Do you think John Lackey should be willing to play for $500K in 2015?

Do you think John Lackey should be willing to play for $500K in 2015


  • Total voters
    298

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
His TJ surgery contributed to the Red Sox winning the World Series last year.  If he just went on like he did in 2010 for the next 4 years pitching poorly because of a pre-existing injury the Red Sox knew about, 2013 likely never happens the way it played out.
 
Red Sox got what they bargained for.  Lackey did as well.  I am pretty sure Lackey signed the deal knowing he only plays that last year if he had plans to play baseball beyond 2015.  If he doesn't, he is under no obligation to play in 2015 and his contract does not compel him to play, so he should not play.    If he wants to play beyond 2015, he has no choice but to play in 2015.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Sampo Gida said:
If he wants to play beyond 2015, he has no choice but to play in 2015.
 
Or he could choose not to play in 2015 and then play in 2016.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
EvilEmpire said:
 
This is batshit insane.
No more insane than claiming that Lackey's possible retirement over his agreed upon salary is not that unusual and, at the same time, not offering a single example of the same.
 
Despite your breezy "this isn't so unusual" mantra, the fact is that very few guys wind up with deals that are under market to this extreme extent, and very few guys retire because they don't want to play for the contract they agreed to.  And if I'm wrong and you have several such examples up your sleeve, please let us know who you have in mind.
 
Lackey can do what he wants and I don't think it will be morally repugnant or any such thing if he decides he just can't stomach playing for $500k.  But to pretend that this is anything other than extraordinary is just wrong.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Again, I guarantee that if you put John Henry on a lie detector machine and asked him, "Did you ever expect that John Lackey would be productive and healthy in 2014 and then pitch in 2015 for the league minimum?" his answer would be, "No, that wouldn't make sense."
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Plympton91 said:
Again, I guarantee that if you put John Henry on a lie detector machine and asked him, "Did you ever expect that John Lackey would be productive and healthy in 2014 and then pitch in 2015 for the league minimum?" his answer would be, "No, that wouldn't make sense."
Then why did they insist on that clause in the contract?
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Then why did they insist on that clause in the contract?
 
I'm guessing because it gave the team valuable leverage, even if they foresaw a difficult situation should it come to pass.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
If Lackey "retires" for a year then he should be willing to reimburse the Sox to the extent of his 2012 salary. This is very simple .. Lackey received a huge contract BECAUSE he agreed to pitch for the league minimum in an extra option year in the event of a major injury. You take the bad with the good.
 
This isn't remotely close to the truth.
 
The short version is that Lackey can retire at any time and the contract is essentially terminated.  (With the exception that if he decides to play in the future he is still under the control of the Red Sox.)
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
TheoShmeo said:
No more insane than claiming that Lackey's possible retirement over his agreed upon salary is not that unusual and, at the same time, not offering a single example of the same.
 
Despite your breezy "this isn't so unusual" mantra, the fact is that very few guys wind up with deals that are under market to this extreme extent, and very few guys retire because they don't want to play for the contract they agreed to.  And if I'm wrong and you have several such examples up your sleeve, please let us know who you have in mind.
 
Lackey can do what he wants and I don't think it will be morally repugnant or any such thing if he decides he just can't stomach playing for $500k.  But to pretend that this is anything other than extraordinary is just wrong.
 
This specific contract is very unusual for any number of reasons that have already been cited.
 
The behavior that we are discussing - one party to an agreement finding the specific terms to be untenable and attempting to use whatever leverage they may have to persuade the other party to change those terms - is as ordinary as it gets.
 
Lackey clearly wants to pitch in 2015 and beyond.  My guess is that he is not fond of the idea of pitching for the MLB minimum and he's trying to set the context for a re-structuring of the end of his deal.  And if I were a betting man, I'd say that it's going to happen.
 
If he really did retire rather than pitch for the minimum, that would be extremely unusual.  That isn't going to happen, IMO.
 
 
Rudy Pemberton said:
I thought the point of the deal was to lower the AAV of the contract and potentially provide the team with needed luxury tax relief?
 
I thought the point of the deal was to provide protection because the Sox believed (correctly as it turns out) that Lackey was at risk for TJ surgery.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
The other motivation Lackey may have, depending on how friendly he is with his ex-wife, is the way spousal support was structured.  If Lackey can screw the ex-wife by not playing in 2015, that may enter into his calculus, one way or the other.
The Lackeys had a pre-nup, so I don't think this will be a factor.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
Again, I guarantee that if you put John Henry on a lie detector machine and asked him, "Did you ever expect that John Lackey would be productive and healthy in 2014 and then pitch in 2015 for the league minimum?" his answer would be, "No, that wouldn't make sense."
 
What does he say in this hypothetical machine when you tell him he paid Lackey $30 million for 2011-2012 and got 160 IP of 6.41 ERA?
 
I just don't see what's so complicated about this. Lackey got paid an immense amount of money while he was terrible and then injured. So in 2015 he'll get paid a small amount of money when he's healthy and good. It all balances out. So why shouldn't Lackey honor the deal? Should we have demanded the Sox abrogate the contract when Lackey was sucking eggs throughout 2011 and then on the sidelines in 2012? Of course not.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Average Reds said:
 
The behavior that we are discussing - one party to an agreement finding the specific terms to be untenable and attempting to use whatever leverage they may have to persuade the other party to change those terms - is as ordinary as it gets.
 
I guess so.  But exercising that leverage in the context of a below market contract to this extent remains highly unusual, I think.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
If* Lackey thinks he can increase his likely 2016-Onward future earnings by more than 500K by not putting a year of MLB mileage on his arm in 2015, he SHOULD sit out rather than play for the scheduled salary.

If the Red Sox ever think the cost of retaining Lackey exceeds the value he provides, they SHOULD do everything in their power to divest themselves of him.



*Unpacking this conditional is tough, of course. There's a strong argument to be made that the year of rust and no data will be detrimental to his final contract or two. There's also a strong argument to be made that additional rest for an aging pitcher helps them come back stronger, and he could cash in on a make-good. I don't have an opinion either way, but the SHOULD needs to be directed towards 'What's Best For John Lackey And Within The Boundaries of Usual Business Behavior'. You know the SHOULD Army is on shaky ground the more they have to turn Tuesday into a straw Event Horizon.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
The situation is for sure unusual.  Choosing not to pitch in '15, given the situation, isnt an unusual response.
 
I don't really put a lot of credence in the argument that if Lackey didn't want to pitch for the minimum he shouldn't have signed the contract.  Seems like it worked out very well for John.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,123
<null>
Voted no. If he has some reasonable chance of getting paid more money, by threatening to hold out / retire or whatever, then he should take it. After some negotiations, the Sox will probably still end up paying Lackey under market rate for his ability, but they're also not going to end up paying him peanuts. 
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,707
We're chasing our tails. This has nothing to do with ethics, morality or the Gospels. The RS weren't asleep when they negotiated this deal. They know Lackey and certainly anticipated there might be a Mexican Standoff come 2015. His prior performance would determine what he and they would do. The 500 K option was simply a placeholder. They gambled he wouldn't sit out a year at his age. He gambled that he would perform so well prior to 2015 that JH and LL would renegotiate a market deal. What he received in prior years doesn't fit into the equation.
 
That's where we're heading. Lackey is performing well. He's thrown out the first marker. This is going to be a process that both parties anticipated.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,588
NY
Rudy Pemberton said:
I thought the point of the deal was to lower the AAV of the contract and potentially provide the team with needed luxury tax relief?
 
No, the option year doesn't count as part of the AAV because it hasn't been picked up.
 

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
Otis Foster said:
We're chasing our tails. This has nothing to do with ethics, morality or the Gospels. The RS weren't asleep when they negotiated this deal. They know Lackey and certainly anticipated there might be a Mexican Standoff come 2015. His prior performance would determine what he and they would do. The 500 K option was simply a placeholder. They gambled he wouldn't sit out a year at his age. He gambled that he would perform so well prior to 2015 that JH and LL would renegotiate a market deal. What he received in prior years doesn't fit into the equation.
 
That's where we're heading. Lackey is performing well. He's thrown out the first marker. This is going to be a process that both parties anticipated.
This is how I see it also.  They will exercise the option to gain an exclusive window and negotiate a new multi-year deal.
 

Dewy4PrezII

Very Intense
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2003
2,802
Outside The District
He earned over $30MM over 2 years in 2011 and 2012 while playing terrible and no professional baseball respectively.  He signed a contract that was designed to protect the Red Sox from that very thing and because it happened he should be beholden to honor his contract.  I do however understand his desire to leverage whatever he can to parlay that leverage, however minimal, to get a new long term deal and I think the Red Sox will use whatever leverage they have to work out an extension.  The two sides should be able to work out a 3 year deal.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,622
I don't think we should be looking at Lackey's 2015 salary in isolation, as it sounds like some people are.
 
The team option was the price of doing business, and Lackey knew it (or should have).  Lackey's profile at that time (performance, age, likely disaster MRI) was not worth 5/82.5M on the open market.  
 
Lackey was overpaid on his 5 year deal precisely because he was willing to take this option.  Without the option, he would have made less.  How much less?  I don't know.  Maybe it was just a couple million less overall, maybe more. Maybe it only would have been a 4 year deal, who knows.  We don't know what other deals were out there, or what other contract the Red Sox were offering.  But it's safe to say, considering this team option is so far below any reasonable market price, it had significant value in the negotiations. 
 
Of course Lackey is free to do whatever he wants, and if he retires due to the 2015 money, that's his call.  Maybe that was his plan from the start.  But I think looking just looking at the 500K and saying "wow, he is sooo underpaid next year!" misses the boat.  He is underpaid precisely because he just got more money over the last 5 years than he otherwise could have gotten without accepting the option.
 
Lackey collected on his part, now the Red Sox collect on theirs (or get a super team friendly extension with that 500K folded in)
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
The Red Sox will 100% collect on their injury protection.  Lackey will pitch for them for the minimum in 2015, will pitch for them at a higher price as part of a negotiated contract/extension, (with the Red Sox having additional leverage) or will not pitch in professional baseball in 2015.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Is there any indication besides baseless speculation that Lackey will NOT honor his contract? I can picture the usual lame-duck-year misdirection about wanting an extension when he intends to hit the market (Lackey doesn't seem close to retirement), but he doesn't strike me as cut from the (coughMannycough) cloth of folks "insulted" by the contract they signed. Not that I know him, but he seems like a straightforward, "suck it up" guy who will say he's fine with it, agitate a little for an extension, and then otherwise do his job. 
 

Scott Cooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2002
1,493
So, I forgot about this in the offseason and heard on ESPN last night that he is in fact playing for 500K.  Given his success the last 2 years and what we got back from the Cardinals in return seems like THEY got a huge bargain.
 
Was the contract for next season the reason we traded him in the first place?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Scott Cooper said:
So, I forgot about this in the offseason and heard on ESPN last night that he is in fact playing for 500K.  Given his success the last 2 years and what we got back from the Cardinals in return seems like THEY got a huge bargain.
 
Was the contract for next season the reason we traded him in the first place?
 
The $500K for this year is a huge reason why the Cardinals traded for him, that's for sure.  Rumor is that he was agitating for the Sox to not pick it up because he wanted out (of Boston, not necessarily the $500K paycheck).  If that's the case, I think the Sox did just fine for themselves to get a young pitcher they control for the next 4 years and a reclamation project that, if he proves healthy, will be a huge bargain for the deal he's owed for the next three years.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
Darnell's Son said:
He told the Red Sox that he would retire if they didn't release him after last year.
 
That's a lot more definitive than what's been reported, and I highly doubt it is true as stated.
 
I have little doubt he tried to use the unusual salary as leverage to get what he wanted---which is far off from truly being willing to retire over it.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
PedroKsBambino said:
 
That's a lot more definitive than what's been reported, and I highly doubt it is true as stated.
 
I have little doubt he tried to use the unusual salary as leverage to get what he wanted---which is far off from truly being willing to retire over it.
I agree.  I seem to think he simply refused to answer when pushed about his commitment to playing with the Red Sox for $500K in 2015.  That turned into "Lackey threatens to retire if he doesn't get new deal".  Noone really knew the answer to that question; not even clear Lackey's agent truly knew the answer either.  And it all became moot, and he has no reason to answer that hypothetical going forward. 
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
lexrageorge said:
I agree.  I seem to think he simply refused to answer when pushed about his commitment to playing with the Red Sox for $500K in 2015.  That turned into "Lackey threatens to retire if he doesn't get new deal".  Noone really knew the answer to that question; not even clear Lackey's agent truly knew the answer either.  And it all became moot, and he has no reason to answer that hypothetical going forward. 
That's my recollection as well.  I fully expected the Sox to use the 2015 option for $500K as leverage for a one year extension for 2016.  But ultimately, they probably decided that 3+ years of Joe Kelly in arbitration (plus this year, at $600 K,, before arbitration) was a better deal then extending Lackey through his age 37 year.  (Plus a wild-card in Craig.)  It's always possible that Lackey just wanted out of Boston, but I assumed that the 2013 Championship went a long way to making him feel more comfortable.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
Somehow, the universe seems back in place now that we can all hate John Lackey's stupid face again.
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
Ed Hillel said:
Somehow, the universe seems back in place now that we can all hate John Lackey's stupid face again.
 
Just a bit outside said:
Stupid horse face.
 
baghdadjamie said:
Fuck you John Lackey!
 
The guy that greatly helped win the Red Sox a World Series.  The guy that was nails in a crucial Game 3 against Verlander, in Detroit.
 
F that guy - amiright!?!??  Hi-Five!
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
HillysLastWalk said:
 
 
 
The guy that greatly helped win the Red Sox a World Series.  The guy that was nails in a crucial Game 3 against Verlander, in Detroit.
 
F that guy - amiright!?!??  Hi-Five!
That's how fans roll. Hating on Revis is next.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
Skiponzo said:
I don't think I'll ever hate John Lackey again.
 
Yep, this is where I am. Seems weird to hate a guy who had a post-injury resurgence, kicked ass on a World Series Championship team, and was traded for a rotation guy 9 years his junior and Allen Craig was tossed in. 
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Van Everyman said:
Did we ever learn why he didn't like Boston (allegedly) and (allegedly) forced his way out of town?
perhaps how he was treated in his first few years? (when he was pitching injured?)
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,312
brs3 said:
 
Yep, this is where I am. Seems weird to hate a guy who had a post-injury resurgence, kicked ass on a World Series Championship team, and was traded for a rotation guy 9 years his junior and Allen Craig was tossed in. 
Seconded. I can't bring myself to think poorly of John Lackey. His tenure here had some rough patches but he left Boston as a Red Sox hero. If he ever comes back to Fenway with another team, I sincerely hope he gets one hell of a standing O.
 
Jul 10, 2002
4,279
Behind
Let's just rewind to 2003.  Ask yourself this: Do you think that you would ever speak negatively of a Red Sox player (outside of murder or something), that helped bring you a World Series Championship?
 
Now, three championships later, some people have become very entitled.  Never forget those chants of 1918!  Never!!
 
I am eternally grateful to these players that changed the narrative and have made my baseball watching Red Sox fandom a pleasure.  Especially a John Lackey who was a great teammate (by all accounts) and pitched hurt.  But because he has a "horse face" and didn't live up to early contract expectations (reminder: hurt) - it's free reign to crap on this guy.   SOSH - smartest fans in baseball!
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Yea I'm a big Lackey fan. He got a raw deal pitching hurt in 2011 and then was the balls in 13 (and 14). I mean you couldn't have scripted a better storyline for him in 13. I had chills chanting his name that night.

I also don't blame him one bit for getting out of here as soon as he could. I think he always carried a chip on his shoulder about the fans after 2011.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Rudy Pemberton said:
Wasn't his now ex wife from NH? I recall her being from there brought up as a factor in him signing here. Certainly could be a reason he wanted out.
She was from Sanford, ME. Hadn't thought of that, but yea that could be a possibility.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
plus the whole pollo and cerveza thing didn't help his reputation either.
Oh yeah, that was the height of rationality from the fan base and the Boston media.  How could he not like that?
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,111
Santa Monica
Its fun going back and reading this from the top (or other topics in the past).
 
You get a nice idea of which posters have good foresight.
 
I'd declare radsoxfan, rasputin and SJH as the clear winners in this thread.