Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

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

    Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    Because of the TJ surgery the Sox will have him at league minimum in 2015, which is starting to look like a bargain.

    Since he's improved so much this season, I was wondering what we'd have to offer him to extend and pick up 2015 and an extra year in 2016. Basically guaranteeing him 15m for two years vs .5m for just 2015. Would that represent a bargain for the club and Lackey?

    Do you think he's too old / brittle to go that long?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    Hard to say.  He looks younger today than the day he got to Boston.  Tommy john surgery, the time off, and the effort he has clearly put into conditioning have bought him at least a couple of years. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    I think he will be productive at least to the end of his Sox contract. If the Sox come up to a salary luxury limit crunch next year, they may restructure his contract to spread out the money more evenly and lowering the limit hit.

     

    Sox4ever

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    it's not something you can plan for. If he keeps pitching well i would entertain the idea. Or at least like Moon has been saying restructure his current deal to even out the money over the next 3 years.

    ^^^had that written before Moon even posted. It's like i got ESPN or something.

    MASTER OF PUPPETS I'M PULLING YOUR STRINGS!!
    TWISTING YOUR MIND AND SMASHING YOUR DREAMS!!
    BLINDED BY ME YOU CAN'T SEE A THING!!
    JUST CALL MY NAME 'CUZ I'LL HEAR YOU SCREAM!!
    MASTER!! MASTER!!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    I'm not sure how they'd refigure the luxury tax amount, but right now Lackey's deal counts as $16.5M in 2014 and Min salary for 2015. The union won't let him restructure if his overall value goes down, but they could thrown him a bone and add 100 or 200K. Basically, we'd pay him about $8.1M both years. That would save us about $8M, if they figure it that way, but if they figure it as $83.5M over 6 years (the whole deal), then the average salary would go from $16.5M to about $13.9M- a savings of just $2.6M for 2014, but a big negative difference for 2015.

    Any luxury tax experts out there?

    Sox4ever

     

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

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    No, please do not even think of extending Lackey's contract at this time.

    Yes, he pitched very well tonight against the Tigers and prbably should have gotten the win (and a few others this year, too.  Although he has generally pitched well this year, he is under contract through the 2015 season and nothing needs to be done with his contract until then.

    Remember, he is going to be in his mid 30s after the 2015 season and no one knows how he will 'age' through the next 2.5 years or if he gets reinjured.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    To pitch like he did against Detroit, with the highest BA in MLB, that's just not something I would ever have guessed a year ago.

    We only have Lester thru 2014, and at the moment he looks to be reverting to 2012.

    It just occurred to me that maybe it would cost less to wring a bit more productive time from Lackey by comparison.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    Its good to finally start to get some of our moneys worth from him. Lackey will be 35 in October. I HOPE he can do this until hes 37. I wouldnt even THINK of an extension until his league minimum year. Then Id only go year to year with him. Im not sure you can restructure a MLB contract Moon.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from georom4. Show georom4's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    I dont know about the future but I know lackey looks great, has worked hard to contribute, and i appreciate it...he should give Lester some dieting tips

    As always - 100% correct!

     
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    Our pitching still looks pretty good at the moment, but we lose Aceves, Bailey, Breslow, Dempster, Lester, Miller and Uehara in 2014 followed by Bard, Buchholz, and Lackey in 2015.

    Are our young farm ams coming along quickly enough to stem that tide?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    In response to lasitter's comment:

    Our pitching still looks pretty good at the moment, but we lose Aceves, Bailey, Breslow, Dempster, Lester, Miller and Uehara in 2014 followed by Bard, Buchholz, and Lackey in 2015.

    Are our young farm ams coming along quickly enough to stem that tide?




    I think that last question can be answered better by the end of next year...when the first group of names you mentioned will all be FA after 2014.

    Personally, I can see Ranaudo, Workman, and Webster ready by then and possibly RDLR in the closers role. Not sure if Britton is consistent enough for a starters job yet, but a lot of LHP go through that.

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    No, please do not even think of extending Lackey's contract at this time.

    Yes, he pitched very well tonight against the Tigers and prbably should have gotten the win (and a few others this year, too.  Although he has generally pitched well this year, he is under contract through the 2015 season and nothing needs to be done with his contract until then.

    Remember, he is going to be in his mid 30s after the 2015 season and no one knows how he will 'age' through the next 2.5 years or if he gets reinjured.

     

    Nobody is talking about extending him that I know of. Lackey is signed through 2014. The 2015 option is at minimum wage, so that's a no brainer. That leaves 2014 at the rate of $16.5M (luxury tax figure) or $15.25M (actualy salary) and then about $700-800K for 2015. 

    All I'm talking about is possibly combining the 2014 and 2015 salaries, if we need cap space for 2014, but not 2015. The number would be something like $8M for both years. It would subtract about $7M from the budget in 2014 and add $7M to the budget of 2015. No net gain or loss. Now, to give Lackey incentive to do it, and to keep the union out of it, you could add $100K or so to the offer. It's not an extension.

    Now, we may realize we do  not need extra cap space next year. We are losing a lot of salary as it is, and may decline Lester's $13.5M as well. We may prefer to have more space in 2015 with Lackey making minimum wage, but I have to say that he may not be too motivated that year as he opens his checks. We basically paid him for 2015 while he missed 2012, but he may not see it that way.

     

    Sox4ever

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    Can't take away what Lackey is doing...he looks great.  

    Can you imagine if he can stay somewhat this good and healthy???

    This contract would look good at the end of 2015 and I NEVER thought I would say that.

    Of course....lets see him do it for the whole season, and then we can talk about him being consistent.  But so far so good with Lackey this year!

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Now, we may realize we do  not need extra cap space next year. We are losing a lot of salary as it is, and may decline Lester's $13.5M as well. We may prefer to have more space in 2015 with Lackey making minimum wage, but I have to say that he may not be too motivated that year as he opens his checks. We basically paid him for 2015 while he missed 2012, but he may not see it that way.

     

    Sox4ever



    Yes, but he'll also presumably be pitching for another contract.  But he's always struck me as a tough, hard-working guy so my bet would be he does his best despite his salary.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Now, we may realize we do  not need extra cap space next year. We are losing a lot of salary as it is, and may decline Lester's $13.5M as well. We may prefer to have more space in 2015 with Lackey making minimum wage, but I have to say that he may not be too motivated that year as he opens his checks. We basically paid him for 2015 while he missed 2012, but he may not see it that way.

     

    Sox4ever



    Yes, but he'll also presumably be pitching for another contract.  But he's always struck me as a tough, hard-working guy so my bet would be he does his best despite his salary.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Now, we may realize we do  not need extra cap space next year. We are losing a lot of salary as it is, and may decline Lester's $13.5M as well. We may prefer to have more space in 2015 with Lackey making minimum wage, but I have to say that he may not be too motivated that year as he opens his checks. We basically paid him for 2015 while he missed 2012, but he may not see it that way.

     

    Sox4ever



    Yes, but he'll also presumably be pitching for another contract.  But he's always struck me as a tough, hard-working guy so my bet would be he does his best despite his salary.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    Now, we may realize we do  not need extra cap space next year. We are losing a lot of salary as it is, and may decline Lester's $13.5M as well. We may prefer to have more space in 2015 with Lackey making minimum wage, but I have to say that he may not be too motivated that year as he opens his checks. We basically paid him for 2015 while he missed 2012, but he may not see it that way.

     

    Sox4ever



    Yes, but he'll also presumably be pitching for another contract.  But he's always struck me as a tough, hard-working guy so my bet would be he does his best despite his salary.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    I agree, but think him making $8.1 M for 2014 and 2015 instead of $15.25M and $750K might ease the situation a bit.

    I think he'll do fine either way. It's the Sox that may want to restructure, so they can make a bog splash in 2014.

    Sox4ever

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I agree, but think him making $8.1 M for 2014 and 2015 instead of $15.25M and $750K might ease the situation a bit.

    I think he'll do fine either way. It's the Sox that may want to restructure, so they can make a bog splash in 2014.

    Sox4ever




    I dont think you can restructure an MLB contract like that Moon. I found this...

    A player's contract can only be changed if it acts to benefit the player, and the union defines "benefit" in purely financial terms."

    So my guess is since it benefits the Sox, then no the MLBPA wouldnt allow it.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    A player's contract can only be changed if it acts to benefit the player, and the union defines "benefit" in purely financial terms."

    So my guess is since it benefits the Sox, then no the MLBPA wouldnt allow it.


    Of course splitting his 2014 payment over two years would only benefit the club, which is why I was looking at adding an extra year, which could be construed to Lackey's benefit.

    So instead of him getting basically nothing extra for 2015 (since he's already been paid for it) what is the magic number (if healthy) he might be worth in 2015/2016? I'm basically talking about paying for another year of team control.

    He would be 38 in October of 2016. and maybe he comletely falls apart physically long before that. Then again, Cliff Lee is only two months younger, and he's also been a popular topic of conversation.

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

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    Amazing how folks wanted him cut a couple of months ago, and now are thinking of extending him.  If we acted on the hairtriggers in here, we'd be turning over the roster every two months.  The time to start thinking about extending him for 2016 will be November, 2015.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from lasitter. Show lasitter's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    Joebreidey: Cutting someone when they look bad guarantees that you pay the full contract and get nothing for them. That's why I say sell when someone's stock is high. In the coming weeks become pretty sure that Lackey's rebound is not a fluke. If he has good years this year and next and we do nothing, then we're just another bidder when he becomes a free agent.

    The team is losing control of a lot of pitchers in between now and November 2015. It's going to take some serious money to retain some of them. Extending Lackey could be a way of keeping a pitching resource around during that transition that doesn't break the bank.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    I agree, but think him making $8.1 M for 2014 and 2015 instead of $15.25M and $750K might ease the situation a bit.

    I think he'll do fine either way. It's the Sox that may want to restructure, so they can make a bog splash in 2014.

    Sox4ever

     




    I dont think you can restructure an MLB contract like that Moon. I found this...

     

    A player's contract can only be changed if it acts to benefit the player, and the union defines "benefit" in purely financial terms."

    So my guess is since it benefits the Sox, then no the MLBPA wouldnt allow it.

     

    You missed where I said the team could add $100K or $200K to the total amount, so instead of making about $16M for the 2 years ($15.25M + $750K), he'd make $8.1M + $8.1M or $16.2M. 

    It benefits Lackey in terms of him making slightly more money. I benefits the Sox only if they want the cap space for 2014 at the expense of 2015.

    Sox4ever

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

    Re: Lackey: Will he age well going forward?

    In response to lasitter's comment:

    Joebreidey: Cutting someone when they look bad guarantees that you pay the full contract and get nothing for them. That's why I say sell when someone's stock is high. In the coming weeks become pretty sure that Lackey's rebound is not a fluke. If he has good years this year and next and we do nothing, then we're just another bidder when he becomes a free agent.

    The team is losing control of a lot of pitchers in between now and November 2015. It's going to take some serious money to retain some of them. Extending Lackey could be a way of keeping a pitching resource around during that transition that doesn't break the bank.



    1-He'll be 37 when the contract expires.  I would not expect him to be either healthy nor effective at that point.

    2-If you like to sell when his price is high, wouldn't we be buying when his price is high?

    3-Lots of teams will lose control of lots of SPs between now and 2016.  You replace them.  I'd like to extend Buchholz, we'd still have Doubront, and then we'd need 3 guys with a fairly deep minor league system.

    4-Having said that, if he wanted to give us a deep, deep discount, we could probably afford to gamble $4-5M.

    Using the Howard contract as an example, the contract wasn't a disaster for the Phillies because Howard declined.  It was a disaster because they weren't compensated enough for all the risk they were taking.  $25M is market value for a top 1B.  By signing him to the same amount he would have gotten had he stayed healthy, they basically got no discount.  If his health declined, or if his production declined, Philly got penalized.  If he played well, the Phillies got nothing extra.  When Gonzo signed early, he probably gave us about $1.5-2.0M per season discount, to offset the one-year risk.

    Going back to Lackey, a 2.5 year risk is huge at his age and recent surgery risk.  If he goes for another procedure, which is a material risk, he is probably finished.  I'd be really happy to see him pitch well enough over the next 2.5 years to make letting him walk be a mistake.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share