Lackey now over.500

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Your-Echo. Show Your-Echo's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Earlier Saturday, the Yankees and Rockies also swapped proposals. However, several reports say New York is balking at Colorado's request for some combination of Ivan Nova, Jesus Montero and Dellin Betances to be included in any deal. An executive of one club said he was told Phil Hughes' name also was discussed by the two teams at one point Saturday, but Colorado doesn't appear to have any interest in making Hughes part of this trade.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500 : So he was given $80M+ to insure pitching depth?
    Posted by -The------Babe[/QUOTE]

    Babe, UR missing the whole point of this thread. 17 mil a year on the FA market gets a GM an average of 14 wins a year.
    Several times I asked posters for a list of names that are in Lackey's FA salary class. The names Lowe and Burnett came up. Their output, adjusted, is what Lackey's is. Expectations for Lackey to be more than he's always been are unrealistic, simply because he was 102-71 for a winning franchise over 8 1/2 seasons. If he came from a bottom level team with compromised defense/offense, his ceiling would be higher in Boston. But that'snot the case. He gets more RS in Boston, but gives up more runs at Fenway and vs. line-ups. The win total should equal that of his in CA if he stays healthy.

    If you isolate salary without putting it in proper context, say comparing it to that of Lester, it's like apples/oranges. They can over-pay for Lackey because of the
    team-friendly Lester deal. Lackey's worth and status should not be pigeon-holed by his FA salary.

    Nor should there be any misconceptions as to his depth chart status.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    I do not think Lackey is giving what Theo expected.

    I do not think Lowe and Burnett have done what their managers expected either.

    I get the point that FA are overpaid. It's an easy way to improve a team without creating wholes elsewhere. Comparing FA contracts to non-FA contracts is not useful. 

    In reality, the players on the Sox that came up through the farm cost more than just their salaries. The cost of all those who never make it up could be included in the overall cost of homegrown players vs FA signings. I get that.

    Lackey has not done horrible. His ERA is high, but since we have signed him, he has pitched well enough to put us (or even a lesser scoring team) team in a position to win more times than not. However, his WHIP has been high. His ERA has been high. Many other stats have shown below norm results (both home and away).
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Only Theo knows what he expected. He paid for 14 wins a year. If he expected a 17 game winner, I'd like to see  what criteria he used.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Wait a second. That's merely your opinion that Theo paid for 14 wins a year. I truly think he was expecting more. I thought one of the reasons he was signed was he was the only marquee pitcher available that off-season and that he was in an age where many experts have determined would be during his pitching prime...implying you are expecting more. If he spend 82 mil for 14 wins a year, then I'd say he overpaid.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    and yes, I don't know either what Theo was thinking, and that is my opinion on that subject.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]Wait a second. That's merely your opinion that Theo paid for 14 wins a year. I truly think he was expecting more. I thought one of the reasons he was signed was he was the only marquee pitcher available that off-season and that he was in an age where many experts have determined would be during his pitching prime...implying you are expecting more. If he spend 82 mil for 14 wins a year, then I'd say he overpaid.
    Posted by dannycater[/QUOTE]

    That's what 17-mil-a-year brings on the FA market.
    Theo got what he paid for.

    It's not my opinion that he paid for 14 wins a year. It's a fact. Lackey averages 14 wins a year. Do the math. His ratio of wins per start is similar to that of Wake.
    That should tell you what a bargain Wake has been. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]Only Theo knows what he expected . He paid for 14 wins a year. If he expected a 17 game winner, I'd like to see  what criteria he used.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    He most certainly doesn't use wins per start as his #1 stat.


     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500



    Is Lackey's ERA still over 6?

    We should have gotten this guy instead.  lol
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GIEHPGj9sI
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    That's what 17-mil-a-year brings on the FA market.
    Theo got what he paid for.

    What's a 4.96 ERA and 1.5 something WHIP bring on the FA market?
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from softylaw. Show softylaw's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    What's a 5 plus ERA over the last 2 plus year bring on the market, for a fat 45 year old?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey now over.500 : He most certainly doesn't use wins per start as his #1 stat.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    How do you know what he uses?
    My best guess is that he uses an array of stats crunched by his staff, coupled with scouting reports. If he made the proper adjustments to pitching in Boston, in the A.L.East, given his stuff, then it would equate to an average of 14 wins.

    Beckett has won 14.6 wins a year in Boston. He wins about 4% more of his Boston starts than Lackey. Josh has a career Boston ERA of 4.
    Last year Lackey had a 4.4 ERA. He won his career average 14 games.
    What in your opinion is Josh worth on the open market?     
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RigatoniT. Show RigatoniT's posts

    Re: Lackey now over.500

    Reflections on Lackey.... I note Your-Echo as pike, and as an unbanned moniker which is like finding a rare coin.

     

Share