John Lackey in 2015 and beyond

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,914
Salem, NH
The Red Sox currently hold a $500,000 option on John Lackey for 2015, which would obviously be tremendous value if he's healthy.
 
Great. Except Lackey apparently had this to say.
 
 
Alex Speier ‏@alexspeier  5m
John Lackey on 2015 Red Sox team option for major league minimum: ‘There’s some things to think about’ http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/06/10/john-lackey-on-2015-team-option-theres-some-things-to-think-about/  via @WEEI
 
A 2015 season similar to what he's shown over the past season and a half would probably have him in line for a 2-3 year contract at something north of $15M/yr, so I'm not sure he'd just walk away for a season. He may want to negotiate his 2015 season into a multi-year extension into something like 3/$30-36M, but he doesn't sound like he just wants to sit back and take the league minimum for a season.
 
The Red Sox have options here, which include calling his bluff, extending him beyond 2015, or just trading him in 2014 for something of value. Which route do you think is best with Lackey?
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
This kind of stuff bothers me, but I'm not sure what the right answer is.  Lackey signed a contract that gave him the following dollar figures:
 
2010:  $18.7 m
2011:  $15.95 m
2012:  $15.25 m
2013:  $15.25 m
2014:  $15.25 m
 
And it also included a clause that gave the Sox an option at the league minimum for 2015 if he missed significant time due to an elbow injury.  In other words, both parties were aware of Lackey's potentially troublesome elbow, and the club protected itself against that eventuality, and Lackey agreed to it.
 
Well, in 2010 Lackey, for $18.7 million, was semi-decent:  4.40 era, 1.8 bWAR.  In 2011, he was horrendous, the worst starting pitcher we had really ever seen in a Red Sox uniform:  6.69 era, -1.9 bWAR.  Certainly did not earn nearly $16 million, and in no way was he worth a combined $34.65 million from 2010-11 (his net bWAR over that time was -0.1).  
 
But, as it turns out, he was pitching in 2011 with a very bad elbow, which probably helped explain his horrendous season.  Ok fine, he gave the club everything he had, trying to pitch through an injury.  He should get credit for toughness.  But not for performance.  And so he ended up getting surgery and missing all of 2012.  And thus, for three seasons, the Red Sox paid $49.9 million for 375 innings of 5.26 era, 1.50 whip, -0.1 bWAR performance.  John Lackey most certainly did NOT earn nearly $50 million in terms of what he gave the Red Sox.
 
And so the clause that they both agreed to kicked in.  The Sox WAY overpaid Lackey for those three seasons.  Lackey was very good in 2013, and he's been very good so far in 2014, earning his $15.25 million each year.  Well done.  But the $500k option the Sox hold…well…they "earned" that too, based on what Lackey signed, and based on what he gave them for 2010-12.  
 
In other words, Lackey has no right to complain about making $500k in 2015, even if it makes him vastly underpaid for that one season.  After all, he was making $15+ million for not even throwing a pitch for them in 2012, and nearly $35 million for being horrible for two seasons prior to that.  
 
But if this is the Lackey we can expect for the next few years, I would like to see the Sox consider extending him for two more beyond 2015, maybe at $15 million per season.  It gives Lackey some more security and another $30 million, but he has to live with the $500k season in 2015.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
I've said this before.  It makes absolutely no sense for Lackey to sit out a year.  He loses one of his few remaining MLB seasons.  He looks like a problem child to other teams.  He would have to convince teams the year layoff won't impact his performance in 2016.  He loses $500k.  The only possible benefit is avoiding a potential injury. 
 
So the Sox should try to extend him if they want to do so, or call his bluff and assume he'll be at ST next Feb.
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
This also throws a wrench into trading him if the Sox decide to sell. Not that I would want them trading him if that arose - I think he can still be a big piece for the next couple years.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I disagree with GH.  Lackey doesn't need $500k for 2015, and as long as he's healthy and effective down the stretch in 2014 that won't put him in any worse bargaining position for 2016 than he would be otherwise.  Just off the top of my head, Clemens, Pettitte, and Oswalt all pulled the "I'm retired,... no I'm not" routine and they kept getting big numbers until they showed on the field that they were declining.
 
The Red Sox are run by a hedge fund manager, who presumably understands game theory.  As I said, the $500k option was not a "subgame perfect equilibrium," because the Red Sox can't force Lackey to pitch.   I'm pretty sure that John Henry knew that the $500k clause was a bargaining chip and not a hard and fast number for 2015. 
 
They'll negotate a reasonably favorable extension with Lackey as a result of that bargaining chip.  Assuming he finishes 2014 the way he's started it, my guess is something like 3 years, $36 million, and tear up the old clause.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,673
Maine
The talk of Lackey sitting out rather than play for $500K is asinine.  Comparing him to Clemens, Pettitte, etc that pulled the retiring, no wait I'm back routine ignores the fact that none of them actually sat out a full season.  Presumably, he's only going to "retire" if the option is exercised (it hasn't been yet to my knowledge), so if it gets to that point, he's committed to playing for Boston or no one in 2015.  Essentially, he'd be pulling a Dempster, not a Clemens.  At his age, even with the reconstructed elbow, it wouldn't benefit him to take a year off.  Not financially, and likely not on the field either.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
So what happens if he sits out 2015?  Do the Sox still have the rights to him for 2016 at $500k?  
 

CreightonGubanich

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2006
1,378
north shore, MA
It's easy to say Lackey should just play for $500K because he signed the contract, and that's definitely true. But there are probably business reasons for the Red Sox not to do that; Lackey is a leader in the clubhouse and may well be seen as a guy who pitched an entire year hurt in 2011, risking his career, etc, and now ownership is going to play "gotcha" with a little clause in his contract?
 
Note: I think that line of thinking is completely wrong, but I can see players thinking that way, and that may be enough of an incentive for the Sox not to want to deal with the distraction of taking the hard line. Use the option as leverage to get him on a relatively team-friendly extension. Tear it up and offer him 2/$20M. Lackey gets more over the two years than if the team picked up the option and he became a free agent, everybody gets to save face. 
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
Red(s)HawksFan said:
The talk of Lackey sitting out rather than play for $500K is asinine.  Comparing him to Clemens, Pettitte, etc that pulled the retiring, no wait I'm back routine ignores the fact that none of them actually sat out a full season.  Presumably, he's only going to "retire" if the option is exercised (it hasn't been yet to my knowledge), so if it gets to that point, he's committed to playing for Boston or no one in 2015.  Essentially, he'd be pulling a Dempster, not a Clemens.  At his age, even with the reconstructed elbow, it wouldn't benefit him to take a year off.  Not financially, and likely not on the field either.
 
Exactly.  It would not be a good career decision, and I'm not saying that only as a Sox fan who wants to see them get a good pitcher for league minimum. 
 
CreightonGubanich said:
It's easy to say Lackey should just play for $500K because he signed the contract, and that's definitely true. But there are probably business reasons for the Red Sox not to do that; Lackey is a leader in the clubhouse and may well be seen as a guy who pitched an entire year hurt in 2011, risking his career, etc, and now ownership is going to play "gotcha" with a little clause in his contract?
 
Note: I think that line of thinking is completely wrong, but I can see players thinking that way, and that may be enough of an incentive for the Sox not to want to deal with the distraction of taking the hard line. Use the option as leverage to get him on a relatively team-friendly extension. Tear it up and offer him 2/$20M. Lackey gets more over the two years than if the team picked up the option and he became a free agent, everybody gets to save face. 
 
I agree.  There are certainly possible downsides if the Sox try to force him to play for the $500k and it may not be a good business decision.  The only thing that would piss me off would be if they tear up the option and sign him to a one year deal for more money for no reason- basically like what NY just did with Jeter.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
ivanvamp said:
So what happens if he sits out 2015?  Do the Sox still have the rights to him for 2016 at $500k?  
 
I am pretty sure this is the case, which should pretty much put any "he's going to sit out a year" talk to bed. He'd either be retiring for good or not, and, with the way he's been throwing, I can't see why he'd want to retire. He can get another nice contract if he keeps his performance up.
 
I also take issue to him holding this against the Red Sox, if that's what occurs. They put a provision in the contract to basically insure against him missing significant time, which ended up happening. Lackey was worth less than nothing to the Sox while he raked in about 31 million dollars in 2011-2012. The Sox shouldn't budge an inch, unless Lackey is willing to take less in future years, maybe something like 3/25 spread out over the next three years. Otherwise, hold him to it.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Ed Hillel said:
 
I am pretty sure this is the case, which should pretty much put any "he's going to sit out a year" talk to bed. He'd either be retiring for good or not, and, with the way he's been throwing, I can't see why he'd want to retire. He can get another nice contract if he keeps his performance up.
 
I also take issue to him holding this against the Red Sox, if that's what occurs. They put a provision in the contract to basically insure against him missing significant time, which ended up happening. Lackey was worth less than nothing to the Sox while he raked in about 31 million dollars in 2011-2012. The Sox shouldn't budge an inch, unless Lackey is willing to take less in future years, maybe something like 3/25 spread out over the next three years. Otherwise, hold him to it.
 
And from what I heard from Alex Spier last night (on the broadcast, not in person), Lackey absolutely LOVES being in Boston, loves pitching here, loves this team.  I can't imagine him simply retiring now.  
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
ivanvamp said:
So what happens if he sits out 2015?  Do the Sox still have the rights to him for 2016 at $500k?  
 
No, they don't.  He forfeits his 2015 season and then becomes a free agent.
 
The other consideration is whether the Red Sox want him in 2016 or 2017.  If they force him to pitch for the minimum in 2015, their chances of signing him after that season to a reasonable deal probably evaporate.  If the numbers are even close, he'd likely pitch for someone else.  For all we know, he'd sign with the Yankees 2016 just out of spite.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Rudy Pemberton said:
It doesn't make sense for him to actually sit out, but it makes a ton of sense to threaten to do so. Sure, if he sits out, he loses a whopping $500k (yet saves 200 innings for his next deal), but what is the cost for the Sox to replace him, 20x that? The rotation is already in shambles... If they suddenly lose Lester, Lackey, and Peavy...they'll have a ton of work to do.

As to what Lackey will do, who knows, it's unprecedented territory. Nothing would shock me.

(And if he's it's out, he forfeits a year. Then he's a FA. The Sox don't retain his rights. For the same reason, if Dempster comes back next year, the Sox don't suddenly owe him 12m).
 
Ok that last bit is different from what Ed Hillel was saying.  Do we know for sure whether the Sox retain his rights or not?  I can't see why they wouldn't.  After all, if Lackey doesn't hold up his end of the contract why should the Sox be penalized for that?  
 
The difference between Lackey and Dempster is that two parties sign a contract.  In the Lackey case, one party still wants it to be upheld and the other breaks the contract.  Why should the first party be penalized for that?  In the Dempster case, Dempster retires, breaking his contract, but presumably the Red Sox agree to that.
 
I would think, anyway.  
 
I just can't imagine why the Red Sox should be penalized for Lackey choosing to break his end of the contract.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
They'll sign him to some 2-3 year deal. And then the high-pants moralists will line up to get on the fainting couch about "honoring their contracts" the way honorable men of the past honored their contracts back in the days when everyone was honorable.
The guy pitched most of a season with an elbow that needed surgery and took a Bull Connor hose of shit for his performance. I have no problem with "rewarding him" for that and his post-surgery performance by ripping up the 500K year.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Plympton91 said:
 
No, they don't.  He forfeits his 2015 season and then becomes a free agent.
 
The other consideration is whether the Red Sox want him in 2016 or 2017.  If they force him to pitch for the minimum in 2015, their chances of signing him after that season to a reasonable deal probably evaporate.  If the numbers are even close, he'd likely pitch for someone else.  For all we know, he'd sign with the Yankees 2016 just out of spite.
 
Ok that's good to know, because that puts the fulcrum in a little different place along the lever, if you catch my meaning.  
 
But yes, I agree with your last part.  I think the wise thing for the Sox to do is to use that option to negotiate maybe a new 2-year deal at less than market value, but one that is still reasonable.  Maybe 2/24 or 2/26.  Cheap enough to still be a bargain for the Sox, but enough for Lackey to say, ok, it's not worth sitting out a full year.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
When Lackey pitched injured in 2011, what was the team doing? Did they not know he was injured? Know and encourage him to try to play through it?
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Lackey was signed to a 5/82 deal prior to the 2010 season.
 
In the same since signing that deal, he's gone 43-40 with a 4.47 ERA, and an ERA+ of 95. His total WAR to this point in a Red Sox uniform, according to B-Ref, is 4.3 Even adding in his excellent performance in the 2013 postseason, and taking into account his improvement since his elbow surgery, there's no case to be made the Lackey is anything but grossly overpaid under this contract.
 
I like the guy and admire the way he came back from injury, but he signed the deal to have the 2015 season be picked up at 500K in case of injury. The team IMO should hold him to that. He is not Mike Trout laboring under an underpaid contract while providing $40 million in value a year, he has so far not quite been worth the contract he signed. I'm no old school grouchy guy muttering about honoring contracts, but Lackey signed the deal and has already earned an immense amount of money. If he didn't want the possibility of playing at 500K in 2015 on the contract he shouldn't have signed it.
 
They knew he was at risk for an elbow injury, all parties agreed to the clause, and that's that. If he decides he can't play under those conditions then he's welcome to sit out a year and earn nothing and then try to come back after that as a 37 year old pitcher coming off a year in which he didn't pitch at all.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
EvilEmpire said:
When Lackey pitched injured in 2011, what was the team doing? Did they not know he was injured? Know and encourage him to try to play through it?
 
Why does this matter?  He chose to pitch and try to earn some of his multi-million dollar salary.  If he thought he deserved more for sucking it up that was the time to try to renegotiate- not 2 or 3 years later when the team asks him to honor his contract.
 

IpswichSox

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,792
Suburbs of Washington, DC
joe dokes said:
They'll sign him to some 2-3 year deal. And then the high-pants moralists will line up to get on the fainting couch about "honoring their contracts" the way honorable men of the past honored their contracts back in the days when everyone was honorable.
The guy pitched most of a season with an elbow that needed surgery and took a Bull Connor hose of shit for his performance. I have no problem with "rewarding him" for that and his post-surgery performance by ripping up the 500K year.
 
This is where I am, too. Also, the cost of replacing Lackey would likely exceed whatever pro-rated two- or three-year deal they eventually agree on. Will Lester be back next season or beyond? What kind of pitcher will Buchholz be for the balance of his contract? How much can we count on Dubront? Plus Peavy will likely be gone Way too many uncertainties to not lock Lackey up for two or three years, including 2015. 
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
Plympton91 said:
 
No, they don't.  He forfeits his 2015 season and then becomes a free agent.
 
The other consideration is whether the Red Sox want him in 2016 or 2017.  If they force him to pitch for the minimum in 2015, their chances of signing him after that season to a reasonable deal probably evaporate.  If the numbers are even close, he'd likely pitch for someone else.  For all we know, he'd sign with the Yankees 2016 just out of spite.
And for all we know, Lackey would still take less to stay with the Sox.  I don't think it's any more likely if the numbers are close that he pitches elsewhere.
 
I do think both sides would probably prefer to work out an extension.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
Another issue is his luxury tax number.  If they do nothing, his AAV for next year is 500k.  If they sign him to an extension that pays him say 3/30 then his luxury tax number jumps to 10m.  Maybe they can work something out like they did with Gonzalez and delay any extension until next season, assuming they need the cushion. 
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
glennhoffmania said:
Why does this matter?  He chose to pitch and try to earn some of his multi-million dollar salary.  If he thought he deserved more for sucking it up that was the time to try to renegotiate- not 2 or 3 years later when the team asks him to honor his contract.
If the team encouraged him to try and pitch through the injury knowing they had a hole card if he was out for a long time, Lackey is completely justified in using any leverage he thinks he has now. He took one for the team and loyalty should go both ways. I don't think it matters if he did it a couple of years ago or now. He's perfectly within his rights to walk away for a year if he wants to save the wear and tear on his arm at the cost of 500k.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
EvilEmpire said:
If the team encouraged him to try and pitch through the injury knowing they had a hole card if he was out for a long time, Lackey is completely justified in using any leverage he thinks he has now. He took one for the team and loyalty should go both ways. I don't think it matters if he did it a couple of years ago or now. He's perfectly within his rights to walk away for a year if he wants to save the wear and tear on his arm at the cost of 500k.
 
Lackey played a part in that too; all throughout the 2011 season he insisted he was fine physically despite his horrific results. I highly doubt he was forced to go out there under duress. He wanted to pitch through it.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
EvilEmpire said:
If the team encouraged him to try and pitch through the injury knowing they had a hole card if he was out for a long time, Lackey is completely justified in using any leverage he thinks he has now. He took one for the team and loyalty should go both ways. I don't think it matters if he did it a couple of years ago or now. He's perfectly within his rights to walk away for a year if he wants to save the wear and tear on his arm at the cost of 500k.
 
First, by the time he started pitching with a shredded elbow, regardless of what the team asked of him, it was inevitable that the option clause in his contract was going to kick in.  He didn't hurt his elbow because they asked him to pitch.  The damage was already done.  The only question was when he was going to have to get it fixed, and he agreed to try to wait a year.
 
Second, of course he's within his rights to walk away for a year if he wants to do so.  I don't think anyone has said that he isn't allowed to sit out for a year.  The question is whether it's a smart move for him, and how the team should react if he does that.  Simply tearing up the option and paying him a market salary for 2015 makes zero sense.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I know we are talking the world of make-believe and not where most real people are at, but still.  It amazes me that we talk of $500k as if it is virtually meaningless to a guy like Lackey.  I cannot even fathom how much money $500k is.  It must be nice to be a professional athlete.
 

The Talented Allen Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,723
MetroWest, MA
glennhoffmania said:
Another issue is his luxury tax number.  If they do nothing, his AAV for next year is 500k.  If they sign him to an extension that pays him say 3/30 then his luxury tax number jumps to 10m.  Maybe they can work something out like they did with Gonzalez and delay any extension until next season, assuming they need the cushion. 
 
Do you know what the first A in AAV stands for? AAV is calculated over the life of the contract, not on a year-by-year basis.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
 
Do you know what the first A in AAV stands for? AAV is calculated over the life of the contract, not on a year-by-year basis.
 
I'm not sure which end you're disputing.  My understanding is that the option doesn't count toward his current deal because it hasn't been exercised.  And I thought if he signed an extension after a season starts it doesn't impact the deal for that season, like with Gonzalez.  So as of now, if they exercise the option after this season his 2015 AAV would be 500k.
 
From a Fangraphs article on this:
 
 
Both vesting and club options are excluded from the calculation, while player options are factored in. If a vesting option vests or a club option is exercised, the salary is treated like a one-year deal for the luxury tax. There is also the issue of timing: If an extension is worked out before a current deal expires, the contracts are consolidated.
 
 
I'm not sure how consolidation works during an option year though.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Lackey played a part in that too; all throughout the 2011 season he insisted he was fine physically despite his horrific results. I highly doubt he was forced to go out there under duress. He wanted to pitch through it.
Of course, without question. Lackey wasn't forced to do anything. I'm not suggesting the team should or shouldn't do anything, just that I think Lackey trying to use whatever leverage he has is fair game. He did sacrifice for the team and he might have made the injury worse in doing so. Those events may well be influencing what he thinks is right for next year.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Plympton91 said:
 
No, they don't.  He forfeits his 2015 season and then becomes a free agent.
 
The other consideration is whether the Red Sox want him in 2016 or 2017.  If they force him to pitch for the minimum in 2015, their chances of signing him after that season to a reasonable deal probably evaporate.  If the numbers are even close, he'd likely pitch for someone else.  For all we know, he'd sign with the Yankees 2016 just out of spite.
 
I'm pretty sure that baring a complete collapse in his performance, they both want and need him in 2016 and 2017.  Currently, for the 2016 season they have some measure of control over Felix Doubront, Clay Buchholz and Brandon Workman from the current group of starters who have any level of major league experience beyond a few spot starts, and then the kids (Webster, DLR, Ranaudo, Owens, and Barnes).  Buchholz is a huge question mark as he simply cannot stay healthy, Doubront's promise is starting to be overshadowed by his struggles, and Workman is a solid back of the rotation option, but not much more than that long term.
 
Putting together a starting rotation for 2016 is going to require some luck with the kids and some outside help.  Lackey is a known quantity and gives you a great middle of the rotation option for the next three years even if he starts declining.  Getting him extended through 2017 makes too much sense for it not to happen.  Signing Lester long term would ease the strain here a bit, but that's not certain to happen and even if it does, you're still looking at Lester, Lackey and Workman being the only dependable pieces of the rotation and a need to fill the last two slots with kids, which is a tenuous proposition even if you are really high on the current crop of pitching prospects... which I am.
 
Without Lester I don't think they can afford to let Lackey walk away and cashing in his 500k option as a bargaining chip in extension talks is the most logical way to address that concern.
 
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Lackey played a part in that too; all throughout the 2011 season he insisted he was fine physically despite his horrific results. I highly doubt he was forced to go out there under duress. He wanted to pitch through it.
 
There was value in him taking the mound and not throwing a kid who wasn't ready out there and risking their development (like Workman or Britton) or just burning a 40 man roster spot on someone who wasn't going to be any better anyway.  He was asked to pitch through it and he went out there and gritted his way through the slow collapse of his pitching elbow because the team needed him to.  They were hit with a ton of pitching injuries that season, otherwise he probably would have had surgery much earlier than he did.
 
I don't see a lot of justification for holding 2011 against him.  In hindsight, the narrative goes the other way.
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,263
Town
I think this has the potential to get a little overblown. When Lackey says he has some things to think about, I don't think that's any kind of threat or ultimatum. Both sides have a little leverage, and they know it, but both sides have mutual interests in working something out as well. 
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Can't they offer him a 2 year, $20 million deal now for 2015/2016, with a vesting option for 2017 at a higher salary?  That way the Sox are protected (again) if he gets hurt or sucks and removed from the rotation, Lackey gets a decent guarantee for the next two years, plus can earn a nicer deal for the following year?
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
EvilEmpire said:
I think Lackey trying to use whatever leverage he has is fair game. He did sacrifice for the team and he might have made the injury worse in doing so. Those events may well be influencing what he thinks is right for next year.
 
I think Lackey trying to use "leverage" on a contract he signed and has had honored by the team is another example John Lackey being an asshole. He's one of the worst people to play for my favorite team and it truly will be a pleasure to see him leave.
 
He was fairly compensated for rehabbing the injury. The $500K extra year was in the contract PRECISELY for when he injured that elbow. He got a regular salary to rehab the elbow and agreed - when he signed the contract - to provide an extra year of service at a given rate if the elbow was injured.  
 
I hope John Henry tells him he can report to spring training or he can retire but he'll fulfill the terms of the contract. Because John "Post-Divorce" Lackey isn't retiring and if he wants another contract to pay off the ex-wife, he has to pitch well in 2014 and 2015 for the Red Sox. 
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Lose Remerswaal said:
Can't they offer him a 2 year, $20 million deal now for 2015/2016, with a vesting option for 2017 at a higher salary?  That way the Sox are protected (again) if he gets hurt or sucks and removed from the rotation, Lackey gets a decent guarantee for the next two years, plus can earn a nicer deal for the following year?
This is where I'm at as well. I think it's a fair deal for both sides and I'm not sure giving him guaranteed money for 2017 is smart. 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
soxfan121 said:
 
I think Lackey trying to use "leverage" on a contract he signed and has had honored by the team is another example John Lackey being an asshole. He's one of the worst people to play for my favorite team and it truly will be a pleasure to see him leave.
 
 
 
I doubt that.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Snodgrass'Muff said:
There was value in him taking the mound and not throwing a kid who wasn't ready out there and risking their development (like Workman or Britton) or just burning a 40 man roster spot on someone who wasn't going to be any better anyway.  He was asked to pitch through it and he went out there and gritted his way through the slow collapse of his pitching elbow because the team needed him to.  They were hit with a ton of pitching injuries that season, otherwise he probably would have had surgery much earlier than he did.
 
I don't see a lot of justification for holding 2011 against him.  In hindsight, the narrative goes the other way.
 
And he was handsomely compensated for that. And he was handsomely compensated for that under the terms of a contract he willingly signed, a contract that now calls for him to receive 500K next year. He can't expect to receive the benefits under that contract in 2011 and yet expect to avoid fulfilling the terms of that same contract in 2015.
 
Life is hard. Baseball is hard. Lackey will just have to deal with it in 2015, or he can sit out. I see no reason to tear up the last year of the deal. He pitched like shit in 2011 and is pitching well now, so these things balance out. I fully hope and expect him to play 2015 under the terms of his existing contract.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
Plympton91 said:
 
No, they don't.  He forfeits his 2015 season and then becomes a free agent.
 
 
I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for this? I can't find it anywhere, either way.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
soxfan121 said:
 
I think Lackey trying to use "leverage" on a contract he signed and has had honored by the team is another example John Lackey being an asshole. He's one of the worst people to play for my favorite team and it truly will be a pleasure to see him leave.
 
He was fairly compensated for rehabbing the injury. The $500K extra year was in the contract PRECISELY for when he injured that elbow. He got a regular salary to rehab the elbow and agreed - when he signed the contract - to provide an extra year of service at a given rate if the elbow was injured.  
 
I hope John Henry tells him he can report to spring training or he can retire but he'll fulfill the terms of the contract. Because John "Post-Divorce" Lackey isn't retiring and if he wants another contract to pay off the ex-wife, he has to pitch well in 2014 and 2015 for the Red Sox. 
Meh, whatever you think of Lackey off the field, I think you overestimate the percentage of players that would just play out the contract without trying to use the leverage of sitting out to get a better contract. 
 
He'd for sure get a contract for '16 if he sits out '15, but he would cost himself a heap of money vs. pitching well in '15.
 
Id rather use the minimum contract to leverage Lackey into a below market multi-year deal.  If Lester isn't extended and the Buchholz mystery isn't solved, the Sox are well served having Lackey tied up for a few years anyways.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
And he was handsomely compensated for that. And he was handsomely compensated for that under the terms of a contract he willingly signed, a contract that now calls for him to receive 500K next year. He can't expect to receive the benefits under that contract in 2011 and yet expect to avoid fulfilling the terms of that same contract in 2015.
 
Life is hard. Baseball is hard. Lackey will just have to deal with it in 2015, or he can sit out. I see no reason to tear up the last year of the deal. He pitched like shit in 2011 and is pitching well now, so these things balance out. I fully hope and expect him to play 2015 under the terms of his existing contract.
 
Why not?  Maybe he doesn't deserve that, but deserve aint got nothing to do with it.  The CBA gives him the option to pitch for $500K or sit out.  If he pitches well all year, Id be surprised if he doesn't use the leverage of threatening to sit out to get a better deal for '15. 
 
Given past experience, if the Sox don't want to negotiate an extension, they might be better off moving him for value to someone who will.
 
No draft pick comp if he sits out '15, right?
 
EDIT: Should add, I doubt he actually sits out, makes too much sense for both sides to do something like the 2-year with an option extension mentioned upthread.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
And he was handsomely compensated for that. And he was handsomely compensated for that under the terms of a contract he willingly signed, a contract that now calls for him to receive 500K next year. He can't expect to receive the benefits under that contract in 2011 and yet expect to avoid fulfilling the terms of that same contract in 2015.
 
Life is hard. Baseball is hard. Lackey will just have to deal with it in 2015, or he can sit out. I see no reason to tear up the last year of the deal. He pitched like shit in 2011 and is pitching well now, so these things balance out. I fully hope and expect him to play 2015 under the terms of his existing contract.
 
 
That's a perfectly permissible stance for the team to take.  I also think its one that is counterproductive to the success of the team, so I dont think they should (or will) do it. Since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense  -- for either the Red Sox or Lackey -- for Lackey not to pitch, they will make a deal.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
And he was handsomely compensated for that. And he was handsomely compensated for that under the terms of a contract he willingly signed, a contract that now calls for him to receive 500K next year. He can't expect to receive the benefits under that contract in 2011 and yet expect to avoid fulfilling the terms of that same contract in 2015.
 
Life is hard. Baseball is hard. Lackey will just have to deal with it in 2015, or he can sit out. I see no reason to tear up the last year of the deal. He pitched like shit in 2011 and is pitching well now, so these things balance out. I fully hope and expect him to play 2015 under the terms of his existing contract.
 
I don't think there's any chance this happens.  They'll work out an extension or they'll trade him.  I think an extension is by far the most likely outcome.  It was said up thread, but chances are both parties realized up front that the 2015 option was going to exist as leverage if it was triggered, and nothing more.  Henry and company would be making a very short sighted decision to tell Lackey he's pitching 500k or not at all.  A 10-12 million AAV deal through 2017 is a happy middle ground for everyone and means the team has to spend less money on the open market to fill out the rotation in the next few seasons.  Lackey gets another 30-36 million to take him through what might be the end of his career and will have the option to retire in Boston where he won a title and had an amazing turn around with the fans.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
I don't think there's any chance this happens.  They'll work out an extension or they'll trade him.  I think an extension is by far the most likely outcome.  It was said up thread, but chances are both parties realized up front that the 2015 option was going to exist as leverage if it was triggered, and nothing more.  Henry and company would be making a very short sighted decision to tell Lackey he's pitching 500k or not at all.  A 10-12 million AAV deal through 2017 is a happy middle ground for everyone and means the team has to spend less money on the open market to fill out the rotation in the next few seasons.  Lackey gets another 30-36 million to take him through what might be the end of his career and will have the option to retire in Boston where he won a title and had an amazing turn around with the fans.
 
Why? Lackey made $30 million over the 2011-2012 seasons, in which he produced 160 IP at a 6.41 ERA total. Telling him that he now has to pitch 1 year at 500K isn't unfair at all; all Henry would have to do is point to the 2011-2012 seasons as a rebuttal.
 
If Lackey's really going to go into a snit over the 2015 contract provision then he's far more of an asshole than he's ever been portrayed.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,178
Washington
Stitch01 said:
He'd for sure get a contract for '16 if he sits out '15, but he would cost himself a heap of money vs. pitching well in '15.
 
Id rather use the minimum contract to leverage Lackey into a below market multi-year deal.  If Lester isn't extended and the Buchholz mystery isn't solved, the Sox are well served having Lackey tied up for a few years anyways.
 
While this is certainly possible, I think it is more likely that he will cost himself more money by pitching next year.  No matter what happens next year, he'll be a year older.  Being a year older with another 200+ innings on his arm is worse than being another year older with no innings on his arm.  There is also a not insignificant chance that he doesn't pitch as well next year or suffers some kind of injury.  Adding up the additional arm mileage + chance of injury + chance of mediocre or poor play and balancing it against  500k + chance of pitching really well, I think the cost/benefit is better for him is to sit out absent an extension.
 
I agree with your second point that they are all better off coming to a below-market extension.
 
Overall, this is a good problem for the Sox to have.  If Lackey had pitched poorly over the last two year it wouldn't even be a question.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Ed Hillel said:
 
I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for this? I can't find it anywhere, either way.
 
Seems like the burden of proof should be on the people who say the Sox would have the right to him at $500K for 2016. Why should this be the case? Seems pretty counterintuitive to me.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,586
NY
Contracts are for specific years, not a certain number of seasons.  Once that year passes neither party has any rights under it. 
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,707
 
 
I think Lackey trying to use "leverage" on a contract he signed and has had honored by the team is another example John Lackey being an asshole. He's one of the worst people to play for my favorite team
 
Company at last for Carl Everett!
 
There's nothing in the contract that prevents him from just going home. (What are you going to do, sue him for money damages?) If he exercises that right, the RS can decide w/not to entice him back. That has a price. If they'll pay it everyone is happy. If not, the RS cut their ties and move on to Plan B (Scherzer, et al.). Remember that Dempster did that, except that in his case, he just didn't want to play anymore. 
 
I wonder how that provision came into his contract. It could be that both sides thought that post-surgery - if that became necessary - his prospects were too difficult to judge at that point, no-one could agree on the salary for 2015 and that the RS simply wanted a hold on him, knowing it was likely they'd have to renegotiate his salary in any event. If they can agree, fine, if not at least they keep him away from the MFY for 2015, and coming back in 2016 after having missed a year would crimp Lackey's value..
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,429
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Seems like the burden of proof should be on the people who say the Sox would have the right to him at $500K for 2016. Why should this be the case? Seems pretty counterintuitive to me.
 
The Sox would put him on the restricted list and he would be stuck (which would be a fun worst-case scenario for everyone). 
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Restricted_list
 
BTW, assuming that Lackey and Lester are friendly, it's not out of the realm of possibility that Lester will say that any chance of a hometown discount goes out the window if the Sox don't treat Lackey well. 
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Why? Lackey made $30 million over the 2011-2012 seasons, in which he produced 160 IP at a 6.41 ERA total. Telling him that he now has to pitch 1 year at 500K isn't unfair at all; all Henry would have to do is point to the 2011-2012 seasons as a rebuttal.
 
If Lackey's really going to go into a snit over the 2015 contract provision then he's far more of an asshole than he's ever been portrayed.
 
I didn't say it was unfair.  I said it wouldn't happen.  And there are more possibilities than the binary "Lackey is an enormous asshole" or "Lackey will do what's right and shut up and play for 500k."  I get it... your hatred of the guy from before 2013 is still bubbling on the inside, and I can't even blame you for that, but this is a far more nuanced situation than you are describing.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
nattysez said:
 
The Sox would put him on the restricted list and he would be stuck. 
 
http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Restricted_list
 
That article raises more questions than it answers, though. "[T]he team states that it retains rights to the player if and when he becomes active again"--but on what terms? If its last contract with the player has expired by that point, then is the player really obliged to play another season at his most recent salary? The article doesn't address this, and neither does any other treatment of the topic I can find via Google.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
I never believed for a second that Lackey (or any other established major league player still in his prime) would play a year for $500k.  This was a way for the Red Sox to recover some value if his elbow blew up while he was under contract.  It's a negotiating chip and I'd be surprised if Theo and Ben ever considered it a literal salary.  In other words, I'll jump on the 'John Lackey is an asshole' bandwagon only if he becomes completely unreasonable and refuses to sign a fair deal that reflects the year he lost and the validity of the $500k option which kicked in. 
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Snodgrass'Muff said:
 
I didn't say it was unfair.  I said it wouldn't happen.  And there are more possibilities than the binary "Lackey is an enormous asshole" or "Lackey will do what's right and shut up and play for 500k."  I get it... your hatred of the guy from before 2013 is still bubbling on the inside, and I can't even blame you for that, but this is a far more nuanced situation than you are describing.
 
You know nothing about my attitude towards him at all, since you're utterly wrong. We merely see this situation entirely differently. There's nothing nuanced about it, IMO. Play for 500K as agreed to in your contract or sit home. No hard feelings.