IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    theo may have to eventually eat this guy's deal. at this rate if he's lost for the year to take care of his head or whatever,

    It was only about a month ago that some of you were talking about eating Beckett's contract.  He's had 2 bad starts after he had 3 good starts.  And now his career is over.

    In 2008, Sabathia's caareer ended because he had an ERA of 13.50 after four bad starts.  He had an ERA thereafter of 1.88 in his next 31 starts
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    No, it's not wrong. In fact, it's the only hope to avoid the bust cost on this ill advised contract offer from Theo.

    How does it avoid any cost?

    It's the option year only that is at stake.

    A club option that won't be given no matter what.

    (And this clown consideres himself the board contract expert? What a joker!)
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from majorleague. Show majorleague's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    Lackey could then be picked up at the league minimum, which they might just do and reduce the cost of this bust contract.

    Slavic, you are the same idiot who said that 5 gold gloves mean nothing and the Twins can't afford Mauer. Idiot!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from majorleague. Show majorleague's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    JB, it would still be a spot start, regardless of whether Wakefield is in an old folks home or not.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    Lackey could then be picked up at the league minimum, which they might just do and reduce the cost of this bust contract.

    After all you have said about "Slackey", I'm surprised you think he may have any value at all in 2015. I guess you expect him to get better as he ages and eats more poatato salad?

    Slavic, you are the same idiot who said that 5 gold gloves mean nothing and the Twins can't afford Mauer. Idiot!

    Crawford won a GG, so he must be a great fielder too? Right?

    (Cue: goalpost movement.)

    I admit I was wrong about MN being able to sign Mauer, but you have never admitted you were $7M off on per year on the amount. We were both wrong, but only one is man enough to admit it, and the other pretends he wasn't that other person, but keeps mentioning positions and arguments like he was.

    Pretender, clown, hater.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN. Show COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    i have no beef with wake for he's not costing us much. he can always be cut. more of an emergency and leadership strategy. i did know about lackey's wife. as ahuman and PERSONALLY, i feel bad for him and my heart and prayers go out to him and his wife. but as a fan based on the year and a half of his stay here, i have to separate the 2. his outburts and childish demeanor after getting bombed leaves lackey lacking in having a clue. same with his diminished fastball. 

    he has gone from a 94 mile one to a 88-9- fastball guy. that is the source for much of his issues. yep he's a warrior on the mound but who cares when you dont bring the stuff. unless his fastball is up to at least 92, he will be useless to us regardless of how that big head of his feels! if they can find it, then perhaps he has a shot. to me, it may go back to the elbow. if so, may as well let t break off and start from scratch and try to salvage something from him, perhaps out of the bullpen where frankly i think he most belongs anyways. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from the-yazzer. Show the-yazzer's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    comparing SLACKEY with SABATHIA is WRONG!
    the OP may have done little research in his post, but THEO, obviously, did hardly any research before overpaying this #5 starter.
    seriously, how many more THEO BLUNDERS before he's put out to pasture?
    JOHN HENRY, THEO is misappropriating your millions. i know he's your prodigal son, but you must rid yourself of him. send him to LIVERPOOL.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    In Response to Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?:
    [QUOTE]Yes, it is wrong.  Lackey, current era of over 8 notwithstanding, can still contribute.  And, as Peter Abraham points out, there aren't a lot of other options right now.  Not sure I agree that getting Lackey was a big mistake, but I do think trading Masterson to Cleveland to get V-Mart short-term probably was a mistake. 
    Posted by maxbialystock[/QUOTE]

    Have you seen Mastersons L/R splits..The kid STILL has nothing against lefties..
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    In Response to Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?:
    [QUOTE]Lackey could then be picked up at the league minimum, which they might just do and reduce the cost of this bust contract. Slavic, you are the same idiot who said that 5 gold gloves mean nothing and the Twins can't afford Mauer. Idiot!
    Posted by majorleague[/QUOTE]

    Umm..Its an option year..if hes doing poorly why would they want to pick it up? so they can spend another 500k for no reason? That adds to the cost, it doesnt reduce it..
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    In Response to Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?:
    [QUOTE]comparing SLACKEY with SABATHIA is WRONG! the OP may have done little research in his post, but THEO, obviously, did hardly any research before overpaying this #5 starter. seriously, how many more THEO BLUNDERS before he's put out to pasture? JOHN HENRY, THEO is misappropriating your millions. i know he's your prodigal son, but you must rid yourself of him. send him to LIVERPOOL.
    Posted by the-yazzer[/QUOTE]

    You do know Theo has to clear all larger contracts, ie; Lackey & Crawford, by ownership, right? Theo had to call Henrey at 330am in london to get the OK for CC..Same for Lackey..So, do you want a new owner now?  Why do fans complain about a billionaire spending his money...At least we have an owner thats willing to spend..
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from the-yazzer. Show the-yazzer's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    i can't believe that after all of THEO'S mistakes, JOHN HENRY has any faith in THEO'S ability to judge talent at all.
    i guess JOHN HENRY just loves the little guy and will put up with all the INEPTNESS.
    WARNING: smaller market franchises; DO NOT hire EPSTEIN if he is ever available. you will not have the MONEY to erase all of his SCREW-UPS!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN. Show COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    In Response to Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT? : You do know Theo has to clear all larger contracts, ie; Lackey & Crawford, by ownership, right? Theo had to call Henrey at 330am in london to get the OK for CC..Same for Lackey..So, do you want a new owner now?  Why do fans complain about a billionaire spending his money...At least we have an owner thats willing to spend..
    Posted by southpaw777[/QUOTE]i know but henry isnt imposing these signings on theo either. theo likely initiates. like with belichick, i'm sure if he calls for a high priced free agent he would likely get his as well. problem is even for the yanks there are somany bad contracts that one can absorb. how many lugos can one put up with before your team becomes like the orioles or where the yanks are clearly heading. my prob with lackey is it would have been fine for 2 or even 3 years. no reason to go 5. you walk away. it wasnt like there was exactly a bidding war. the mets had health reservations, that was leverage for theo. i love theo most of the time so i'm not bashing him. 

    i have less of a prob with the craw deal in and of itself. its a position of uncertainty for we didnt have someone around. still, in the past few years, the right approach IMO, would have been to keep jason bay for 4 years. they had so many opportunities to guarantee 3 and vest for 4 years. to me, even if it doesnt work out, thats a low risk thing esp with a cameron around. a big money team can easily absorb that as with lugo. same with v-mart. if after 2 years, he's not working out, can always cut bait or trade him for some fries while paying 75% of his pay. then again, a v-mart who could hit in his sleep, may have just had run out of a position to play or places to get enough at bats here but could still have been viable in the open market. we should have signed him for 3 to 4 years. at 12-13M he would have been a steal compared to the ridiculous deals we give to craw and the amount that a joe mauer and even gonzo got from us. i'm not a revisioanist guy. for example, i like the decision of not re-signing beltre eventhough i had no doubts he could still rake. again, u have a youk to put there and enough youngies to make a push at a gonzo. was a higher risk thing for there was always a chance we could have not received him via trade. 

    thats my point i guess. these big spending teams like our sox try to spend their way out of all uncertainty when its that very uncertainty that often puts us in the best positions. look at pedroia. we let a surething at the time go (forget his name now, came from KC in a trade) in order to give him a clear shot. was rocky for a while but it worked out. had it not, we had alex cora as we did with a cameron to carry the water for no more than a year or 2 as we got some permanence or tweaked dustin for a while. 

    i just dont like the trend of letting one high profile guy go for another higher profile more expensive guy just because we can attitude and approach. if its for a young guy, i may take a difeerent approach . thats the goood thing with salty per example, but it would have been better with a v-mart around to help guide him over  a couple of years if necessary. there was no real need to bring back tek. sorry tek fans, v-mart's numbers were comparable to his with all our starting pitchers and they all respected him. and as hard as it is to believe, he actually has a stronger throwing arm at this point. when tek inevitably gets hurt again, will we not be worse than before AGAIN?

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruinsGENIUS. Show bruinsGENIUS's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    can we JUST TRADE HIMQ?!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from majorleague. Show majorleague's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    Umm..Its an option year..if hes doing poorly why would they want to pick it up? so they can spend another 500k for no reason? That adds to the cost, it doesnt reduce it..

    Are you familiar with John Smoltz? I don't think 500K will be a concern when they do exercise that option as a great move compared to 50 year old Tim Wakefield.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN. Show COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN's posts

    Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?

    In Response to Re: IS IT WRONG TO HOPE THAT LACKEY MISSES THE REST OF THE YEAR WITH ELBOW ISSUES SINCE IT WILL VOID HIS CONTRACT?:
    [QUOTE]Umm..Its an option year..if hes doing poorly why would they want to pick it up? so they can spend another 500k for no reason? That adds to the cost, it doesnt reduce it.. Are you familiar with John Smoltz? I don't think 500K will be a concern when they do exercise that option as a great move compared to 50 year old Tim Wakefield.
    Posted by majorleague[/QUOTE]ok, here's the deal, ur overthinking my point. he wanted a 6 year deal, that was theo's creative way of avoiding it. sox can eat a full year not two at over 15m. right now he has 3 full years left. in reality he has two morw full years for they will have oliver perez him til then. put him in the bullpen, make him righty specialist, spot start him or something. must put up with it for 2 more years. but yeah, regardless of how i try to spin it, this is a lousy deal. no reason sox should have gone beyond 3 full years. the fourth should have been teh vested option, injury opt-out and so forth. just dumb. no team can eat $50M or so and have it not impact them!
     

Share