Possible option to trade Lackey?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 1958lesspaul. Show 1958lesspaul's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    No way the team wins .670 with Varitek. As a backup catching a good year for Beckett, the stat is skewed. Varitek is washed up and was a laughing stock in September.

    Get rid of 40 plus year old losers Varitek and Wastefield. Sign Hernandez and 2 veteran pitchers to one year contracts, with at least 80 IP averaged per year over last 2 years and an ERA under 4.5 in AL over last 2 years or under 4 NL over last 2 years.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    No way the team wins .670 with Varitek. As a backup catching a good year for Beckett, the stat is skewed. Varitek is washed up and was a laughing stock in September.

    1) The problem is, Beckett doesn't win with other catchers, so the skew is legit.
    2) Even if you take away Beckett's games, the team still went 22-10 in VTek games and 47-49 in Salty starts.
    3) Almost the whole team was the laughing stock, but you choose to bash a back-up catcher who caught just 6 games after Sept 8th.

    Get rid of 40 plus year old losers Varitek and Wastefield. 


    Fine, but at $1M about each, I doubt we can do better.

    Sign Hernandez

    He's at the age VTek was when you said he was too old.

    and 2 veteran pitchers to one year contracts, with at least 80 IP averaged per year over last 2 years and an ERA under 4.5 in AL over last 2 years or under 4 NL over last 2 years.

    Name names. 

    This should be fun....
    just like your Bedard and Ben Sheets of the 2009 choices.

    You dreaming if any team can repeat what the Yanks did this year with Colon and Garcia. Nothing short of a miracle.  Tell us who are the next Colon/Garcias...
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey? : Wells isn't blocking Trout. The GM was. Abreu is the DH, Trumbo is the 1B, and Morales gets hurt every year so it comes down to Hunter and Wells. Sure they'd like to move wells, but the Sox have no place for him. The only way the Angels take Lackey is if they also sent Ellsbury with. Could you imagine an outfield of Ellsbury, Trout and Bourjos. Ouch.
    Posted by ADG[/QUOTE]

    ACtually, Wells IS blocking Trout.  Like it or not, their starting OF right now is Wells, Bourjos and Hunter.  Even if they DH Abreu and Morales gets hurt, Trout is still blocked by an ugly contract.  The situation is further clouded if Morales does not get hurt, and Trumbo is free to play LF or RF.  They could and probably should play Trout over Wells, but that just furthers my point that they would move him for just about anything, including taking Lackey back. 

    I disagree 100% the Sox have no place for Wells; the Sox have an opening in RF, with only Reddick and maybe Kalish on the depth chart.  Wells is also the RHH power bat many claim the Sox need there.   However, he is signed for 3 more years at $21mill per, an absolutely ridiculous amount.  Yes, 5 years later, Drew’s contract is up and Wells is still owed an 90% of what JD made during the entire length of the deal.  And if they do start Trout over Wells, are you saying it would be smarter to keep $21mill committed to a fourth OF for the next 3 years?

    A straight up deal of Lackey for Wells saves the Angels just under $16mill, which is reason enough on its own.  If the Sox included Daisuke ($10mill) and Jenks ($6mill), the money balances out nearly perfect.  So the Angels don’t lose any money, get to play the best prospect they have had in years, and replace an overpaid, unproductive OF for an overpaid an unproductive SP who not only had success with them before, but is also probably a step up from the guy he is replacing (Joel Pineiro – 5.13ERA, 1.510WHIP, and whose 6.20ERA after July 1 was actually slightly higher than Lackey’s 6.10 in that same timeframe).  And, if either Jenks or Daisuke is able to come back and return to form even for a few innings, they come out that much further ahead.

    If I was GM of the Angels, I make that deal yesterday.  They would upgrade in RF, SP, SP depth and bullpen depth, and actually save money equal to Joel Pineiro's salary at the same time.  That's not win-win.  That's a win-win-win-win-win...

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

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    Is there too much water under the bridge between the Angels & Lackey?

    How about ...
    Crawford ($122M/6) & Lackey ($46M/3) plus $5M a year for 6 years.
     for 
    Hunter ($18M/1) & Wells ($63M/3)?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Teakus. Show Teakus's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    Interesting thoughts for sure. But you do realize that neither of these players will be moved, and neither should be moved...right? A wise investor never trades valuable commodities at their lowest price points in history. I have little doubt that both will dramatically improve their performance next season, barring some unknown injury of course, and I have already gone on record, (you heard it hear 1st!), that Lackey will be next years American League most improved player. Does anyone not believe that Crawford is capable of performing at a much higher level than he did this season? He had the classic "deer in the headlights" look in his eyes most of the year, and just wrote this year off as a bad one at the All Star break. A good manager will hopefully help to restore his confidence and performance. Remember Crawford is not a good player, he's a GREAT player! He was over paid by Theo, but he's still a top tier, 5 tool player. He'll be better next season as will the Red Sox. I love discussions like this and it's always fun to speculate, but I think we'll all be happy to have these guys on the team...next year.



    In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Is there too much water under the bridge between the Angels & Lackey? How about ... Crawford ($122M/6) & Lackey ($46M/3) plus $5M a year for 6 years.  for  Hunter ($18M/1) & Wells ($63M/3)?
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    Remember Crawford is not a good player, he's a GREAT player!

    He never was a great player. I have said from day one 2 things:

    1) he is but a glorified platoon player. (No way a career sub .700 OPS guy vs LHPs should be starting vs LHPs for a team like the Sox.)

    2) Even if he has 7 years with 2009 or career numbers, he'd still be overpaid by about $50M.

    I'm not pouncing on CC for his bad 2010 season. I happen to think he will return to his career norm in 2012. I'd still rather get rid of his contract now in exchange for the 3 year contract of Wells, and get Hunter as a bridge to our prospect OF'ers of 2013. Lackey may or may not do better, but he's a "California man"... send him there. Wells and Hunter are grossly overpaid, but together they would improve our OF over CC and Reddick. And, we get rid of Lackey's deal and performance issues.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]EDT   I can't see the Sox being able to dump that contract via trade unless they are willing to eat a lot of it and Sox management is more intent on making money - not losing money.  Traven, It was't that long ago that you could walk up to the ticket window day of and get great seats. There were a handful of people at Fenway for Ted Williams last game. If management doesn't turn this thing around there will be empty seats at Fenway. It may make more sense financially to eat part of Lacky's contract to put a better team on the field.  A winning team means ticket and merchandise sales.
    Posted by 67redsox[/QUOTE]

    I agree with you.  Trading Lackey should be Theo's or his replacements top  priority during the offseason.    I would imagine that you may see other players traded during the offseason, but not having Lackey next season would improve the pitching staff. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat3. Show TexasPat3's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

         While I can understand the sentiments on Lackey, let's not forget Carl Crawford. Talk about a bad contract, the Sox are stuck with this bum for 6 more years, at $20mil. per year.

         If signing Crawford was Theo's idea, the Sox should 'punish" Epstein by letting him go to the Cubs. But, I heard that that it was Henry who wanted Crawford, and made it happen. 

         The Crawford contract is the worst in baseball.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]     While I can understand the sentiments on Lackey, let's not forget Carl Crawford. Talk about a bad contract, the Sox are stuck with this bum for 6 more years, at $20mil. per year.      If signing Crawford was Theo's idea, the Sox should 'punish" Epstein by letting him go to the Cubs. But, I heard that that it was Henry who wanted Crawford, and made it happen.       The Crawford contract is the worst in baseball.
    Posted by TexasPat3[/QUOTE]

    I just finished listening to Henry and Larry speak and they mentioned, all of them were in full agreement Carl was the correct signing.  Give the guy another year before passing judgement.  There was no mention of Lackey and of course name calling but they did say the GM position is tough on anyone and that Theo won't be our GM forever.

    They also realize the club has tired and had many injuries the past two years which are issue they need to address.  I'm sure Lackey has to be a top priority if they can move him.  Bringing him back knowing how everyone feels about him and the fact he hasn't been a very good fit won't help our team.  There is always a chance John recovers and has a decent season but my guess is, it may be somewhere with less fan pressure and competition.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    A San Diego blogger discusses a possible trade of John Lackey to the Padres:

    http://insidethepadres.blogspot.com/2011/10/lackey.html

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

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]John Lackey ($46.25 million through 2014), Daisuke Matsuzaka ($10 million through 2012) and Bobby Jenks ($6 million through 2012) to the Angels for an expensive righthand-hitting outfielder with AL East experience: Vernon Wells ($63 million through 2014). The money matches up but two no-trade clauses would need to be waived.
    Posted by hill55[/QUOTE]

    Interesting. Go sign CJ Wilson and I might go for it.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    True. NYY are in big trouble next year with their pitching unless they re up CC, AND get another front line arm. NO WAY those guys do that again. In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]No way the team wins .670 with Varitek. As a backup catching a good year for Beckett, the stat is skewed. Varitek is washed up and was a laughing stock in September. 1) The problem is, Beckett doesn't win with other catchers, so the skew is legit. 2) Even if you take away Beckett's games, the team still went 22-10 in VTek games and 47-49 in Salty starts. 3) Almost the whole team was the laughing stock, but you choose to bash a back-up catcher who caught just 6 games after Sept 8th. Get rid of 40 plus year old losers Varitek and Wastefield.  Fine, but at $1M about each, I doubt we can do better. Sign Hernandez He's at the age VTek was when you said he was too old. and 2 veteran pitchers to one year contracts, with at least 80 IP averaged per year over last 2 years and an ERA under 4.5 in AL over last 2 years or under 4 NL over last 2 years. Name names.  This should be fun.... just like your Bedard and Ben Sheets of the 2009 choices. You dreaming if any team can repeat what the Yanks did this year with Colon and Garcia. Nothing short of a miracle.  Tell us who are the next Colon/Garcias...
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

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

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    huh?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ABQDan. Show ABQDan's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    "Can a team really keep a player when, as he takes the mound for the first time in 2012, he will get booed by every one of the 38,000 people in the stands? Who in their right mind would cheer for that tool"

    First, I am a Red Sox fan - I resent the implication that I am in my right mind.  Tongue Out

    Second - I think that Lack has a real shot at a rebound.  He's at an all time low now, but he can come back, and I agree he's bound to improve.  Panic selling never, ever pays off.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxnsl. Show maxnsl's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    Like most posters i dont want Lackey back, plus i dont want to see beckett in a RS uniform ever. I just feel he was most probably the main cancer in that clubhouse. But what are you going to do? Nobody will take Lackey unless they get to screw you in a trade and more importantly who replaces him? We tried for the last two weeks of Sep to have someone better than Lackey with no success. There isnt much on the FA market either and you are looking at some big contracts for the pitchers who are available. We have some serious problems this year
     
  16. 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]Like most posters i dont want Lackey back, plus i dont want to see beckett in a RS uniform ever. I just feel he was most probably the main cancer in that clubhouse. But what are you going to do? Nobody will take Lackey unless they get to screw you in a trade and more importantly who replaces him? We tried for the last two weeks of Sep to have someone better than Lackey with no success. There isnt much on the FA market either and you are looking at some big contracts for the pitchers who are available. We have some serious problems this year
    Posted by maxnsl[/QUOTE]

    max,

    Fans will debate this but I feel we need to trade Lackey for the best possible deal and look to package Beckett for a "soon to be" top FA pitcher if possible.  It's ironic they are both from Texas but both have different issues that could drag our tean down in the future.  Lackey just can't cut it, Beck is a great pitcher but if we let Tek go my prediction is Josh's game goes south like with Victor and others.  Josh isn't one of those top pitchers that can just pitch his own game and get over his insecurity.

    Just my opinion!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    Lots of speculation here based on groundless opinions. That's fine however since forums allow anyone to toss out nonsense opinions and see how they float. That is the game after all. Yes, Beckett was the cause of the September choke and the other 24 players, coaches, manager, GM, ownership, and bad luck had nothing to do with the one game difference between going to the post season and not.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?



    Lackey is going nowhere. 

     
  19. 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 going nowhere. 
    Posted by Ice-Cream[/QUOTE]

    The Sox best trade options for a Lackey would be Zito, Zambrano, Peavy, Burnett, Santana, Soriano, Wells, Werth, Bay, C. Lee and Wright in my opinion.  I think John either gets traded before next season or shortly after.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey? : The Sox best trade options for a Lackey would be Zito, Zambrano, Peavy, Burnett, Santana, Soriano, Wells, Werth, Bay, C. Lee and Wright in my opinion.  I think John either gets traded before next season or shortly after.
    Posted by craze4sox[/QUOTE]

    I guess before we can have a real conversation about moving Lackey we must have access to his medicals...If as I fear his issues are related to his elbow then he won't pass any teams physical and the Sox are left with but one option...That is to get him right by any means nessasary...

    I'll ask a simple question...if you are the GM of a team why would you even entertain taking on a pitcher that had the worst era of any quailifing starting pitcher in all of MLB...One that has seen all of his numbers trading in the wrong direction for 3 years with a history of elbow problems dating back to 2003? When you can simply troll the unsigned free agent bin and take a flyer on a half a dozen Kevin Millwood's of the world and not be hamstrung by a major leaguer contract that won't allow you to send him to the minors?

    Now place yourself in the Red Sox position, unless Lackey is truly as bad a teamamtes as is being alleged and is now seen as incapable of regaining his ability to get guys out...Just how desparate are you to flush tens of millions down the drain? On one of the single most valued commodities in the game "Starting pitching"?

    So with that I would contend that the best case would be for the Sox to 1st figure out if the guys needs tommy john and if he does then getter dun! If his arm is sound and frankly I'm not convinced it is...Then job one for the new skipper and pitching coach is to break him down and rebuild him and then if he's seen as a guy that can actually pitch to a 4th or 5th starter level (30 starts -180 innings with a sub 4.5) and can pass a physical he then can be moved and they'd only have to eat maybe half of the moneys owed...
     
  21. 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]In Response to Re: Possible option to trade Lackey? : I guess before we can have a real conversation about moving Lackey we must have access to his medicals...If as I fear his issues are related to his elbow then he won't pass any teams physical and the Sox are left with but one option...That is to get him right by any means nessasary... I'll ask a simple question...if you are the GM of a team why would you even entertain taking on a pitcher that had the worst era of any quailifing starting pitcher in all of MLB...One that has seen all of his numbers trading in the wrong direction for 3 years with a history of elbow problems dating back to 2003? When you can simply troll the unsigned free agent bin and take a flyer on a half a dozen Kevin Millwood's of the world and not be hamstrung by a major leaguer contract that won't allow you to send him to the minors? Now place yourself in the Red Sox position, unless Lackey is truly as bad a teamamtes as is being alleged and is now seen as incapable of regaining his ability to get guys out...Just how desparate are you to flush tens of millions down the drain? On one of the single most valued commodities in the game "Starting pitching"? So with that I would contend that the best case would be for the Sox to 1st figure out if the guys needs tommy john and if he does then getter dun! If his arm is sound and frankly I'm not convinced it is...Then job one for the new skipper and pitching coach is to break him down and rebuild him and then if he's seen as a guy that can actually pitch to a 4th or 5th starter level (30 starts -180 innings with a sub 4.5) and can pass a physical he then can be moved and they'd only have to eat maybe half of the moneys owed...
    Posted by Beantowne[/QUOTE]

    I agree with everything bean and realize we are pretty much stuck with whatever performance John gives us "if healthy" unless a team like the Cubs just wants Zambrano off their team and are willing to trade a head case for an underachiever who may do better in the NL with less pressure.  Desperate teams will try desperate measures and you can bet the Mets are another team will be willing to listen anything at this point.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Teakus. Show Teakus's posts

    Re: Three possible options 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.



    In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?:
    [QUOTE]Remember Crawford is not a good player, he's a GREAT player! He never was a great player. I have said from day one 2 things: 1) he is but a glorified platoon player. (No way a career sub .700 OPS guy vs LHPs should be starting vs LHPs for a team like the Sox.) 2) Even if he has 7 years with 2009 or career numbers, he'd still be overpaid by about $50M. I'm not pouncing on CC for his bad 2010 season. I happen to think he will return to his career norm in 2012. I'd still rather get rid of his contract now in exchange for the 3 year contract of Wells, and get Hunter as a bridge to our prospect OF'ers of 2013. Lackey may or may not do better, but he's a "California man"... send him there. Wells and Hunter are grossly overpaid, but together they would improve our OF over CC and Reddick. And, we get rid of Lackey's deal and performance issues.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox's posts

    Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey?

    In Response to Re: Three possible options 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. In Response to Re: Three possible options to trade Lackey? :
    Posted by Teakus[/QUOTE]

    Our elders and the Texas connection in Tek, Drew, Wake, Beck and Lackey can leave anytime, they are not leaders.  Theo can have Tek, Beck and Lackey in Chicago for Zam and Garza.  Pede should be appointed captan ande Ells signed ASAP.  Aceves is more than capable of being our #6 ande helping the pen in the meantime.

    Lets finally move on from this crap.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from craze4sox. Show craze4sox'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]

    Lackey, along with a prospect for Zambrano.  I would rather take a chance our players could make Z feel comfortable than have a useless Lackey on board.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share