John Lackey in 2015 and beyond
- Thread starter Hank Scorpio
- Start date
Stitch01 said:
Given that Lackey will be 37 years old for the 2016 season, I'm not sure that really matters.
I'd rather have Lackey for 2015 under the terms of his existing, freely-signed contract. If he can't bring himself to play under those terms, then I'd rather he sit at home.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
You can insist there is no nuance all you want, but you are wrong. There are a lot of factors at play here, and as lurker tomdeplonty and I just talked about in a PM a few minutes ago, the Lackey situation is not isolated to just Lackey. If the team uses the option to leverage him into an extension that is team friendly, Lester has less leverage than he otherwise would... which is currently most of the leverage since the Sox are looking at the previously mentioned trio of Workman, Doubront and Buchholz to build around without him. If Lackey is in the mix through 2017, Lester is still going to get paid, but he won't have the Sox completely over a barrel.
Additionally, can you point to anything that has been published about the team insisting Lackey plays next year for 500k? I'd be shocked if they don't work out an extension or at least trade him. Stamping their feet and saying "No, you agreed to 500k, deal with it." is bad for the team and bad for Lackey. There's very little incentive to forcing the issue down that path.
Savin Hillbilly said:
I don't think it's counterintuitive. For one, I'm not sure that baseball contracts are actually for years as opposed to service time, or that they don't have clauses that cover something like this. It would certainly make sense to me that a team would want either of those in place. For two, I think the fact that players basically never hold out in MLB indicates that there is a measure in place protecting the teams. I know it may not happen much for various reasons, but how many times has it ever happened?
Snodgrass'Muff said:
You know what was bad for the team? Paying Lackey $30 million over 2011-2012 and getting absolutely terrible results. I see no reason not to now hold him to that same deal for 2015.
This is not some 26 year old guy who could pitch here for a long time. Lackey is going to be 37 for the 2016 season, that's a risky bet for a pitcher, even one who hasn't already shredded his elbow. I don't see the need to tear up the last year of his current deal just to lock him up for 2016 and beyond; there's a decent chance his performance will decline at that point to be no longer worth it.
I feel like a lot of this is all just an overreaction to someone saying "Meh.. some things to think about". No one knows what Lackey meant by that. Lackey didn't state he was sitting out 2015, or that he was even unhappy with the deal. Everyone is assuming "Some things to think about" means he's unhappy with it.. and not just unhappy, but unhappy enough to sit out an entire season. For a forum that is so devoted to using the numbers, instead of "feel" and assumptions, when it comes to stats we sure are quick to make assumptions about one-off comments made to a reporter.
With that said, every single person here would try and use that $500k as leverage whether you were the Sox or Lackey. It was added there as leverage, and I wouldn't be surprised if Henry looked at Lackey and said "This will be a nice place to start extension talks in 2015, should you get injured".
I am not, in any way, concerned about Lackey sitting out in 2015 or the Sox "screwing him over" by making him play for $500k. Forcing him to play for $500k probably stops any other player from adding that kind of clause to their contract with the Sox. Him sitting out doesn't make any sense, for all the reasons mentioned here in this thread.
With that said, every single person here would try and use that $500k as leverage whether you were the Sox or Lackey. It was added there as leverage, and I wouldn't be surprised if Henry looked at Lackey and said "This will be a nice place to start extension talks in 2015, should you get injured".
I am not, in any way, concerned about Lackey sitting out in 2015 or the Sox "screwing him over" by making him play for $500k. Forcing him to play for $500k probably stops any other player from adding that kind of clause to their contract with the Sox. Him sitting out doesn't make any sense, for all the reasons mentioned here in this thread.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Exactly. This is entirely an issue of perception. Lackey signed a five year contract worth $82.5M and a one-year "conditional" extension for $500K, making it six years and $83M in the event of his (actual) injury.
I see no reason to pass the collection plate for John Lackey, who has a valid contract for 2014 and 2015 with $15.75M remaining to be paid. That it doesn't divide up evenly is not the Red Sox problem.
EDIT: @Jaylach - Ken Rosenthal reported "sources close to Lackey" were hinting at retirement. So, we're at least one step beyond "things to think about" into "vague threats intended to increase leverage".
soxfan121 said:
Was that copied in this thread? I missed it either way (I don't use twitter), but if it was posted in this thread and I missed it.. well, I just fail at message boarding.
That certainly changes things slightly, but it's still just "sources close to" which could be, for all we know, his ex wife trying to screw him over. It could also be Lackey himself saying it as a way to increase leverage.
This just seems like spitballing to me...
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/tigers-might-have-found-relief-in-suarez-but-bullpen-another-story-060914
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/tigers-might-have-found-relief-in-suarez-but-bullpen-another-story-060914
Stitch01 said:
But, pitching in 2015 entails the risk of having 1) a fluke bad season driven by a high BABip or temporarily losing his mechanics like Lester in 2012 or something else, 2) a real bad season as he starts to age regress, or 3) another injury. There's no guarantee that pitching in 2015 will get him more money for 2016-2017 than sitting out. Of course pitching well in 2015 would be better for him, but that's not guaranteed, and both he and his agent know it. He's not going to pitch for the minimum, and John Henry knows that now as well as knowing it when the contract was signed by both parties, or he wouldn't be as rich as his is.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
What he was paid and when in the past is, well, in the past. If this team has any interest in having Lackey on the roster beyond 2015, there is every reason to negotiate an extension that would tear up the 500k option. I guess it's possible they don't want him back after next year, but I would find that a bit difficult to believe.
soxfan121 said:
A question for both you and SJH... what do you see as preferable alternatives to extending Lackey into 2016 and/or 2017 given the huge question marks in the rotation at the moment? Forcing Lackey to come back in 2015 for 500k is very likely going to mean the end of his tenure here whether he retires this winter or next, or decides to move on to another team in 2016, so what is the plan for replacing him, and, going one step further, populating the rest of the rotation?
I'm as high on our prospects as anyone, but planning on more than two of them panning out as starters seems a bit optimistic to me.
I guess I didn't phrase this well because that's the second post that's addressing something I didn't say. If Lackey pitches well in '15, he's going to get a bigger deal in '16 than if he hasn't picked up a baseball since late '14. If he gets hurt, if he pitches crappy...that's not pitching well in '15. All I meant to say is that sitting out '15 is not the optimal outcome for Lackey. He's better off with an extension or pitching on a one year deal that's above $500K but below what he'd get as a free agent.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Actually, the rational thing to do in that case is to trade him during the offseason to a team, preferably a noncontender in the National League, that will give him a "reporting bonus" or extension to entice him to play and the Red Sox a reasonably high-quality prospect or leftfielder.
Stitch01 said:
How? He has to pitch well to get another big money contract. He is pitching well now; if he continues to do this for the next year and half, he'll get a decent chunk of change from someone.
It won't affect the Red Sox goal of winning baseball games in the rest of 2014 or 2015. Unless you think Lackey is the type to not try hard when he isn't properly motivated (by money). But where would you get such an idea?
To answer Snod, I'm less concerned about 2016 than I am with 2015. And less concerned about 2017 than 2016, etc. And fortunately, since 2016 is two whole offseasons away, I don't need a firm plan for what to do in 2016 about Lackey's innings. Free agent, prospect...some opportunity will present itself. It's John Lackey, not Jon Lester. And certainly not Pedro Martinez. Let's not pretend that Lackey cannot be replaced because that's just not true.
Plympton91 said:
I'd be absolutely fine with that if it becomes apparent that Lackey has no intention of honoring the last year of the contract he signed.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
In general I'm not fond of counting on 37 year old pitchers to do much of anything, really. He's already got a rebuilt elbow, so saying they would really need him 2 seasons from now strikes me as a tad hasty.
It would seem to me that there's a relatively easy middle ground here. If both sides play hardball, here's the extreme cases:
For Boston: It is holding the line on $500k and saying if you don't play for that, you can pack up and retire.
For Lackey: It is packing up and retiring. That, or being a total jerk and pitching poorly on purpose for that $500k. Which I don't think he'll do because that then hurts future contracts.
So here's the face-saving diplomatic solution. Ripping up the 2015 contract and having Lackey sign a new 2/20 to 2/24 deal. It is not at all embarrassing money for a 36-37 year old pitcher. It allows him to make a lot more than the $500k he was going to make in 2015. And yet it's cheap enough that if he continues to pitch well, he's a real bargain at just $12 million per year. Moreover, it doesn't tie the Sox up for a long period of time, mitigating the potential danger given his age and injury history.
So, given the reality of the $500k 2015 deal we are all staring at, I think this concept is pretty much a win-win.
For Boston: It is holding the line on $500k and saying if you don't play for that, you can pack up and retire.
For Lackey: It is packing up and retiring. That, or being a total jerk and pitching poorly on purpose for that $500k. Which I don't think he'll do because that then hurts future contracts.
So here's the face-saving diplomatic solution. Ripping up the 2015 contract and having Lackey sign a new 2/20 to 2/24 deal. It is not at all embarrassing money for a 36-37 year old pitcher. It allows him to make a lot more than the $500k he was going to make in 2015. And yet it's cheap enough that if he continues to pitch well, he's a real bargain at just $12 million per year. Moreover, it doesn't tie the Sox up for a long period of time, mitigating the potential danger given his age and injury history.
So, given the reality of the $500k 2015 deal we are all staring at, I think this concept is pretty much a win-win.
soxfan121 said:
I suggested no such thing. I merely pointed out that having a reasonably paid Lackey for that stretch of seasons makes it a lot easier to fill in the rest of the rotation and would give them a little bit of leverage in trying to get Lester to stay at a reasonable price.
If having Lackey at 12 million per for the next three seasons means the Red Sox can draw the line with Lester at 5/110 instead of 6/140, is that worth losing one season of Lackey at 500k?
EvilEmpire said:
Plympton91 said:
Next time, just quote me
Stitch01 said:
I got that the first time, and acknowledged it with "this is certainly possible". I then went on to say that I thought the chances of that happening were less than the risk he'd be accepting, and that ultimately I thought he we was risking more money.
I don't disagree at all that if he pitched really well next year he would get more money, I just don't think that is as likely.
Yes, but he'll get a contract for '16 if he doesn't pitch in '15. A smaller one than if he pitches well in '15, but someone will give him a one year deal for real money. So might not be worth him risking pitching for $500K in '15.soxfan121 said:
How? He has to pitch well to get another big money contract. He is pitching well now; if he continues to do this for the next year and half, he'll get a decent chunk of change from someone.
It won't affect the Red Sox goal of winning baseball games in the rest of 2014 or 2015. Unless you think Lackey is the type to not try hard when he isn't properly motivated (by money). But where would you get such an idea?
To answer Snod, I'm less concerned about 2016 than I am with 2015. And less concerned about 2017 than 2016, etc. And fortunately, since 2016 is two whole offseasons away, I don't need a firm plan for what to do in 2016 about Lackey's innings. Free agent, prospect...some opportunity will present itself. It's John Lackey, not Jon Lester. And certainly not Pedro Martinez. Let's not pretend that Lackey cannot be replaced because that's just not true.
He's replaceable, but to replace him the Sox will have to pay market value someone market value. Because they have leverage with Lackey, they will get to sign him to a below market deal. I don't feel great about going into the offseason with Buchholz, Doubront and prospects under team control, but YMMV.
They could also trade him for value as mentioned, although I doubt it will be to a NL non-contender.
Not negotiating and forcing him to pitch for $500K or sit out, to me, is winning a battle to lose the war and based more on understandable emotion than the logic of the situation IMO.
So: Why did Lackey sign a contract that included this $500k option that automatically kicked in if he missed significant time with an elbow injury? Did he really think it wouldn't happen? Did he understand that it might happen, but that the rest of the contract was such an overpay that he figured it was worth it? Did he just assume that if he pitched well that the $500k option would simply be dealt with in due time?
ivanvamp said:
- If Lackey missed time with an elbow injury, and his career ended early as a result, he'd get paid.
- If he missed time with an elbow injury, came back, and was ineffective, he wouldn't be a commodity either way, and probably just go away into retirement.
- If he came back and was a good pitcher, he'd likely be desired for 2015 and 2016, at least. It's leverage both sides hold, and both sides lose if either forces the hand of the leverage.
I am curious if there is a precedent where a player signed a contract like Lackey's, was injured and then played for a nominal amount.
Just spit balling this out there, but I think if I signed a contract like Lackey's, I would then purchase insurance to cover / compensate for the low salary of the added year. I don't know if Lloyd's of London or any insurance agency would cover that insurance, but I would imagine that Lackey's side would try..
Just spit balling this out there, but I think if I signed a contract like Lackey's, I would then purchase insurance to cover / compensate for the low salary of the added year. I don't know if Lloyd's of London or any insurance agency would cover that insurance, but I would imagine that Lackey's side would try..
I agree. The contract was worth it to him, and he hoped that he'd never actually face that $500k year (that is, if it happened to come to pass, that the Sox would automatically renegotiate it).
So: (1) He knew the contract was a big one. $82.5 million over 5 seasons = $16.5 million per season. At the time of the deal, that was a lot of money. $83 million over 6 seasons = $13.83 million per season. Not as much, but still, a lot.
Now, given that he actually didn't play one season (2012), we're really back to $83 million over 5 seasons. But even at $13.83 million per season, what has he provided the Sox? According to b-ref:
2010: 1.8 WAR
2011: -1.9 WAR
2012: N/A
2013: 2.8 WAR
2014: on pace for 4.8 WAR
So that's a grand total of 7.5 WAR over 4 active seasons (5 overall). At $5.5 million per win above replacement, he's been "worth" $41.25 million to the Sox over the life of the contract so far.
In other words, he's been WAY overpaid. Which is fine, water under the bridge, etc. But he really should recognize that he has NOT given the Sox their money's worth over the life of this deal.
(though I think most of us would have agreed to sign him for whatever if it meant one WS title, which he helped deliver)
So: (1) He knew the contract was a big one. $82.5 million over 5 seasons = $16.5 million per season. At the time of the deal, that was a lot of money. $83 million over 6 seasons = $13.83 million per season. Not as much, but still, a lot.
Now, given that he actually didn't play one season (2012), we're really back to $83 million over 5 seasons. But even at $13.83 million per season, what has he provided the Sox? According to b-ref:
2010: 1.8 WAR
2011: -1.9 WAR
2012: N/A
2013: 2.8 WAR
2014: on pace for 4.8 WAR
So that's a grand total of 7.5 WAR over 4 active seasons (5 overall). At $5.5 million per win above replacement, he's been "worth" $41.25 million to the Sox over the life of the contract so far.
In other words, he's been WAY overpaid. Which is fine, water under the bridge, etc. But he really should recognize that he has NOT given the Sox their money's worth over the life of this deal.
(though I think most of us would have agreed to sign him for whatever if it meant one WS title, which he helped deliver)
Snodgrass'Muff said:
There is no reason to think Lackey would take $12M or any "below market" deal. Well, as much reason to think that as there is to think he'd tank (on purpose) in 2015.
If you don't have Lester, Lackey at any price is a hood ornament. So, no I do not see Lackey as a reason to offer Lester less. Not even close to the same guy, mostly because of age, track record and handedness.
Tanking 2015 would be absurdly stupid. Its much more likely he'd either not pitch or try to be a horse one day and a horse's ass the other four days, which isn't really ideal for what's likely to be a young group of starters.
Lackey is likely to take a below market deal because it gets back some of the earning power he's going to lose in '15 by either sitting out or pitching for $500K.
I agree with you that Lester and Lackey should be separate discussions unless what happens with Lackey alters the amount Lester will take to pitch for the Red Sox (I doubt it will).
Lackey is likely to take a below market deal because it gets back some of the earning power he's going to lose in '15 by either sitting out or pitching for $500K.
I agree with you that Lester and Lackey should be separate discussions unless what happens with Lackey alters the amount Lester will take to pitch for the Red Sox (I doubt it will).
ivanvamp said:
So what? Do teams routinely cut a check for players when they outperform their contracts? The only thing that matters is how the Sox think Lackey will perform next year and beyond, and what that is worth to them.
I can't find anything that explicitly says that Lackey would be a FA after 2015 if he sits out but I'm pretty confident that's the case. Would it make sense for him to sit out and then ten years from now come back to the Sox and say he's ready to play, give him his 500k and waive him if they don't think he's capable? That would make zero sense. The contract covers certain years as opposed to years in which he accrues service time.
As for the retirement possibility, if he feels that he has one more year left in him and he'd be happy to play in 2015, but he'd also be fine calling it a career in October, I can see why he may consider retirement if he's only getting 500k. That would seem to be a perfectly legit reason to walk away, as opposed to doing so out of resentment towards the Sox.
As for the retirement possibility, if he feels that he has one more year left in him and he'd be happy to play in 2015, but he'd also be fine calling it a career in October, I can see why he may consider retirement if he's only getting 500k. That would seem to be a perfectly legit reason to walk away, as opposed to doing so out of resentment towards the Sox.
EvilEmpire said:
No, the only thing that matters is the signed contract.
Players are not required to sign a "one year extension at the league minimum if affected by SPECIFIC injury". John Lackey chose to sign this contract, containing this clause. He did so because he was guaranteed to make $83M over six years. He has been paid, even when not playing, because those are the terms and conditions of the contract.
If the Red Sox think he's going to win the Cy Young Award next season, they should make him honor the contract he signed. They paid him while he was injured/rehabbing. They paid him when he sucked. They paid him per the terms of the contract. And any extension should be no more (or less) than the Qualifying Offer they could stick on him after 2015.
Lackey has no leverage. He has lost half (at least) of the contract to his divorce. He probably needs money and he definitely needs a new contract signed AFTER the divorce went final. But he can only retire...and if he does that, the Sox should threaten to stick him with the QO at the end of 2015 to ensure he stays retired.
Had Lackey not resorted to using Ken Rosenthal to blackmail the team, I'd feel differently. Perhaps a quiet resolution can be reached. But any more bullshit threats to retire instead of fulfilling the terms of the contract should be met with an exertion of the actual leverage the Sox own because of the signed contract.
Lackey probably still has enough money saved up to make rent for a month or two post divorce, so I wouldn't overplay the financial situation too much. Half of $83MM after taxes=lots of money and he'd get a nice fresh $5-$15MM more (I don't feel like quibbling over what he'd get) in '16. Unless there is hard evidence to the contrary, Id assume Lackey can live comfortably for life without pitching in 2015.
If the Sox primary goal is to win this battle with Lackey and make him own up to the contract or sit out, they can definitely do that. No question about it.
Would they be able to give him a QO after '15? He still could sit out, he'd be giving up $500K to guarantee himself $14MM or free agency, but it is additional leverage for the Sox since it makes sitting out worth 2/14 to Lackey.
If the Sox primary goal is to win this battle with Lackey and make him own up to the contract or sit out, they can definitely do that. No question about it.
Would they be able to give him a QO after '15? He still could sit out, he'd be giving up $500K to guarantee himself $14MM or free agency, but it is additional leverage for the Sox since it makes sitting out worth 2/14 to Lackey.
Right, it is attachment 10 to the CBA: "A player who... has been properly put on the Disqualified List for failure to render his services to his Club, shall be eligible to become a Free Agent as provided in Article XX, if otherwise qualified as set forth therein." Basically, if you already had the right to FA, then you can be an FA again even if you were on the disqualified list.glennhoffmania said:
Of course, I'd have really strong reservations on signing any player who basically called it quits b/c they didn't like the agreement they signed (without any reserve rights!), but teams have and will again.
Stitch01 said:
Some quick googling brings up reports that the Lackeys had a pre-nup, so money may not be as crucial for him as it would be had he had to give up half this contract.
I know some of you hate John Lackey with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, but he is by all accounts very well respected inside the Red Sox clubhouse, and it is probably not a stretch to assume that this respect carries throughout the MLBPA. Taking a hard line with this extension and making a public example of him hardly seems like a wise move for a team with the means to sign free agents, IMO. It wasn't that long ago that the narrative of 'Nobody wants to play in Boston' felt like a very real thing.
soxfan121 said:
First of all, what you quoted is in response to the idea that Lackey "owes" the team something because of his previously poor performance. That is utter nonsense.
Second, the Sox can't make Lackey do anything. The penalty for him not playing next year is that a) he can't play for anyone else, and b) he won't get paid the 500k he was going to make.
Stitch01 said:
That doesn't sound like a bad deal for Lackey. As you alluded to earlier, it would really be better for the Sox to at least offer him 2/14 now and get production next season too. He might not take it, but if the Sox think there is a possibility they might want to extend a QO after next season, even if he sits out, they should offer 2/14 now.
JimD said:
I'm one of the guys who's noted that he's adored in the clubhouse. But what's "making a public example of him" by expecting him to honor the contract he signed? I simply don't understand this line of thinking. And the Sox overpaid for him in the first place; free agents love to go to places that do that.
nattysez said:
Yes, and what also has been plainly stated is that you can't be on the reserved list if you aren't under contract. So he would become a FA after 2015.
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
The option hasn't been exercised, and it's for 2015. The question is whether he can be a FA after 2015. Logic and googling suggests that he can be.
Why wouldn't the Red Sox exercise it?
Edit: He'll be a FA after 2015 if he plays out 2015, not if he stays home. I'm assuming that's the question.
Edit: He'll be a FA after 2015 if he plays out 2015, not if he stays home. I'm assuming that's the question.
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
I'm not saying they won't. I'm just saying that he will become a FA no matter what either after 2014 or after 2015. If they exercise the option, he'll be a FA after 2015 even if he sits out. If they don't exercise it he'll be a FA after 2014.
My only point about the fact that it hasn't been exercised yet is that it means he technically isn't under contract for 2015 as of today.
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Ok, can you explain why or provide any backup? Because everything I've seen suggests the exact opposite.
More importantly, please provide your credentials.
The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Why wouldn't he be? He's under contract through 2014 right now, and through 2015 if the option is picked up. If he's put on the restricted or disqualified list (a la Dempster) because he refuses to play for $500K, he's a free agent after the 2015 season concludes. The Red Sox don't retain his rights in perpetuity, they own his rights for the term of his contract. That contract ends, no matter what, at the end of the 2015 season.