Yes, I know Pal was vocal against the move. There was still plenty of good reason to think that it was a good move when you consider the potential and the number of years of control that Kelly and Craig both have. And if Lackey was making noise about not playing for the minumum (which has also not been denied by Lackey or anyone else), then it was an even better move.
I like Lackey and have always defended him, so I'm not trying to bash on him now. But I'm wondering why Lackey would not come out and deny this speculation if it is not true. My understanding is that Lackey was really turned off by the way the FO treated Lester during the negotiations in ST, and hence his not wanting to play for the Sox for league minimum. If that's the case, then the FO is to blame for the blunder of not only losing Lester, but also subsequently losing Lackey.