pine while we have Kotchman and a Hermida platoon in place of what are generally two strong hitting positions at 1B and LF.

 

Either the Sox:

 

A) Sign Holliday which would probably be $20/mil a year (around that). This would obliterate the Sox' old payroll record. It'd be nearly as surprising as the Yanks going after CC and Teixeira last yr. Not quite to that level but you see my point.

 

or

 

Trade Clay for a young hitter or one in his prime.

 

I can't see them trading Casey Kelly though he could possibly net more than Clay. His progression through the ranks would seem to coincide well with the end of Daisuke's contract.

[CalvnHobs6]

fangraphs.com is not impressed with the signing:

A couple hours after reports surfaced stating the John Lackey was taking a physical with the Boston Red Sox, the rumors are now saying that a contract has been reached between the two. Jon Heyman writes that it's a five-year deal worth $85 million.

 

As a fan of a team (the Mariners) linked to just about every free agent on the market, and in particular to John Lackey, I've been skeptical of his value all winter long. There are two main red flags that I have when it comes to Lackey.

 

First is health. Profiled as a top of the rotation arm, Lackey has made just 51 starts the last two seasons, averaging 170 innings. Before that he was more durable sure, but on the wrong side of 30, I lean more toward recent history than past when it comes to injury risk.

 

Second comes with Lackey's pitch results. More of his pitches have been resulting in balls lately and dropping rates in finding the strike zone and in starting hitters off with a strike portend a rise in the amount of walks that he allows, long his strong suit. More worrisome to me is this: 10.2%, 9.7%, 8.8%, 8.5%, 8.3%. Those are Lackey's swinging strike rates from 2005 to 2009 in chronological order. That is a downward trend and not a subtle one either. In other words, projecting Lackey, I'd expect slightly more walks and considerably fewer strikeouts.

 

John Lackey's tRAs have ranged from 3.7 to 3.9 to 5.5 and back down to 4.5 over the last four seasons, a difficult path to project. His xFIPs (and tRA*s) on the other hand, regressing his fluctuating home run rates, peg Lackey at a consistent 4.1, 4.0, 3.9, 3.9 from 2006 through 2009. That's a much easier trend to deal with.

 

That trend, with the other information above leads me to think that Lackey is about a 4.1-4.2 FIP pitcher going forward. CHONE's projection agrees mostly, seeing Lackey at a 4.1 FIP and 186 innings. That amount of production is worth about 3.2 wins, roughly a little less than Lackey's 2007-9 average on a 5/4/3 weight, reasonable for an aging pitcher.

 

You cannot assume Lackey holds on that 3.2 WAR level either and over five years, you're probably looking at a total expected contribution of three wins per year, or 15 wins in total. At the slightly depressed market value for wins and with the long term contract discount, a roughly fair number for Lackey at five years would be about $60 million.

 

Now, as Dave Cameron brought up a few days ago, not every team should pay the same rate for wins. The Red Sox are in a similar position as the Rays wherein each additional win means more to them. Also, they're a super high budget team with the resources to offer more money per win. Even still, this looks like a vast overpay in terms of annual value. And possibly worse than that is guaranteeing five years to a pitcher, much less for his age 31-35 seasons.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/john-lackey-inks-with-boston

[ORS]

Here's my immediate reaction to this signing.

 

Meh.

 

I like him for next year. However, I have a hard time seeing them offer similar $$ again next year to either of Beckett and Halladay, which means I suspect he's the Beckett replacement. If that's the case, he's my last choice of those three going into the future. Time will tell.

[CalvnHobs6]

I like him for next year. However, I have a hard time seeing them offer similar $$ again next year to either of Beckett and Halladay, which means I suspect he's the Beckett replacement. If that's the case, he's my last choice of those three going into the future. Time will tell.

 

I've been hearing a lot today through various tweeterings and blogs that this is merely a precursor to a Beckett extension this offseason. Though the two don't seem to go hand in hand necessarily, it would be nice to get that done as well. Having already signed Lester and Lackey through 2014 (Lester with that option), Beckett would really make for a nice final piece.

[Keeper]

I agree with FanGraphs that they're overpaying a little for him and that 5 years is too long, but the rest is pretty much nonsense. Lackey's walks and strikeouts haven't fluctuated at all the last three seasons. It's also true that Lackey hasn't been quite as durable the last two years, but he has a strong track record of 30+ starts and 200+ innings.

[CoachC.]

Here's my immediate reaction to this signing.

 

Meh.

 

I like him for next year. However, I have a hard time seeing them offer similar $$ again next year to either of Beckett and Halladay, which means I suspect he's the Beckett replacement. If that's the case, he's my last choice of those three going into the future. Time will tell.

 

With the emphasis the Sox brass puts into pitching I have a hard time believing that this is the case. I expect either Beckett or Lee to be here. It's been reported they are trying to sign him to an extension. Probably comparable to Lackey deal so 5/85-90?

[redsoxrules]

so wait a sec.... they didn't want to offer Bay 5 years but yet they do it for lackey ?

 

this dosent make any sense .

I'd rather offer the 5 years to Bay, its more risky to do it for a pitcher

[Gom]

I've been hearing a lot today through various tweeterings and blogs that this is merely a precursor to a Beckett extension this offseason. Though the two don't seem to go hand in hand necessarily' date=' it would be nice to get that done as well. Having already signed Lester and Lackey through 2014 (Lester with that option), Beckett would really make for a nice final piece.[/quote']

 

Two posts in a week? Is that some kind of record?

[yeszir]

Two posts in a week? Is that some kind of record?

 

Yes.

[Spudboy]

Yes.

 

I favor quality over quantity.

[farmball]

so wait a sec.... they didn't want to offer Bay 5 years but yet they do it for lackey ?

 

this dosent make any sense .

I'd rather offer the 5 years to Bay, its more risky to do it for a pitcher

 

Bay's price tag is probably going to be grossly above his "value" (if you're into sabermetrics, which the Red Sox are). While Lackey's deal seems like a bit of an overpay, his value last yr was exactly $17 mil and that was after missing a month and a half.

 

Holliday would've made a great FA target but there must be something about him they don't like. Even at $20 mil/yr, that would be a good value so they must have reservations about him for some reason.

[TheMino007]

Well I guess re-signing Bay was plan A for the offseason, plan B was throwing the Bay money at Lackey. From what I heard the Sox offer blew other offers away, in terms of total money and years. I know LAA offered him 5 years 70 million. I am too a bit weary about Lackey, but I think for the first three years of the deal he'll live up to the contract. Like I've said before, if you can't improve the offense, improve the defense. However, I think I would rather see Matt Holliday in LF then Lackey as the # 3 in the rotation.

[jacksonianmarch]

This is a very good move for Boston. I guess Theo agreed with me that you need 3 guys whom you can count on going into a season. They have that now.

[TedWilliams101]

Well I guess re-signing Bay was plan A for the offseason' date=' plan B was throwing the Bay money at Lackey. From what I heard the Sox offer blew other offers away, in terms of total money and years. I know LAA offered him 5 years 70 million. I am too a bit weary about Lackey, but I think for the first three years of the deal he'll live up to the contract. Like I've said before, if you can't improve the offense, improve the defense. However, I think I would rather see Matt Holliday in LF then Lackey as the # 3 in the rotation.[/quote']

 

I'd probably rather have Lackey and Cameron/Hermida than just Holliday. Mike Cameron's has had a 4.1 and 4.3 WAR the past 2 seasons with the Brewers. That's only a difference of about 2 less wins than Holliday. Factor in the 3-4 WAR Lackey gives you and it's a good trade-off.

 

My one concern with a Cameron/Hermida platoon would be Hermida's defense. He isn't a good outfielder (career -22.1 UZR/150 in LF and -8 in RF).

[jacksonianmarch]

On the topic of a Beckett re-sign, I have a hard time grasping it. Think about it. Beckett turns 30 in May of 2010. So, he'd essentially be hitting the market for his year 31 season. Halladay, OTOH, turns 33 in May and is about to sign a 3yr $60 million extension for 2011-2013, his age 34-36 seasons. Now, I think Beckett is above Lackey and below Halladay right now, but if he has another good season, then he could theoretically command Halladay money since they would get 3 more prime yrs out of him than they would Halladay. So, unless Beckett is willing to take a hometown discount, I find it very hard to believe that the sox would shell out $85 million for 5 yrs of Lackey and $100 million for 5 yrs of Beckett.

[TheMino007]

If Lackey got 17 million, and Hallday got 20 million, then I see Beckett being somewhere in between, probably a lot closer to Lackey''s contract. 18 million a year maybe?

[Dojji]

That's all the more reason to hold onto Buchholz.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

That's all the more reason to hold onto Buchholz.

Bingo.

 

There's a lot less pressure to keep Beckett when if you lose him, you still have a front 3 of Lackey/Lester/Buchholz.

[jacksonianmarch]

that's assuming Buchholz breaks out as a top of the rotation starter. I think this is probably it for Boston and 2010 is going to be a massively important yr for Buchholz. If he kinda wallows in the 1st full yr starter inconsistencies then the sox might have to pony up for Beckett. If he comes right out of the gate as a #1 or a true #2, then Beckett is expendable.

 

That being said, I like the Lackey move for the short term, I am not so sure he will be at Beckett's level over the length of their respective contracts.

[TheMino007]

Again, who is to say Buchholz becomes what Josh Beckett is?

[jacksonianmarch]

I think a lot of people are making that assumption here and everyone is forgetting how hard it is for a pitching prospect to become a top notch ace. As much as I love Hughes and Joba, right now, I cannot count on them being top of the rotation starters for this team in 2010 thereby making another pitcher expendable.

[RedSoxRooter]

Ugh. I really really really hate John Lackey. I just do. I think I just threw up in my mouth. 5 years? WTF???

[Rdsxmbnt]

Again' date=' who is to say Buchholz becomes what Josh Beckett is?[/quote']

 

Who's to say he doesn't?

[CalvnHobs6]

Two posts in a week? Is that some kind of record?

 

Yes.

 

It's been a pretty exciting few days. Plus, there seems to be notably less bickering around here.

[TheMino007]

http://images.halosheaven.com/images/admin/Angels_Lackey.jpg

 

OH YEAH. GOON

[CalvnHobs6]

http://images.halosheaven.com/images/admin/Angels_Lackey.jpg

 

Sweet Jesus!

[Dojji]

He.... looks different..... without the cap....

 

The uh, yellow teeth kinda... set things off nicely.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

okay

[Gom]

Good day for the Sox...bad day for the Yankees.

[TheMino007]

at least Lackey has a hot wife...