The thread where Broda discusses his displeasure with the moves Cherington made.

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Ben's legacy is still pretty tarnished.
Big plus on The Trade.
Big turd on the Reddick deal
Small stinker on the Lowrie deal
Porcello deal and signing is looking great in year two (although IIRC, year two is actually year one in the signing part of the deal, yeah?)
Castillo signing is a big stinker
Worst is the Kelly trade.

I still can't believe the returns he got on the pitching deals two years ago. Just awful.....especially in light of what the Yankees did with their deals recently.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

Ben's legacy is still pretty tarnished.
Big plus on The Trade.
Big turd on the Reddick deal
Small stinker on the Lowrie deal
Porcello deal and signing is looking great in year two (although IIRC, year two is actually year one in the signing part of the deal, yeah?)
Castillo signing is a big stinker
Worst is the Kelly trade.

I still can't believe the returns he got on the pitching deals two years ago. Just awful.....especially in light of what the Yankees did with their deals recently.

To be somewhat fair on the pitcher trades of 2014, it seemed to be a substantially different trade market. That said, he still could have and should have done better than he did IMO. In 2014 the market wasn't handing out the kind of haul teams in 2016 which makes it harder to truly compare the two.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Ben's legacy is still pretty tarnished.
Big plus on The Trade.
Big turd on the Reddick deal
Small stinker on the Lowrie deal
Porcello deal and signing is looking great in year two (although IIRC, year two is actually year one in the signing part of the deal, yeah?)
Castillo signing is a big stinker
Worst is the Kelly trade.

I still can't believe the returns he got on the pitching deals two years ago. Just awful.....especially in light of what the Yankees did with their deals recently.

The Lester deal ended up netting Porcello, which is "looking great." And the Andrew Miller deal returned Eduardo Rodriguez. Those are far from awful.

If you're going to cherry pick, might want to include getting Koji, which a huge plus.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Does every discussion about a single player acquired by Ben Cherington need to turn into a referendum on Cherington's entire legacy? Can we not acknowledge that, so far, Rick Porcello is looking like a tremendous acquisition without going down that well, well, well trodden path of how good or bad Ben Cherington was as a GM?

 

[Rasputin]

Ben's legacy is still pretty tarnished.
Big plus on The Trade.
Big turd on the Reddick deal
Small stinker on the Lowrie deal
Porcello deal and signing is looking great in year two (although IIRC, year two is actually year one in the signing part of the deal, yeah?)
Castillo signing is a big stinker
Worst is the Kelly trade.

I still can't believe the returns he got on the pitching deals two years ago. Just awful.....especially in light of what the Yankees did with their deals recently.

How the hell does the Kelly trade get to be the worst? The Sox didn't give up much, and most of the downside has been money paid to players off the roster that hasn't impacted the roster.

The Lester trade turned into a pitcher almost as good who is much younger.

Most of the trades that weren't made have worked out as the kids are generally pretty good with some still TBD.

The Castillo signing is pretty clearly the worst.

 

[Soxfan in Fla]

How the hell does the Kelly trade get to be the worst? The Sox didn't give up much, and most of the downside has been money paid to players off the roster that hasn't impacted the roster.

The Lester trade turned into a pitcher almost as good who is much younger.

Most of the trades that weren't made have worked out as the kids are generally pretty good with some still TBD.

The Castillo signing is pretty clearly the worst.

Agree on the Castillo signing. It was bad. Lackey was a pretty valuable commodity considering his $500k contract. Seems like he should have gotten a better and much less risky return. Lester trade and Miller trade have both turned out pretty good so far.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Lackey had also made it publicly known that he was unwilling to pitch IN BOSTON for the $500K figure. He spoke of retiring instead. That decreased Ben's leverage and return in that deal.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

Ah crap! Brain fart on who we got in the Lester deal.... But regarding the Lackey-Kelly deal- did he ever really threaten to retire publicly? Felt like more of a whisper campaign... I don't recall him ever saying that. The guy signed the damned contract- I doubt he was going to retire. Anyhow... sorry for derailment.
Yes... Lester deal turned into Porcello for cheaper and younger than Lester. Positive. Great job Ben!

 

[joe dokes]

By all means, lets get a head start on properly dividing up the glory pie. Man the ramparts against those pesky undue credit-takers.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Agree on the Castillo signing. It was bad. Lackey was a pretty valuable commodity considering his $500k contract. Seems like he should have gotten a better and much less risky return. Lester trade and Miller trade have both turned out pretty good so far.

Whether you agree with the approach or not, keep in mind they were going for established talent rather than prospects in those deadline deals. Teams trading for starting pitching at the deadline because they think they can make a run aren't going to give up much of established value. And Lackey wasn't ever likely to land a non risky prospect package.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Lackey had also made it publicly known that he was unwilling to pitch IN BOSTON for the $500K figure. He spoke of retiring instead. That decreased Ben's leverage and return in that deal.

Got a link for that?

 

[nighthob]

Whether you agree with the approach or not, keep in mind they were going for established talent rather than prospects in those deadline deals. Teams trading for starting pitching at the deadline because they think they can make a run aren't going to give up much of established value. And Lackey wasn't ever likely to land a non risky prospect package.

Lackey was pitching well and had, seriously, the best contract in baseball then thanks to the TJ surgery clause. They could have gotten a good prospect package for him.

The problem was the front office's focus on established talent (and whether that Cherington's call or orders from above isn't relevant), because that did reduce the available trade market for Lackey. In any event, I recall one of our medical contingent at the time warning that if Craig's lisfranc injury was serious there was a good chance that he would never be the same player, so Boston should have gotten a prospect in addition to Kelly for eating that deal for St. Louis.

 

[simplicio]

Lackey was pitching well and had, seriously, the best contract in baseball then thanks to the TJ surgery clause. They could have gotten a good prospect package for him.

The problem was the front office's focus on established talent (and whether that Cherington's call or orders from above isn't relevant), because that did reduce the available trade market for Lackey. In any event, I recall one of our medical contingent at the time warning that if Craig's lisfranc injury was serious there was a good chance that he would never be the same player, so Boston should have gotten a prospect in addition to Kelly for eating that deal for St. Louis.

Craig was the cost of getting Kelly; unless you think our resident board doctors know more about the Sox players than their own medical staff, he was clearly just an expensive lottery ticket they could afford to take on in pursuit of a young fireballer with a ton of potential and 4 1/2 years of team control.

I would also say that the FO focus on acquiring established pitching talent is not a problem at all but a necessity, given the failure of their farm system to develop notable pitching talent over the last 8 years or so.

 

[nighthob]

I know that's how the story's been rewritten, but, with all due respect respect, it's BS. For the best pitching contract in baseball, if all you're getting is a pitcher with control problems, you don't need to pay an extra $29 million dollars for the guy that struggles to throw strikes.

 

[simplicio]

I know that's how the story's been rewritten, but, with all due respect respect, it's BS. For the best pitching contract in baseball, if all you're getting is a pitcher with control problems, you don't need to pay an extra $29 million dollars for the guy that struggles to throw strikes.

How was Lackey the best contact in baseball? He had one year left at league minimum, just like Kelly but without the additional arbitration years attached. And Kelly at the time of the trade was walking 2.6/9; I'd hardly call that struggling.

Obviously Kelly has failed to deliver on his upside, but without the benefit of hindsight I'd say that trade looks smart, given the shape the team was in in 2014 and looked to be in for the remainder of Lackey's contract.

 

[nighthob]

Because he was a veteran #2 starter that whoever traded for was getting for a pennant run and he only made league minimum the next year. Normally for vet #2 starters the actual monetary cost is considerably higher.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Lackey was pitching well and had, seriously, the best contract in baseball then thanks to the TJ surgery clause. They could have gotten a good prospect package for him.

The problem was the front office's focus on established talent (and whether that Cherington's call or orders from above isn't relevant), because that did reduce the available trade market for Lackey. In any event, I recall one of our medical contingent at the time warning that if Craig's lisfranc injury was serious there was a good chance that he would never be the same player, so Boston should have gotten a prospect in addition to Kelly for eating that deal for St. Louis.

Well, it was a great contract for whoever acquired him, but a pain in the ass for Boston to maximize value on in a trade because it was understood that Lackey might not come back to the Sox if he wasn't traded. Boston could ask for talent commensurate with a year and a half of cheap service, although other teams knew they didn't have to pay much more than what you'd fork out for a second half rental.

 

[nighthob]

Right, but in the actual trade Boston paid $29 million for Joe Kelly. Or roughly three and a half times what St. Louis was paying for Lackey. It makes sense if Boston were focused on adding veteran talent (rather than prospects) and their medical staff screwed up the evaluation of Craig.

What doesn't make sense is the rewriting of history and the claim that in order to trade a vet #2 starter on a hella cheap contract Boston had to agree to eat a $29 million dead money deal in order to acquire a prospect that had trouble throwing strikes. I have this sneaking suspicion that the Cardinals would have traded Kelly for Lackey straight up given what both guys brought to the table.

The really strange part is that the history rewrite doesn't save Cherington (which I suspect is the intention of the revisionists). To be brutally frank I think it makes him look even worse if he were willing to give up Lackey and $29 million for a pitcher whose secondary offerings were more theory than practice and whose fastball command was/is pretty suspect. I think the simplest explanation is the likely one, that for whatever reason he was focused on adding major league players and the medical staff assured him that Craig would bounce back from the lisfranc injury.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Well, it was a great contract for whoever acquired him, but a pain in the ass for Boston to maximize value on in a trade because it was understood that Lackey might not come back to the Sox if he wasn't traded. Boston could ask for talent commensurate with a year and a half of cheap service, although other teams knew they didn't have to pay much more than what you'd fork out for a second half rental.

Asked previously, still not answered for people citing this narrative that lackey was going to hold out:

Got a link for that?

 

[richgedman'sghost]

What the eff does the Lackey deal have to do with Rick Porcello? Could we keep it. On topic? If you really want to you can start the 1000 thread on the Lackey trade and Ben's legacy. But please keep this one on Porcello.

 

[Bigpupp]

Asked previously, still not answered for people citing this narrative that lackey was going to hold out:

Got a link for that?

Pretty sure we had about a 20 page thread about his contract before the trade. And a quick Google search turned this up from a Shank article:

Lackey told the Cardinals he’ll pitch for the minimum next year. But when asked if he would have done the same for the Sox, he answered, “I don’t know about that . . . ”

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Oh, we had that thread, no doubt.

Do you not see a difference between answering that way after the trade and the assertion upthread: Lackey had also made it publicly known that he was unwilling to pitch IN BOSTON for the $500K figure.

It would take a quote from Mr. Lackey dated before the trade to substantiate that assertion.

 

[Lowrielicious]

Oh, we had that thread, no doubt.

Do you not see a difference between answering that way after the trade and the assertion upthread: Lackey had also made it publicly known that he was unwilling to pitch IN BOSTON for the $500K figure.

It would take a quote from Mr. Lackey dated before the trade to substantiate that assertion.

Of all the players that have ever been traded mid-season that still have another year left on their contract, how many times has a player ever come out publicly to make it clear that they would indeed play the next season for the club they are traded to.
The one they are now contractually obligated to play.
I'd be surprised if you can find another example other than Lackey.

Why might that be?

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Asked previously, still not answered for people citing this narrative that lackey was going to hold out:

Got a link for that?

His comment on the record that he wasn't going to pitch for the Sox at minimum doesn't exist, chiefly because neither he nor his agent would answer the question at the time. He could have cleared up the ambiguity in an instant by responding that he was going to play for the league minimum in 2015 no matter where he was. He refused to do so, which, aside from whatever feelings he had about the Sox, was the obvious play from a business point of view.

The notion that he might sit out '15 without an extension was in a bunch of reports at that time, chiefly because it was a big honking elephant in the room in terms of where he'd be after the deadline and how much he'd cost. Let's turn this around: I'd like to see your link putting Lackey on the record as saying he'd definitely pitch for the minimum in Boston in 2015. And please don't respond with the obtuse "he signed a contract to do just that," because the whole point is that Lackey wouldn't affirm his commitment at the time.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Right, but in the actual trade Boston paid $29 million for Joe Kelly. Or roughly three and a half times what St. Louis was paying for Lackey. It makes sense if Boston were focused on adding veteran talent (rather than prospects) and their medical staff screwed up the evaluation of Craig.

What doesn't make sense is the rewriting of history and the claim that in order to trade a vet #2 starter on a hella cheap contract Boston had to agree to eat a $29 million dead money deal in order to acquire a prospect that had trouble throwing strikes. I have this sneaking suspicion that the Cardinals would have traded Kelly for Lackey straight up given what both guys brought to the table.

The really strange part is that the history rewrite doesn't save Cherington (which I suspect is the intention of the revisionists). To be brutally frank I think it makes him look even worse if he were willing to give up Lackey and $29 million for a pitcher whose secondary offerings were more theory than practice and whose fastball command was/is pretty suspect. I think the simplest explanation is the likely one, that for whatever reason he was focused on adding major league players and the medical staff assured him that Craig would bounce back from the lisfranc injury.

This sort of third-party, retrospective omniscient POV about what could have happened is always precious. You don't have a clue as to what the Cardinals would have done, you don't have a clue as to what the Sox thought they were seeing, and you don't have a clue as to what other deals were out there.

The implicit assumption is that Cherington passed on something much better out there, and that JH and LL were swayed by his argument that Kelly and Craig were going to be a better deal that the Angels' offer of Mike Trout. It's a childlike assertion. Any other possibilities out there were always going to be about as equally good or flawed, no matter who was involved.

 

[mfried]

How was Lackey the best contact in baseball? He had one year left at league minimum, just like Kelly but without the additional arbitration years attached. And Kelly at the time of the trade was walking 2.6/9; I'd hardly call that struggling.

Obviously Kelly has failed to deliver on his upside, but without the benefit of hindsight I'd say that trade looks smart, given the shape the team was in in 2014 and looked to be in for the remainder of Lackey's contract.

The verdict is only justified when Kelly really fails as a reliever. I think he's a closer-in-waiting.

 

[nighthob]

This sort of third-party, retrospective omniscient POV about what could have happened is always precious. You don't have a clue as to what the Cardinals would have done, you don't have a clue as to what the Sox thought they were seeing, and you don't have a clue as to what other deals were out there.

I mean if you're trying to save Ben's reputation by saying "The Cardinals would never have traded anything for one of the best #2 starters in baseball on a bare bones deal unless Boston agreed to pay them $29 million!!!" then you're saying that Ben Cherington was an idiot. I actually think that Cherington was really good at his prior job running the minor league system, and as a GM made some poor choices, and probably not all of them on his own.

Even though there is literally zero evidence that the Cardinals demanded that Boston eat $29 million in dead money for a pitcher that struggled to throw strikes, and actual evidence that Boston actually thought that Craig would make a complete recovery and be an asset, the "$29 million and quality #2 starters is the going rate for pitchers without command!" seems to have become gospel around here. It's BS. Boston was focused that year on adding major league players, and got that one deal disastrously wrong. It happens. The Lester trade turned out really well because Cespedes was good for them and they turned him into Porcello (and have been a fan of that deal from the beginning, you can go back and look at the threads).

 

[SpaceMan37]

This has been talked about to death I'm sure, but I get the impression that Ben was told to trade for immediately usable pieces for the following season, which completely limited his flexibility to get the best deal. It's possible that he put this on himself, but it didn't seem like his MO. He also didn't follow for the Miller/Erod trade.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

I mean if you're trying to save Ben's reputation by saying "The Cardinals would never have traded anything for one of the best #2 starters in baseball on a bare bones deal unless Boston agreed to pay them $29 million!!!" then you're saying that Ben Cherington was an idiot. I actually think that Cherington was really good at his prior job running the minor league system, and as a GM made some poor choices, and probably not all of them on his own.

Even though there is literally zero evidence that the Cardinals demanded that Boston eat $29 million in dead money for a pitcher that struggled to throw strikes, and actual evidence that Boston actually thought that Craig would make a complete recovery and be an asset, the "$29 million and quality #2 starters is the going rate for pitchers without command!" seems to have become gospel around here. It's BS. Boston was focused that year on adding major league players, and got that one deal disastrously wrong. It happens. The Lester trade turned out really well because Cespedes was good for them and they turned him into Porcello (and have been a fan of that deal from the beginning, you can go back and look at the threads).

I'm not trying to save anyone's reputation, and I haven't missed BC for a second since he left, if only because I thought signing Panda to a contract bigger than his waistline was a fireable offense. And nobody's saying that the trade with the Cards was good or that it's worked out; it's been a bomb. It's that you keep intimating that Ben obviously could have done something better at the time. That's what there's zero evidence for, and suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree is acting as a graduate of the Ben Cherington Reeducation Camp doesn't win you any points.

 

[Broda]

How the hell does the Kelly trade get to be the worst? The Sox didn't give up much, and most of the downside has been money paid to players off the roster that hasn't impacted the roster.

The Lester trade turned into a pitcher almost as good who is much younger.

Most of the trades that weren't made have worked out as the kids are generally pretty good with some still TBD.

The Castillo signing is pretty clearly the worst.

Lackey for Craig and Joe Kelly is just god awful. No ifs ands or buts about it.

the Cepesdes for Porcello trade only counts porcello 2015. He didn't come with that contract.

he can get a negative for the trade and a positive for the contract agreement.

Rusney is awful.

The re-signing of Napoli was bad .

Miller was a good move. Choosing Koji over Miller though was not smart. (you can do good and be wrong in a related area).

Not selling high on guys like Owens and Johnson (who were clearly overrated and lacked TOR arm talent) and Marrero (had one monster year with the bat) were also big mistakes.

And he should've traded Buch last summer, sold high. Great contract, a great run for a streaky arm, take the prospects and keep rebuilding. BC NEVER tried to just rebuild like the Yankees did this trade deadline. It was a huge mistake on his part.

Rusney, Kelly and Craig are pretty darn close to what Lester is getting paid...and that doesn't include the completely unnecessary signing of Panda when you just signed Hanley.

 

[Broda]

I'm not trying to save anyone's reputation, and I haven't missed BC for a second since he left, if only because I thought signing Panda to a contract bigger than his waistline was a fireable offense. And nobody's saying that the trade with the Cards was good or that it's worked out; it's been a bomb. It's that you keep intimating that Ben obviously could have done something better at the time. That's what there's zero evidence for, and suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree is acting as a graduate of the Ben Cherington Reeducation Camp doesn't win you any points.

If that was the best offer you keep Lackey until the winter. Half a mil for what he was throwing, some team was gonna give you a useful piece for it.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

The notion that he might sit out '15 without an extension was in a bunch of reports at that time, chiefly because it was a big honking elephant in the room in terms of where he'd be after the deadline and how much he'd cost. Let's turn this around: I'd like to see your link putting Lackey on the record as saying he'd definitely pitch for the minimum in Boston in 2015. And please don't respond with the obtuse "he signed a contract to do just that," because the whole point is that Lackey wouldn't affirm his commitment at the time.

My contention is that people keep citing it as fact when it was nothing but a notion, as you've stated here. To go a step further and suggest that it was common industry knowledge to the extent it altered his trade value is a bridge too far, IMO.

I'd question whether a quote like that exists for any player, because it's an extremely odd situation to even be in the position to wonder about it. If you think he would have rather retired than play in Boston, that's certainly your prerogative. But people need to stop citing it as fact.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

My contention is that people keep citing it as fact when it was nothing but a notion, as you've stated here. To go a step further and suggest that it was common industry knowledge to the extent it altered his trade value is a bridge too far, IMO.

I'd question whether a quote like that exists for any player, because it's an extremely odd situation to even be in the position to wonder about it. If you think he would have rather retired than play in Boston, that's certainly your prerogative. But people need to stop citing it as fact.

I would also add that walking off a contract that you signed for a year in retirement would not have helped him in the slightest if he was trying to get another 3 year deal. He would likely have had a Masterson type contract at the most (which granted is better than his $500,000 single year) but there's always the chance he ends up hurt. It was never even discussed that he got paid an insane amount of money to do virtually nothing for a year and paid like an ace one year in which he was one of the worst pitchers in the game. So if he retired, I could even imagine a scenario in which not one GM would have trusted him to fulfill his contract. If it was ever said by him, it was all bluster, IMO.... I can't wait to beat the snot out of his garbage in Game 7 of this years World Series.

 

[wilked]

Poor Rick. Guy might win the Cy, might win 23-24 games, and his thread is reduced to turd-fights over Ben

 

[begranter]

Lackey doesn’t appear concerned about the notion of playing on a reduced deal next year.

While the pitcher might try to broach some sort of solution to expand on the major league minimum construct, he is also secure that things will work out. After watching the last few seasons, it’€™s a hypothesis that would be hard to argue.

“I haven’t even gotten to that point of thinking that far ahead. We’ll play this year out and see what happens,” Lackey said. “I’m not worried about the money. I’ve made plenty of that.”

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/02/28/john-lackey-on-salary-structure-for-2015-its-going-going-to-be-different/

There was never any indication Lackey would have held out. In contrast, everything he had said suggests he would have honored his contract. It was only the pundits that hypothesized he would hold out and it became an accepted narrative. PP is absolutely right that it is a false narrative and I'm as tired as seeing it as I am the narrative that PETCO is the most home run suppressing park in the majors.

 

[Rovin Romine]

This sort of third-party, retrospective omniscient POV about what could have happened is always precious. You don't have a clue as to what the Cardinals would have done, you don't have a clue as to what the Sox thought they were seeing, and you don't have a clue as to what other deals were out there.

The implicit assumption is that Cherington passed on something much better out there, and that JH and LL were swayed by his argument that Kelly and Craig were going to be a better deal that the Angels' offer of Mike Trout. It's a childlike assertion. Any other possibilities out there were always going to be about as equally good or flawed, no matter who was involved.

Agreed. I think it's pretty obvious that the Sox thought both Craig and Kelly had major league potential. It's a sensible deal if Kelly is viewed "fixable/improvable" by the pitching staff and the 29 yr old Craig had a decent chance to bounce back after his foot healed up.

 

[Saints Rest]

I had two big Cards fans, and seriously knowledgeable baseball guys, working for me at the time of the thread. Both thought that the Sox got a very good haul. Both thought that Craig would be great on Fenway, assuming health, and both thought Kelly was a solid pitcher in the making

 

[Sprowl]

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/02/28/john-lackey-on-salary-structure-for-2015-its-going-going-to-be-different/

There was never any indication Lackey would have held out. In contrast, everything he had said suggests he would have honored his contract. It was only the pundits that hypothesized he would hold out and it became an accepted narrative. PP is absolutely right that it is a false narrative and I'm as tired as seeing it as I am the narrative that PETCO is the most home run suppressing park in the majors.

On the contrary, there were indeed whispers and rumors circulating at the time that Lackey wanted out of Boston -- and why wouldn't he? The Red Sox were circling the drain, and made the decision to sell. Lester, Peavy and Miller all went on the block, and playoff-tested veteran starter Lackey was on the block too. People have googled the relevant links already, and those who call for links should have the basic courtesy to try first themselves. The link you have posted is from February, and is not relevant to what happened in July.

Cherington was trying to retool quickly for 2015, had near- and long-term vacancies at 1B and DH, along with corner outfield parking spots, and probably had multiple offers for Lackey's cheapo deal. Blame the doctors, Lackey or bad luck, whichever you like, but he chose... poorly.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

I would also add that walking off a contract that you signed for a year in retirement would not have helped him in the slightest if he was trying to get another 3 year deal. He would likely have had a Masterson type contract at the most (which granted is better than his $500,000 single year) but there's always the chance he ends up hurt. It was never even discussed that he got paid an insane amount of money to do virtually nothing for a year and paid like an ace one year in which he was one of the worst pitchers in the game. So if he retired, I could even imagine a scenario in which not one GM would have trusted him to fulfill his contract. If it was ever said by him, it was all bluster, IMO.... I can't wait to beat the snot out of his garbage in Game 7 of this years World Series.

C'mon...30 pitching-starved GMs out there would all decide not to sign a guy who was lights-out the last time he had a spot in a starting rotation, and would not have paid handsomely for the privilege of doing so?

It was discussed thoroughly at the time, but I always regarded the $500,000 number as a placeholder for an inevitable extension (if the Sox didn't simply want to release him at that point). If Theo was serious about having Lackey pitch a year at a discount, the reduced salary would have been somewhere in the $4-5 million range--a solid buy for the Sox, and enough to make a hold out a lot less attractive to Lackey. Either Theo didn't game out how the extension affects a deadline trade, or (reasonably) thought the prospect too unlikely to worry about at the time of the signing.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/02/28/john-lackey-on-salary-structure-for-2015-its-going-going-to-be-different/

There was never any indication Lackey would have held out. In contrast, everything he had said suggests he would have honored his contract. It was only the pundits that hypothesized he would hold out and it became an accepted narrative. PP is absolutely right that it is a false narrative and I'm as tired as seeing it as I am the narrative that PETCO is the most home run suppressing park in the majors.

“I haven’t even gotten to that point of thinking that far ahead. We’ll play this year out and see what happens,” isn't the opposite of "everything he said suggests he would have honored his contract," but they sure aren't the same. I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

On the contrary, there were indeed whispers and rumors circulating at the time that Lackey wanted out of Boston -- and why wouldn't he? The Red Sox were circling the drain, and made the decision to sell. Lester, Peavy and Miller all went on the block, and playoff-tested veteran starter Lackey was on the block too. People have googled the relevant links already, and those who call for links should have the basic courtesy to try first themselves. The link you have posted is from February, and is not relevant to what happened in July.

Cherington was trying to retool quickly for 2015, had near- and long-term vacancies at 1B and DH, along with corner outfield parking spots, and probably had multiple offers for Lackey's cheapo deal. Blame the doctors, Lackey or bad luck, whichever you like, but he chose... poorly.

Yeah I read the links two years ago when we did this before. And they were indeed nothing more than rumors and whispers (as you state yourself) and speculation by writers and fans. There was and still isn't any reasonable reason to think he would actually sit out nor enough teeth to the rumors that its reasonable to think it impacted his trade value to the extent that the cardinals deal was the best BC could get.

Your conclusion is exactly the same as mine and one trying to be explained away by citing those very same rumors and whispers. Bottom line BC made a shitty deal and even if the rumors were true, he still should have held him until the offseason rather than take what he did. But he was trying to retool on the fly and made the wrong choice.

 

[Lowrielicious]

There was and still isn't any reasonable reason to think he would actually sit out nor enough teeth to the rumors that its reasonable to think it impacted his trade value

Other than Lackey himself expressing doubt about whether he would have honoured the final year you mean? Bigpupp quoted it already:

"Lackey told the Cardinals he’ll pitch for the minimum next year. But when asked if he would have done the same for the Sox, he answered, “I don’t know about that . . "

Why would he say that, particularly after he was out the door and home free, if there wasn't at least some doubt about it. If it was all unsubstantiated rumour then explain that answer.

 

[Curt S Loew]

Frederick doesn't deserve this.

 

[nighthob]

I'm not trying to save anyone's reputation, and I haven't missed BC for a second since he left, if only because I thought signing Panda to a contract bigger than his waistline was a fireable offense. And nobody's saying that the trade with the Cards was good or that it's worked out; it's been a bomb. It's that you keep intimating that Ben obviously could have done something better at the time. That's what there's zero evidence for, and suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree is acting as a graduate of the Ben Cherington Reeducation Camp doesn't win you any points.

Actually the evidence that he could have gotten a better deal is what he got for Lester, a rental with no compensation attached, and other pitchers dealt that year. Including Porcello.

 

[nighthob]

I had two big Cards fans, and seriously knowledgeable baseball guys, working for me at the time of the thread. Both thought that the Sox got a very good haul. Both thought that Craig would be great on Fenway, assuming health, and both thought Kelly was a solid pitcher in the making

Right, and the deal makes complete sense if you were looking at it from that perspective. The whole "Eating Craig's salary was the price of getting Kelly!" thing is silly. Boston really thought that Craig would make a full recovery, which is why they traded for him. If they knew he was finished or the medical staff red flagged him they would have asked for another player.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Actually the evidence that he could have gotten a better deal is what he got for Lester, a rental with no compensation attached, and other pitchers dealt that year. Including Porcello.

You keep saying "evidence." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Again, not arguing that things turned out well, but you seem fixed on the idea that BC passed on something much, much better (or had Jedi powers to manipulate other GMs) rather than accepting the fact that the market was the market.

AFAIC, we're done now. I'm too old and life is too short to waste it engaging in cross-talking.

 

[Idabomb333]

the Cepesdes for Porcello trade only counts porcello 2015. He didn't come with that contract.

he can get a negative for the trade and a positive for the contract agreement.

In a bit of an attempt to pull the discussion back into a Porcello focus, this point annoys me. As someone pointed out later in the thread, he was basically the same guy. More importantly, he certainly could have had these results last year as far as Ben knew at the time of the trade. Ben both thought he was getting a good pitcher and got a good pitcher. Saying the trade was bad because the one year of his contract at the time didn't work out well is a silly argument to make when evaluating Ben's decision to bring in Porcello. It's also not necessarily fair to say that the trade and extension are totally separate decisions. Whatever team had him last year may have extended him. If not, whether he had a year like 2015 or a year like 2016 with that team, there's virtually no chance he ends up locked up at a bit of a discount for his prime seasons without that contract coming in the form of an extension. He'd either be on a short contract for less money for 2016, then a monster contract after this Cy-contending year, or he'd have put up a great year for some other team and been on a contract much bigger than this.

 

[nighthob]

Again, not arguing that things turned out well, but you seem fixed on the idea that BC passed on something much, much better (or had Jedi powers to manipulate other GMs) rather than accepting the fact that the market was the market.

I'm not sure how my contention that the whole "Boston had to pay $29 million in order to trade $8 million attached to one of the best #2 starters in baseball in order to acquire a pitcher with control problems" is just revisionism is getting spun into your bizarre claim here.

The market was the market, and it was by several orders of magnitude the worst deal for a #2 pitcher that summer. It makes complete sense if Boston expected Craig to make a full recovery, because it would have been completely in line with the other deals that went down. But if you're claiming that Boston knew that Craig was done as a major league player and decided to eat the remaining $29 million in order to acquire a prospect with control problems, you'll need to show us some quotes to that effect. Good luck with that.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/02/28/john-lackey-on-salary-structure-for-2015-its-going-going-to-be-different/

There was never any indication Lackey would have held out. In contrast, everything he had said suggests he would have honored his contract. It was only the pundits that hypothesized he would hold out and it became an accepted narrative. PP is absolutely right that it is a false narrative and I'm as tired as seeing it as I am the narrative that PETCO is the most home run suppressing park in the majors.

That link was at the beginning of the year. I think that Lackey was trying to get an extension. But it was absolutely reported by Rosenthal later that season that Lackey was thinking of retiring instead of honoring his contract. Here's Massarotti's article that discusses the situation and Rosenthal's original report: http://archive.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/2014/06/lackey_leveraging_his_way_out.html

Sorry Rick. Still luv ya tho

 

[richgedman'sghost]

Could a moderator go through this thread and eliminate all the Lackey/Ben talk? I keep clicking on this thread looking for Porcello talk and instead its the same old shotty arguments about the the Kelly trade etc...Poor Rick..he deserves better..