John Lackey hot stove discussion - Talksox

jacksonianmarch · 10-12-2009, 03:11 PM

Undoubtedly, the sox will at least be kicking the tires on Lackey, so seeing as I made a topic about Bay's and Holliday's contractual projections, maybe I should do the same with Lackey.

Will be 31 for the entirety of 2010
102-71 W/L record
Ace of the Angels
3.81 career ERA
1.30 career WHIP
2009 line- 11-8 3.83ERA 1.27WHIP

Lets try and look for some comparisons out there.

The most logical and most recent one would be AJ Burnett. Burnett came off a more impressive season strikeout wise and wins wise, but Lackey's WHIP was a bit lower and Lackey has the extensive playoff resume. In terms of durability, Lackey had 5 straight seasons of 198IP plus. Now, he is coming off two yrs where injury has hindered the beginning of his season. One was an arm issue and another was a lower body issue. Regardless, none of them are lingering right now. And, when considering Burnett, one must always think about Burnett's injury history prior to signing this contract. Lackey, on the whole, doesnt have that problem. AND, Lackey will be a yr younger when he signs a deal.

Another guy to compare him to would be Kevin Millwood (5yrs 65 mil contract).

Now there is a reason why comparisons seem to be lacking. A lot of pitchers get locked up early, so the big time FA pitchers at a young age dont seem to be happening at all. And therefore, a lot of pitchers who hit the market end up being past their second contracts, IE, mid to late 30s. I wont consider Lackey in the same ilk as Sabathia or Santana, that's just disingenuous. But, Lackey compares rather favorably to Burnett, and due to age, lack of significant durability issues and proven top of the rotation status, I think Lackey will get a lot more. Also, consider that the other viable options aside from Lackey are lacking and a LOT of teams need pitching. So, in terms of the FA market, Lackey is gonna get a shitload of money.

So, lets consider AJs 5yr 82 mil deal. That is 16.4mil a yr. Well, Lackey is a yr younger, so make that a 6 yr deal. Then consider that in a fair market, Lackey gets an AAV of 17 mil. That comes out to 6yrs 102 mil. That is a fair price for a durable, proven pitcher in his prime. But now consider that Boston, NYM, maybe NYY, CHC, LA, and other big market clubs will be looking for pitching, then his price could go higher. There wont be discounts here ladies and gents. This is gonna be a big time signing for big time money

BSN07 · 10-12-2009, 03:13 PM

Pass

example1 · 10-12-2009, 03:21 PM

I would kick the tires on that. I think Derek Lowe would be a useful comp, though Lackey is better.

If they got Lackey there would be less pressure re: Josh Beckett after next year as I'm sure they'll try to acquire Felix (or maybe Roy Halladay) if possible.

If that is possible (by using Buchholz, of course) then the 2010 rotation would be (for the sake of discussion):

Felix
Lester
Beckett
Lackey
Dice-K

2011:

Felix
Lester
Lackey
Dice-K
+?

Seems very reasonable to me. Holliday and Lackey sign as FAs, team acquires someone else with some prospects (Roy Halliday being a backup option with the new GM in Toronto).

Emmz · 10-12-2009, 03:48 PM

I like this, I'd definitely give a run at Lackey, as well as go after Felix. I like the possibility of this too, I think it's certainly doable. Btw, I like that projected rotation, a lot, example.

Gom · 10-12-2009, 03:50 PM

I can't see Lackey leaving LA.

BSN07 · 10-12-2009, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gom

I can't see Lackey leaving LA.

The trade for Kazmir almost guarantee's he leaves. Don't be surprised to see the Orioles and Nationals among other teams get in on him.

jacksonianmarch · 10-12-2009, 04:55 PM

The question would be, how much are the sox willing to spend.

Right now if you compare the salaries from April 3, 2009 to the projected team set on April 3,2010, then:

They save 7mil with Bay's contract ending
They add 7.7 mil with VMart being there the whole yr
They save 2 mil on Vtek assuming he re-ups with his player option
They save 5 mil with Smoltz gone
They save 5 mil with Penny gone
They save 2 mil without Saito

That's a net savings of 13.3mil without considering the pay increases for Ellsbury, Papelbon, Okajima, and Ramirez.

So, lets say Ellsbury gets a 1.5 mil raise, Papelbon gets a 2.5 mil raise, Okajima will probably see a 1 mil raise and Ramirez will probably see something similar as well.

That puts the savings at 7.3 mil

Then consider the LF position:

Bay or Holliday cost, lets say for arguments sake 16 mil per yr AAV
Lackey costs 17 mil per yr AAV
Felix gets traded for and signs a new contract in the 15 mil a yr AAV (seeing as the sox would have the leverage of buying out his last 2 arb yrs).

Thats a salary increase of $40.7 mil. That's a lot of dough to increase your spending on prior to the season starting. And when you consider the current payroll of $122mil, thats a 33% increase in operating cost for one season. I highly doubt they go this way.

example1 · 10-12-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonianmarch

The question would be, how much are the sox willing to spend.

Right now if you compare the salaries from April 3, 2009 to the projected team set on April 3,2010, then:

They save 7mil with Bay's contract ending
They add 7.7 mil with VMart being there the whole yr
They save 2 mil on Vtek assuming he re-ups with his player option
They save 5 mil with Smoltz gone
They save 5 mil with Penny gone
They save 2 mil without Saito

That's a net savings of 13.3mil without considering the pay increases for Ellsbury, Papelbon, Okajima, and Ramirez.

So, lets say Ellsbury gets a 1.5 mil raise, Papelbon gets a 2.5 mil raise, Okajima will probably see a 1 mil raise and Ramirez will probably see something similar as well.

That puts the savings at 7.3 mil

Then consider the LF position:

Bay or Holliday cost, lets say for arguments sake 16 mil per yr AAV
Lackey costs 17 mil per yr AAV
Felix gets traded for and signs a new contract in the 15 mil a yr AAV (seeing as the sox would have the leverage of buying out his last 2 arb yrs).

Thats a salary increase of $40.7 mil. That's a lot of dough to increase your spending on prior to the season starting. And when you consider the current payroll of $122mil, thats a 33% increase in operating cost for one season. I highly doubt they go this way.

1. They lose Ortiz, Lowell, Beckett and V-Mart the following year.
2. They were willing to spend 20+m on Teixeira last year.
3. They are saving money on the talents of Youkilis, Pedroia and Lester already

I think it would be a big increase in spending for one season, with a big drop off after that.

For a point of reference, for the 2011 season, the Red Sox have less money committed than either St. Louis, Toronto or Seattle. (43.483m)

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...XT3cpPRtt9qIGw

That chart shows the Sox committed to 76m for next year. It could be wrong, I haven't checked it against Cot's team-by-team breakdown. However, if true that means that they're down about 40m in salary just from teams like the 2009 Cubs and Mets.

jacksonianmarch · 10-12-2009, 05:31 PM

that doesnt include the options and the arbitration increases

example1 · 10-12-2009, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonianmarch

that doesnt include the options and the arbitration increases

The answer, found here, http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...jw&output=html, puts them at 108m for next year, and then then 49m. That includes the options, not the arb increases.

They would need to be a higher end $$ club next year, but would be very reasonable after that IMO.

TheKilo · 10-13-2009, 10:19 PM

As I said in the other thread, I'm all for the Sox adding Lackey and signing Bay/Holliday and calling it an offseason.

Dojji · 10-13-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

As I said in the other thread, I'm all for the Sox adding Lackey and signing Bay/Holliday and calling it an offseason.

Shortstop.

TheKilo · 10-13-2009, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dojji

Shortstop.

Fully comfortable with a Gonzalez/Lowrie platoon.

Dipre · 10-13-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

Fully comfortable with a Gonzalez/Lowrie platoon.

Agreed.

The Brewers are going to try to package Hardy with Gamel to fill both of their SP holes simultaneously. Not worth it.

Dojji · 10-13-2009, 11:13 PM

Considering just how weak we are at 3B on the farm I'd take a look, but I think the Brewers are being foolish here. Bunding Gamel with Hardy is a really bad move because if reflects a lack of faith in both Gamel and Hardy. You probably get more overall value if you package them separately.

Also, considering how rare top prospects are traded for top prospects packaging two or more young cost-controlled players together in the same deal suggests they're going after a veteran rather than after youth. Which is interesting.