Rotation

[SoxFanForsyth]

Well there is a chance, but it does not seem decent. His era has increased for 5 years in a row, that is not falling off a cliff- that is steadily going down hill. Surgery sure did not help Dice K. Hope I am wrong but I would bet he sucks next season.

 

Nobody is expecting him to be a 3.3 era guy. But turning back to 2010 Lackey is hardly a stretch.

 

Especially with a manager who was there in 2010 as his pitching coach.

 

Gammons was saying his elbow was so messed up that his pitches, specifically his fastball, had zero movement.

[Station 13]

Let's get Edwin Jackson instead. He's an undervalued inning eater guy.

[BSN07]

Depends on what Jackson wants. I've already said that I'm ok with Sanchez at 4/60M. I probably can't argue against Jackson at the same kind of deal. But for some reason it just fees like a worse idea hahaha

[Station 13]

There's no way Sanchez goes that low. He's better than Lackey and Burnett, who got 5/85M, he's pushing 5-6 for 90M+.

 

I would not want a pitcher approaching 30 on a 5-6 year deal.

[Orange Juiced]

There's no way Sanchez goes that low. He's better than Lackey and Burnett, who got 5/85M, he's pushing 5-6 for 90M+.

 

I would not want a pitcher approaching 30 on a 5-6 year deal.

 

Nor would I. That's crazy money for a good, but not great, pitcher. I mean, I'd like to have him, and I think he would be very helpful, but I'd rather go short years and more AAV than a longer contract.

[Bellhorn04]

There's no way Sanchez goes that low. He's better than Lackey and Burnett, who got 5/85M, he's pushing 5-6 for 90M+.

 

I would not want a pitcher approaching 30 on a 5-6 year deal.

 

Sanchez's numbers are not as good as Lackey's were at the time we signed him.

[Station 13]

Sanchez's numbers are not as good as Lackey's were at the time we signed him.

 

Lackey 2 season prior to joining the Sox:

 

163IP 3.75

176IP 3.83

 

Plus Lackey was 31 in his first season in Boston.

[jung]

There is going to be such a rejection of long term deals in the MLB this year that it might even get to the point where the Players Association feels justified in a collusion suit against the leagues teams. But in this case, I don't think they will have a leg to stand on if it happens.

[wyo-sox]

Nobody is expecting him to be a 3.3 era guy. But turning back to 2010 Lackey is hardly a stretch.

 

Especially with a manager who was there in 2010 as his pitching coach.

 

Gammons was saying his elbow was so messed up that his pitches, specifically his fastball, had zero movement.

 

I agree, and in 2010 he had a 4.4 era, which sucks. To hope at 3 years older with a bad track record, and a surgery on a destroyed elbow, a guy can get back to 4.4 says a lot.

[Bellhorn04]

There is going to be such a rejection of long term deals in the MLB this year that it might even get to the point where the Players Association feels justified in a collusion suit against the leagues teams. But in this case, I don't think they will have a leg to stand on if it happens.

 

We'll see what happens, but I haven't seen any evidence yet of teams being any more cautious about long term deals. This free agent season won't see too many big deals but only because there aren't many elite players on the market.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I agree, and in 2010 he had a 4.4 era, which sucks. To hope at 3 years older with a bad track record, and a surgery on a destroyed elbow, a guy can get back to 4.4 says a lot.

 

It's not great, no. But for a #5 man, to give you 215 innings and a 4.40 ERA and 14 wins, I'll take that every single day of the week. Every day.

 

And he gave the Sox a 3.96 ERA in the 2nd half of 2010, so he was better down the stretch.

[wyo-sox]

Innings Eater- I see this thrown round to describe some pitchers. What does this mean to you? I would think I could eat innings, I would give up a crap ton if runs, but I could eat up innings. So either a guy is good enough or not right? Eating innings means nothing unless your era is respectable, right?

[SoxFanForsyth]

Innings Eater- I see this thrown round to describe some pitchers. What does this mean to you? I would think I could eat innings, I would give up a crap ton if runs, but I could eat up innings. So either a guy is good enough or not right? Eating innings means nothing unless your era is respectable, right?

 

Innings eater is a guy who goes out there and throws 7 innings almost every night, makes all of his starts, and saves your bullpen, all while keeping your team in the game and giving them a good chance to win.

 

Throwing 7 IP and allowing 3-4 runs keeps your team in it every game.

 

Is Lackey overpaid? Absolutely (unless you count his new option which drops his AAV to around $10.333mm. But he is what he is, a 5th starter who will take the ball with his elbow falling off and goes out there and competes. He's not the best pitcher in the world, but he's your 5th man.

[wyo-sox]

It's not great, no. But for a #5 man, to give you 215 innings and a 4.40 ERA and 14 wins, I'll take that every single day of the week. Every day.

 

And he gave the Sox a 3.96 ERA in the 2nd half of 2010, so he was better down the stretch.

 

I guess its not out of the realm, I really hope he could be productive. I do think he took to much crap about being a negative influence, so it would be great to see him come back. I seem to remember thinking his 2010 14 wins were pretty lucky. I personally do not get or like the 1-5 ratings of starters. You want the five best possible pitchers on your staff. I think I'm just grumpy from last season still, just tough for me to have a good attitude looking forward with most of these guys.

[SoxFanForsyth]

On a side note - Anthony Ranaudo threw 3 hitless innings last night in Puerto Rico, throwing 93-94 with a good change and curveball, according to Speier.

 

If he can get back on track, with Webster, De La Rosa, Barnes, Owens, Workman, Britton, and Brian Johnson, the Sox have a ton of SP depth.

[wyo-sox]

On a side note - Anthony Ranaudo threw 3 hitless innings last night in Puerto Rico, throwing 93-94 with a good change and curveball, according to Speier.

 

If he can get back on track, with Webster, De La Rosa, Barnes, Owens, Workman, Britton, and Brian Johnson, the Sox have a ton of SP depth.

 

That is great to read!

[jung]

IMO, the long term deal is dead because teams don't need them any longer. The advent of monster cable money and/or team ownership of sports networks has created a sky raining $$ for teams. However that does not appear to be working in the player's interest. Teams can now see their way to solvency under just about any condition they can practically realize and as such are not thinking that signing specific players is critical to their economic solvency. Thus they are not willing to go out on a limb in contract term. Sure, viewership translates into more revenue but that difference is huge revenue versus very comfortable revenue, not live vs. die. You will get an occasional deal like the Ortiz deal with the Sox seeing it as worthwhile to secure his big bat mainly because Ortiz is a tie to past glories.

 

Teams again IMO will be willing to trade some of those cable TV $$ by opting to offer shorter terms at marginally higher per annum salaries. However they will have little interest going forward in sticking their necks out extending long term commitments to players. The guaranteed contract may finally come back to haunt the Players Association.

 

LA is at least temporarily willing to suck up these idiotic contracts in an effort to build a fan base for its new owners but in truth, New York, Boston, Philly and maybe Chicago are the teams that swing the pendulum one way or the other. The Rangers may join that exclusive club. I think the big four are done with these whacky long term deals.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I guess its not out of the realm, I really hope he could be productive. I do think he took to much crap about being a negative influence, so it would be great to see him come back. I seem to remember thinking his 2010 14 wins were pretty lucky. I personally do not get or like the 1-5 ratings of starters. You want the five best possible pitchers on your staff. I think I'm just grumpy from last season still, just tough for me to have a good attitude looking forward with most of these guys.

 

Here were his gamelogs for his wins in 2010:

 

1: 6.2, 2 ER

2: 7.0, 3 ER

3: 7.0, 1 ER

4: 6.0, 6 ER

5: 6.1, 2 ER

6: 6.0, 4 ER

7: 7.0, 2 ER

8: 6.0, 3 ER

9: 7.0, 1 ER

10: 7.1, 2 ER

11: 7.0, 5 ER

12: 8.0, 2 ER

13: 7.0, 1 ER

14: 7.2, 2 ER

 

Now, if you ask me, anytime you allow 4 ER or more, it's at least somewhat of a lucky win. So, I can see how you would say that 3 of his wins were lucky.

 

But, looking deeper into it, here are some of his other starts.

 

8 IP, 0 ER, No Decision

6 IP, 0 ER, No Decision

7 IP, 1 ER, Loss

6 IP, 2 ER, No Decision

7 IP, 2 ER, No Decision

7 IP, 2 ER, No Decision

 

So, it evens out, maybe he was due another 1-2 wins even than he got, but for the most part, it evens out. He certainly shouldn't have taken a ND against the Mariners in 2010 when he threw 8 IP, 0 ER.

 

But, sometimes our memory deceives us, I know mine often does, so I just wanted to provide some clarity.

[wyo-sox]

Here were his gamelogs for his wins in 2010:

 

1: 6.2, 2 ER

2: 7.0, 3 ER

3: 7.0, 1 ER

4: 6.0, 6 ER

5: 6.1, 2 ER

6: 6.0, 4 ER

7: 7.0, 2 ER

8: 6.0, 3 ER

9: 7.0, 1 ER

10: 7.1, 2 ER

11: 7.0, 5 ER

12: 8.0, 2 ER

13: 7.0, 1 ER

14: 7.2, 2 ER

 

Now, if you ask me, anytime you allow 4 ER or more, it's at least somewhat of a lucky win. So, I can see how you would say that 3 of his wins were lucky.

 

But, looking deeper into it, here are some of his other starts.

 

8 IP, 0 ER, No Decision

6 IP, 0 ER, No Decision

7 IP, 1 ER, Loss

6 IP, 2 ER, No Decision

7 IP, 2 ER, No Decision

7 IP, 2 ER, No Decision

 

So, it evens out, maybe he was due another 1-2 wins even than he got, but for the most part, it evens out. He certainly shouldn't have taken a ND against the Mariners in 2010 when he threw 8 IP, 0 ER.

 

But, sometimes our memory deceives us, I know mine often does, so I just wanted to provide some clarity.

 

Those numbers clearly show my memory was clouded. I am certainly not above admitting I was wrong.

[jung]

Often when you look at game log stats for a pitcher at least using ER's what almost always leaps off the page is how few less than sterling starts it takes to pump up that ERA unless you manager is predisposed to pulling you early....maybe during a bad early inning or any inning thereafter that starts off problematic, like with a no-out BB.

 

I think it will all boil down to whether Lackey regains control of multiple pitches in his first year back from TJ. If he does I think he can do really well in the AL we have today, East or West. If he can't well then I think he will struggle.

[Bellhorn04]

IMO, the long term deal is dead because teams don't need them any longer.

 

I don't know what you're basing this on. Just last year, Pujols and Fielder got 10 year deals.

[jung]

I don't know what you're basing this on. Just last year, Pujols and Fielder got 10 year deals.

 

That was last year. IMO, the last year we will see of this nonsense for awhile if ever again. Also I suspect both of those teams will be left rather unsatisfied. I could be wrong. The 2013 off season is barely off the ground....we shall see.

 

Also I have stuck my neck out farther than that even. I am suggesting that the criteria will get tighter up and down the line with regard to term.

[BSN07]

Less elite talent is hitting the open market, with teams more willing to give long term extension to it's own young talent, that will be one of the biggest factor in not seeing these 10 year type deals.

 

Players will learn just because your that off seasons best position player/ SP does not mean you automatically get the next 100M deal. These big long term contracts are going to be reserved for truely elite young talent that manages to make it to FA(not every team can sign all it's young talent). So occasionally ones going to sneak through. But it will going back to being more of a rare thing. The way it should be. We will see though.

[Behindenemylines]

Can anyone think of a ten year contract that a team didn't end up regreating the deal?

[Palodios]

Can anyone think of a ten year contract that a team didn't end up regreating the deal?

 

Ten year contracts are so rare that they are hard to judge. Even so, ten year contracts are just silly. Some longer deals have been successful though.

 

Eight years for Manny Ramirez may not have ended well, but he absolutely was worth the money. Sabathia's first eight year deal turned out very well for the Yankees, although he may trail off now that he opted out and re-signed for more years. Holliday is looking like a very good investment. Jeter's 7 year contract turned out well.

[jung]

I think you will see fewer 7 year contracts as well as they will IMO be held out to the guys that used to get consideration for 10 year contracts and so on down the line.

 

As for extensions especially to pitchers, ala Beckett and others, they have got to be even sillier than the 10 year contract. I do think that the real change is less of a frenzied attitude by teams with regard to players. Players are no longer seen as the path to financial stability. A cable TV contract is what you want or ownership of a sports network.

 

It does appear at least to this point that the increase in LT tax for multiple year offenders coupled with the extra penalty in the form of a percentage cut from the moneys expected back from the league are having the desired effect on the biggest offenders. When the baseball organizations that really do swing the pendulum make changes that has an impact on all of the teams and players.

 

I think LA will have turned out to have lost its mind only temporarily .

[rjortiz]

So glad to have mega prospect Anthony Ranuado instead of Josh Johnson.

[mvp 78]

Yeah, because the deal was Johnson for Renaudo straight up...

[a700hitter]

I am so glad that the Red Sox didn't sacrifice any of their elite pitching prospects. You don't want to sacrifice the future. LOL!

[mvp 78]

Marlins didn't want any of the MiLB pitchers. If that was a point of contention, you'd be right. It wasn't, so you're not.