Possible option to trade Lackey?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from J-Bay-Fan. Show J-Bay-Fan's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    Trade Lackey and Lowrie (high value right now) for something good
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    How about a bag of balls from the Broxton Rox:

    09-28-2011: According to our source, security was recently called to John Lackey's home residence over the past few days, as an intoxicated Lackey was apparently intoxicated and breaking things. We do not believe police were called in, rather private security to handle. We are also under the impression that Krista was not at home during the incident. We'll have more details if they come available.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    Lackey for Soriano
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]A few weeks ago I thought the cost to get rid of him would be too high.  I was wrong and from what I have read, this guy needs to go.  We will be on the hook for a lot of his salary, but better off without him.
    Posted by jackbu[/QUOTE]

    We can find a taker for Lackey, but you're right we probably won't be better off financially.  But we need him separated from Beckett.  If Beckett struggles, begins to cry and starts putting blame on everyone but himself after we let his buddy Tek goes? 

    Josh should be on the next bus out of town.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnDeckCircle. Show OnDeckCircle's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    You can't get a GM drunk enough to take Lackey off the hands of the Sox with his contract.   Even so, that GM will be out of a job before a season is ever finished.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Christian3886. Show Christian3886's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Trades that might work... John Lackey & Jed Lowrie for BigZ and Soriano Felix Doubront & Jed Lowrie for David Wright Jose Iglesias & Anthony Ranaudo for Hanley Ramirez Jose Iglesias, Anthony Ranaudo, Kevin Youkilis for King Felix & Chone Figgins Jose Iglesias, Anthony Ranaudo, Ryan Kalish, PTBN for Matt Kemp & PTBN Iggy, Youk, Doubront for Miguel Cabrera (for DHing purpose)
    Posted by seannybboi[/QUOTE]

    Where could you have possibly dreamed this up at?  Iggy, Youk, and Doubront for Miguel Cabrera?  Doubront and Lowrie for David Wright?  Iglesias and Ranaudo for Hanley?  Let's look at this ignorance:

    Detroit, who are inches from a world series and have no worries about what they spend will trade us one of the top three hitters in the game for a non-hitting shortstop, A injury proned and aging first/third baseman and Felix Doubront.  And this helps them how?

    The Mets, who again are rebuilding but have built a team around Wright and Reyes are going to trade us the other half of the duo so that both are gone this year and receive back a backup shortstop and Felix Doubront.  Ok.

    And finally I would say the worst one but I debate between this one and the Cabrera one.  You think they will give us Hanley Ramerez which is a club friendly contract when they are raising payroll substantially and moving to a new stadium for the same non-proven non-hitting shortstop and a pitching prospect. 

    Your post is a joke. You should be kicked off this forum for the pure ingorance factor.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    Wow! Glorified platoon player is waaaay harsh! But I was one who mentioned immediately that the contract was too much, though I'd say by about $3 million per. It's never about intrinsic value remember, it's about the total market considerations resulting in a price actual buyers will pay.  He was the top free agent that year with at least 2 pursuers, thus he was worth more than the roughly $14 mil per you rate him at. Let's face it-no player or entertainer is actually worth what they're making. I'd prefer to see the whole system scrapped so that ALL people could afford to bring their families to a game or other entertainment venue without finacial hardship. But until that day comes we need to play the hand we're dealt. As for Lackey, I'm hoping he has a very nice bounce back next season and helps this team. Because he WILL be on this team. 
    (Teakus)

    Teak, I think the term "glorified platoon player" is actually too tame of a word, but it is accurate. Crawford's career splits vs LHPs is horrible (under .700 OPS career and even during his career best year in 2010). He wasn't platooned in TB because a .690 OPS is still good enought to start, especially when you add in how well he ran the bases and fielded while with TB.  With Boston, however, sub .700 is bench material, especially from a left fielder, and especially when his defense and baserunning skills disappeared from 2010 to 2011 (perhaps due to his injury). 

    You are correct about "market value" and the $3M/yr (or about $20M total) is probably closer to the actual "market overpay", but my $50M number was my opinion of his worth in terms of alternative choices via FAs and or trades. I recognized that a team saves some money when signing a FA because they did not spend any money developing 50-100 players to produce one player like Crawford.

    I'm not making some hindsight bashing here based on CC's poor 2011 season. I happen to think CC will rebound and return to near his career norm numbers next year and a couple more afterwards. My position was that he was overpaid by $50M over 7 years even if he gave us 3-4 career norm or slightly better seasons and 3-4 at or slightly below career norm seasons. To me, in a sense we are paying CC $21M to play and have a good chance to do well in about 60% of our games (vs RHPs). That really means we are paying him a pro-rated pay of over $30M per 162 games. That's where I got the "glorified" term from, because nobody pays platoon players that much money.

    I stick by my projection that CC will help this team win games next year and beyond, but the money could have been spent better.

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

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Sorry, but it will be hard to watch this team with Lackey still on it.  I'm pretty sick over the developments of the weekend.  Tito deserved better from his players.  Whether you thought he was a good manager or a bad manager, he is certainly a good person that had the backs of this players.  He deserved better than to have his team not give 100% to win. This Sox team could have been absolutely great.  Unfortunately, not everyone was committed to winning.  I hope Epstein and Tito go to the Cubs.  I'll get the MLB package and become a Cubs fan. There's no way I want Lackey to get a ring.  And I can't see cheering for Beckett, who became part of the problem.
    Posted by DirtyWaterLover[/QUOTE]

    Maybe the Wall st protesters could march around Fenway against these OVERPAID PORKERS. There should be contracts based on the present NOT past.
    THIS is the problem. Having dessert before your meal.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from dollkuhn. Show dollkuhn's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    How about a lowering of ticket prices for a year as a SORRY for this year.  It isn't a day on the yacht but would be nice.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from davidap. Show davidap's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    Your post is a joke. You should be kicked off this forum for the pure ingorance factor.

    The only realistic proposal in that post was the first one. Lackey and Lowrie for Zambrano and Soriano might kickstart some talks. But with Epstein on the verge of taking the Cubs job, I doubt he wants to make any deals with the Red Sox. It would be way too risky for him.

    Some of my Lackey proposals:

    1. Lackey and Lowrie to SF for Zito.
    2. Lackey and Ellsbury to SF for Zito and Bumgarner.
    3. Lackey (3 yrs/$46m) and $11m to NYM for Bay (3 yrs/$35m).
    4. Lackey (3 yrs/$46m), Ellsbury (arb) and Jenks (1 yr/$6m) to NYM for Santana (2 yrs/$55m), Bay (3 yrs/$35m) and top minor league prospect.
    5. Lackey (3 yrs/$46m) and $2m to CWS for Dunn (3 yrs/$44m).
    6. Lackey (3 yrs/$46m) and $8m to CWS for Rios (3 yrs/$38m).
    7. Lackey (3 yrs/$46m) and Crawford (6 yrs/$123m) to CWS for Rios (3 yrs/$38m), Dunn (3 yrs/$44m) and Peavy (1 yr/$21m).
    8. Lackey (3 yrs/$46m) and Jenks (1 yr/$6m) to LAA for Wells (3 yrs/$63m).
    9. Lackey (3 yrs/$46m) and Jenks (1 yr/$6m) to WAS for Werth (6 yrs/$112m).
    10. Lackey (3 yrs/$46m) and Saltalamachhia (arb) to NYY for Burnett (2 yrs/$33m).
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ct-pitcher. Show ct-pitcher's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Trading a bad contract for another may or may not work out but heres my opinion.  Trade a package including Lackey for Jambrano and/or Soriano.  We need a RHH OF and Soriano hits lefties pretty well with a 273 lifetime BA and 817 OPS.  We also need a strong number #4 so Zambrano playing on a team that wins may be just what the doctor ordered.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    The Cubs owe the Sox compensation if they want Epstein. I say they can have Epstein and take Lackey, in return we get Garza from the Cubs.


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Possible option to trade Lackey? : The Cubs owe the Sox compensation if they want Epstein. I say they can have Epstein and take Lackey, in return we get Garza from the Cubs.
    Posted by ct-pitcher[/QUOTE]
    The Cubs know they don't owe much if the Red Sox no longer want Theo Epstein.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from davidap. Show davidap's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    I don't think the Cubs will take Lackey as compensation for prying Epstein out of just one remaining year of his contract. I could maybe see the Cubs taking a more moderate albatross like the 1 yr/$6 million due to Jenks. That's about it.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]I don't think the Cubs will take Lackey as compensation for prying Epstein out of just one remaining year of his contract. I could maybe see the Cubs taking a more moderate albatross like the 1 yr/$6 million due to Jenks. That's about it.
    Posted by davidap[/QUOTE]

    Lackey and Beckett need to be broken up regardless.  Beckett may become the next victim if we lose Tek and trade his new found drinking buddy but we need to do whats best for the team.

    Someone will take Lackey and I'm sure things will get ugly before better, but it needs to happen.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Teakus. Show Teakus's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    I hear you and do share your frustrations re: Crawford's poor year, and agree completely that he was over paid. Let's just hope at 30 he plays the rest of the way towards the top end of his potential, rather than the bottom end like this season. We NEED production from him!



    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Wow! Glorified platoon player is waaaay harsh! But I was one who mentioned immediately that the contract was too much, though I'd say by about $3 million per. It's never about intrinsic value remember, it's about the total market considerations resulting in a price actual buyers will pay.  He was the top free agent that year with at least 2 pursuers, thus he was worth more than the roughly $14 mil per you rate him at. Let's face it-no player or entertainer is actually worth what they're making. I'd prefer to see the whole system scrapped so that ALL people could afford to bring their families to a game or other entertainment venue without finacial hardship. But until that day comes we need to play the hand we're dealt. As for Lackey, I'm hoping he has a very nice bounce back next season and helps this team. Because he WILL be on this team.  (Teakus) Teak, I think the term "glorified platoon player" is actually too tame of a word, but it is accurate. Crawford's career splits vs LHPs is horrible (under .700 OPS career and even during his career best year in 2010). He wasn't platooned in TB because a .690 OPS is still good enought to start, especially when you add in how well he ran the bases and fielded while with TB.  With Boston, however, sub .700 is bench material, especially from a left fielder, and especially when his defense and baserunning skills disappeared from 2010 to 2011 (perhaps due to his injury).  You are correct about "market value" and the $3M/yr (or about $20M total) is probably closer to the actual "market overpay", but my $50M number was my opinion of his worth in terms of alternative choices via FAs and or trades. I recognized that a team saves some money when signing a FA because they did not spend any money developing 50-100 players to produce one player like Crawford. I'm not making some hindsight bashing here based on CC's poor 2011 season. I happen to think CC will rebound and return to near his career norm numbers next year and a couple more afterwards. My position was that he was overpaid by $50M over 7 years even if he gave us 3-4 career norm or slightly better seasons and 3-4 at or slightly below career norm seasons. To me, in a sense we are paying CC $21M to play and have a good chance to do well in about 60% of our games (vs RHPs). That really means we are paying him a pro-rated pay of over $30M per 162 games. That's where I got the "glorified" term from, because nobody pays platoon players that much money. I stick by my projection that CC will help this team win games next year and beyond, but the money could have been spent better.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from scorieger. Show scorieger's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    Lackey is an over-rated, under-performing donkey, Zambrano is a an over-rated, under-performing adonkey, who is also certifiably crazy.  At least Lackey won't potentially kill you, he'll just suck.  BTW, no-one is going to take his contract.  You have to keep Beckett, and hire a manager who will keep him in-line.  Also need Cherington to be more vigilant of the clubhouse.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    I don't think the Cubs will in any way  solution for moving Mr Lackey. First of all they aren't taking a contract no be a matter how it i packaged on the edges to look differently to compensate the RS for releasing Epstein from his contract early.

    But let's get some perspective here please. When posters start talking about Zambrano for Lackey I bristle personally.

    One thing is that the money doesn't work for the Cubs at all.

    But more importantly Zambrano is much more of a chemistry issue than Lackey. Lackey rolls his eyes at players, Zambrano punches them. Zambrano is not built like Kevin Garnett himself.

    The RS will manage to find a way to dump Lackey I think not because the situation on the field is any more irreparable than it may be with Carl Crawford. It isn't going to be over the KFC and beer, which people are misreading IMO why it was bad.

    Lackey's personality and the way this market has turned on him will make the situation irreparable. John Lackey will likely turn out to be at least an acceptable bottom of the rotation starter for somebody while the RS pay for it because this market would have eaten him alive because he has become Bucky F Dent, Bill Buckner and Grady Little all rolled into a thin skin.


     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]I don't think the Cubs will in any way  solution for moving Mr Lackey. First of all they aren't taking a contract no be a matter how it i packaged on the edges to look differently to compensate the RS for releasing Epstein from his contract early. But let's get some perspective here please. When posters start talking about Zambrano for Lackey I bristle personally. One thing is that the money doesn't work for the Cubs at all. But more importantly Zambrano is much more of a chemistry issue than Lackey. Lackey rolls his eyes at players, Zambrano punches them. Zambrano is not built like Kevin Garnett himself. The RS will manage to find a way to dump Lackey I think not because the situation on the field is any more irreparable than it may be with Carl Crawford. It isn't going to be over the KFC and beer, which people are misreading IMO why it was bad. Lackey's personality and the way this market has turned on him will make the situation irreparable. John Lackey will likely turn out to be at least an acceptable bottom of the rotation starter for somebody while the RS pay for it because this market would have eaten him alive because he has become Bucky F Dent, Bill Buckner and Grady Little all rolled into a thin skin.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    Hey katz, I agree getting anyone to take Lackey might be pretty tough task but my feeling is, if we don't seperate Lackey and Beckett they will find another way to carry on with the norm or retaliate in a way that makes things even worse for the team.  Do you honestly think anyone can sit these guys down and get a point across after what McKeon said about Penny and Josh?  When things go that far back it's hard to change.

    Sure, in a perfect world all three including Lester could get their act together and redeem themselves next season and I agree Zambrano could be a chemistry issue.  My guess is we dump Lackey somewhere and if Josh can't stay focused he may be next.  The bad side with Josh is he's stubborn, has a hard time with any catcher but Tek and could be disciplined on top of things.

    Should be interesting!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from sundvl20. Show sundvl20's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    dont have time to read 143 posts so this was prolly already said but only way I see out of this mess is lackey and craw to Angels for whatever we can get and pay a lot of their contracts. Think the Angels would really like this and would prolly get both to produce
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]dont have time to read 143 posts so this was prolly already said but only way I see out of this mess is lackey and craw to Angels for whatever we can get and pay a lot of their contracts. Think the Angels would really like this and would prolly get both to produce
    Posted by feelec[/QUOTE]

    Hey feelec,

    The Angels were probably very happy to get rid of Lackey.  Unfortunately I don't think they would take John back even for for Vernon Wells.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    Two thoughts:

    Nobody is taking a large portion of either the Lackey or Crawford deals. The ONLY thing that is making the Angels feel good about the Wells trade is Crawford's 2011 in Boston. Lackey burnt some bridges in Anaheim too.

    The RS will pay the much of Lackey's contract to move on. But the whole thing with KFC and biscut club has little to do with it. The fan reaction to that is way different IMHO than the club's. That stuff was an accepted norm that Tito wanted to change to create more cohession when the team went into a tail spin. His attempts to nudge guys like he had in the past failed. It left Tito thinking the RS needed a new voice and they'll get one.

    In an ideal world the RS best bet would be to bring both Lackey and Crawford back, turn the page and salvage what they can from both. Both are very likely to play better in 2012, while neither will perhaps ever be worth their contract it would beat paying them to play elsewhere.

    But in Lackey's case the market won't allow it. Lost in all of this would be that Lackey may have given the RS the best start they got in the last 10 games of the collapse. Or that he had physical issues with his elbow early in the year, took a cotisone shot and did tried to play through it, or that his personal life was something none of us would like to go through.

    But Lackey is a marked man and while I expect (or hope) that much of the toxic anger will subside in Boston none of it is going to go away for John. And his personality will never play through it.

    It has so little to do with the clubhouse clicks IMO.

    As for McKeon's problems, so what? Josh Beckett has gone on to post a pretty fine career since FLA and trader Jack wouldn't have a ring if not for Beckett.

    And please can somebody get Josh Beckett in perspective. He had the 4th best WHIP in the AL of SP with 190 or more IP. The 5th best ERA. Let's get this in perspective. He had a better year than King Felix. He did it in the AL East pitching his home games in a hitters ball park.

    Move on to real problems. Starting pitching depth, bullpen depth, how we will replace Papelbon and Ortiz either by resigning them or looking elsewhere and what the heck we do about an OF that was Ellsbury and otherwise pretty bleeping ordinary.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Two thoughts: Nobody is taking a large portion of either the Lackey or Crawford deals. The ONLY thing that is making the Angels feel good about the Wells trade is Crawford's 2011 in Boston. Lackey burnt some bridges in Anaheim too. The RS will pay the much of Lackey's contract to move on. But the whole thing with KFC and biscut club has little to do with it. The fan reaction to that is way different IMHO than the club's. That stuff was an accepted norm that Tito wanted to change to create more cohession when the team went into a tail spin. His attempts to nudge guys like he had in the past failed. It left Tito thinking the RS needed a new voice and they'll get one. In an ideal world the RS best bet would be to bring both Lackey and Crawford back, turn the page and salvage what they can from both. Both are very likely to play better in 2012, while neither will perhaps ever be worth their contract it would beat paying them to play elsewhere. But in Lackey's case the market won't allow it. Lost in all of this would be that Lackey may have given the RS the best start they got in the last 10 games of the collapse. Or that he had physical issues with his elbow early in the year, took a cotisone shot and did tried to play through it, or that his personal life was something none of us would like to go through. But Lackey is a marked man and while I expect (or hope) that much of the toxic anger will subside in Boston none of it is going to go away for John. And his personality will never play through it. It has so little to do with the clubhouse clicks IMO. As for McKeon's problems, so what? Josh Beckett has gone on to post a pretty fine career since FLA and trader Jack wouldn't have a ring if not for Beckett. And please can somebody get Josh Beckett in perspective. He had the 4th best WHIP in the AL of SP with 190 or more IP. The 5th best ERA. Let's get this in perspective. He had a better year than King Felix. He did it in the AL East pitching his home games in a hitters ball park. Move on to real problems. Starting pitching depth, bullpen depth, how we will replace Papelbon and Ortiz either by resigning them or looking elsewhere and what the heck we do about an OF that was Ellsbury and otherwise pretty bleeping ordinary.
    Posted by fivekatz[/QUOTE]

    I would never question Joshs talent or importance to the team katz.  Josh and John seem to be "two peas in a pod" the difference being talent.  Josh can change everything by simply pitching like he has throughout his career and in the PS.  John, like you said is a marked man who will have a hard time redeeming himself to our fans and even harder to unload without losing our shirts.

    Two very stubborn guys who just need to take whatever comes from our present and future management in the way of discipline in a positive and mature way.  Or make things even more difficult.  If John could come in next season focused, with an ERA around 4.50, I would be as happy as his teammates and all our fans. 

    This issue is one of our tasks in hand.  Having a starting pitcher with an ERA like John is unacceptable even without personal issues playing a role.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Lackey is an over-rated, under-performing donkey, Zambrano is a an over-rated, under-performing adonkey, who is also certifiably crazy.  At least Lackey won't potentially kill you, he'll just suck.  BTW, no-one is going to take his contract.  You have to keep Beckett, and hire a manager who will keep him in-line.  Also need Cherington to be more vigilant of the clubhouse.
    Posted by scorieger[/QUOTE]

    When you have an "overpaid" marked man like Lackey on your team the choices of trade become incredibly hard.  Here are a few players we could package John for without possibly losing our shirts, but thats not saying any club would want him.

    Zito, Burnett, Wells, Zambrano, Wright, Santana, C. Lee, Soriano, Hunter, Bay, Suzuki, Rios, Lilly and Peavy.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Lackey is an over-rated, under-performing donkey, Zambrano is a an over-rated, under-performing adonkey, who is also certifiably crazy.  At least Lackey won't potentially kill you, he'll just suck.  BTW, no-one is going to take his contract.  You have to keep Beckett, and hire a manager who will keep him in-line.  Also need Cherington to be more vigilant of the clubhouse.
    Posted by scorieger[/QUOTE]

    Lackey could be the key to 2012.  If we keep him because nobody wants the contract and he continues struggle so will the team, unless we sign one more solid starter and dump John into the #5 slot.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from sinjin5000. Show sinjin5000's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    some times you just have to cut your losses and move on, But i think RS fans are going to have to move on from this, because I think The RS plans are to try and rehab him.
     

Share