26 replies to this topic

[BosRedSox5]

http://www.baseballp...ts/?page_id=154

http://espn.go.com/b...my-john-surgery

John Lackey has a clause in his contract that if he misses significanttime with surgery for pre-existing elbow injury, that we get a club option in 2015 for the major league minimum. He's missed one whole season, so should we assume that option kicks in? If so, what does that mean? Assuming Lackey's contract is extended with a year at 400k (or whatever the league minimum will be) does this increase his trade value? Sure, this mysterious option year doesn't count when calculating AAV for luxury tax purposes, but wouldn't he be more attractive to other teams at 3/30.9?

Now, maybe this is all moot. Either because: the team plans to keep him, the team can trade him without the option, or the option won't kick in (it's not clear how much time must be missed.)

I don't think Lackey is a lost cause. We can probably salvage him for the next couple of years. I think, like a lot of people, when Lackey was signed, I was unimpressed. Still, I thought he was at least a safe bet to perform. Before he signed in Boston he had an ERA of 3.81, WHIP of 1.306 and decent peripherals. Then the wheels came off. With a new ligament in his elbow, and a year of recovery he's pretty likely to come back to an extent. I was even surprised to hear during a recent broadcast that he's a popular teammate. He's so prickly with the press, I thought he might be a jerk or something, but the guys seem to like him, so maybe the "clubhouse cancer" vibe is a little over the top.

Anyway, I think he could finish out with a couple decent years in Boston, but I wonder what this clause does to his trade value, or if it will trigger.

[LeoCarrillo]

Rob Bradford wrote awhile back that the injury clause DOES recalculate his AAV across six years.

"His (John Lackey) deal with Boston included a vesting option at the major league minimum (currently $414,000) for a sixth season if he required season-ending surgery on a pre-existing elbow condition. Such an operation would trigger the option, thus making the contract a six-year, $83 million deal - thus meaning that, for luxury tax purposes, his contract is valued at roughly $13.8 million rather than $16.5 million, something that could mean millions of dollars in luxury tax relief to the Sox."

Edited by LeoCarrillo, 19 August 2012 - 05:58 PM.

[CaptainLaddie]

Glue? Glue.

[BosRedSox5]

Rob Bradford wrote awhile back that the injury clause DOES recalculate his AAV across six years.

"His (John Lackey) deal with Boston included a vesting option at the major league minimum (currently $414,000) for a sixth season if he required season-ending surgery on a pre-existing elbow condition. Such an operation would trigger the option, thus making the contract a six-year, $83 million deal - thus meaning that, for luxury tax purposes, his contract is valued at roughly $13.8 million rather than $16.5 million, something that could mean millions of dollars in luxury tax relief to the Sox."

Hm, it was my understanding that the AAV was only calculated using guaranteed money. Since the option could theoretically be declined, I wonder why it would count in this process. If so, then great.

[OttoC]

Hm, it was my understanding that the AAV was only calculated using guaranteed money. Since the option could theoretically be declined, I wonder why it would count in this process. If so, then great.

It is a club option, so can he decline?

[BosRedSox5]

It is a club option, so can he decline?

It's a club option meaning the club can decide to pick it up or decline it. Rob Bradford seems to think the option clause is already in effect because of Lackey's TJ surgery, but Ben Cherington himself says it's not been triggered yet. Not only that, but Bradford says it would count towards lowering Lack's AAV, and other sources seem to dispute this. So in trying to clear up the situation, it's become more muddled.

[NDame616]

I was wondering this, too re: the operation and if it automatically kicks in.

Maybe Cherington said it hasn't been triggered because the team hasn't picked it up yet (I supposed if he had such a terrible elbow issue that it was pretty much automatically career ending, the option wouldn't be guaranteed to be picked up...in other words, the team probably still has to go through a process trigger the option)

While I don't know the formal process, I'd assume at the end of the season the team could pick up the option, thus changing the AAV starting in 2013?

[Green Monster]

Seems to me that both could be correct. Lackey has missed enough time to trigger the option and the Red Sox have not yet exercised the option. Weather they exercise it or not most likely depends on the impact to the AAV.

Edited by Green Monster, 19 August 2012 - 08:42 PM.

[snowmanny]

Maybe he has to miss the entire season before the clause is triggered.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

Lackey is nearly impossible to project until we see what he recovers post-operation ... the scary thing is that usually after TJ, pitchers can recover a bit of lost velocity, but Lackey's FB velocity really didn't drop in 2011. Instead, he just lost piles of control, and his fastball and curveball effectiveness plummeted.

Popular opinion is that command is the last thing to return after the surgery - if that's true, Lackey may not gain as much effectiveness back as we'd like ... However, if the injury was causing him to lose the ability to spot the FB (which was -24 per Fangraphs in 2011) and crippled his curve (went from a plus pitch to negative in both 2010 and 2011), he could well bounce back to a 3- or 4-win pitcher, essentially the 4.2-ish xFIP guy everybody expected.

Unfortunately, we'll have to watch a bunch of innings to find out - which I'm sure we're all super excited for.

Edited by Alcohol&Overcalls, 19 August 2012 - 08:12 PM.

[BosRedSox5]

I would assume pain and discomfort are the reasons he lost his ability to control his pitches to begin with, but you're right, we'll all have to wait with baited breath to find out whether or not he comes back strong.

[Green Monster]

Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine was impressed by John Lackey's bullpen session on Sunday.
Lackey, who underwent Tommy John surgery on November 1, threw 45 pitches. "He threw with an ease of motion and with perfect location," Valentine said. "I was very impressed with what I saw. He's feeling really good about his progress." Lackey isn't expected to pitch for the Red Sox this year. The righty is making $15.25 million in 2012 and is due another $15.25 million in 2013.

http://espn.go.com/b...bullpen-session

Sox trying to increase his trade value??

Edited by Green Monster, 19 August 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[mr guido]

His strikeout, walk, hits, and runs allowed rates all got worse in each of the 5 years before his TJ surgery, ages 28-32, culminating in the worst season for a pitcher in the history of the Red Sox. The ceiling on his age 34-36 seasons has got to be awfully low. Even if the min-wage clause triggers, he'll probably just collect the paychecks for 2 years and then retire.

[P'tucket, rhymes with...]

His strikeout, walk, hits, and runs allowed rates all got worse in each of the 5 years before his TJ surgery, ages 28-32, culminating in the worst season for a pitcher in the history of the Red Sox. The ceiling on his age 34-36 seasons has got to be awfully low. Even if the min-wage clause triggers, he'll probably just collect the paychecks for 2 years and then retire.

Don't know why you wouldn't suspect that some of his decline was due to the progression of physical damage that necessitated the surgery. I wouldn't assume peak performance, but neither would I assume that just collecting a paycheck is a "probable" outcome.

Edited by P'tucket, rhymes with..., 19 August 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[NDame616]

Also, it appears the language in his contract was for a "pre existing" elbow condition. Could the argument be made this WASN'T pre existing? If he says his elbow started bothering him at some point last year, then that means the injury happened when he was on the Sox.

Could his agent make this argument? If (big if) Lackey comes back healthy and over the next 2 years pitches somewhere around a low 4 ERA and can win 13-15 games a year, his agent would certainly want him back on the market in hopes of another multi year deal.

[OttoC]

He signed the contract. How will he now argue that there was no pre-existing condition?

[NDame616]

He signed the contract. How will he now argue that there was no pre-existing condition?

Because we can't be certain when the injury occured?

When did Ellsbury hurt his shoulder? April 13
When did Middlebrooks break his wrist? August 10
When did Lackey hurt his elbow? _____?

I don't know the language of the contract, but couldn't the argument be made this happened when he was on the Red Sox, and therefore it wasn't pre existing?

[Plympton91]

I was wondering this, too re: the operation and if it automatically kicks in.

Maybe Cherington said it hasn't been triggered because the team hasn't picked it up yet (I supposed if he had such a terrible elbow issue that it was pretty much automatically career ending, the option wouldn't be guaranteed to be picked up...in other words, the team probably still has to go through a process trigger the option)

While I don't know the formal process, I'd assume at the end of the season the team could pick up the option, thus changing the AAV starting in 2013?

Actually, even if he doesn't throw a pitch for them in 2016, picking up the option and lowering the AAV will save far more in luxury tax than they'd pay out on the option.

I wonder if the AAV gets recalculated based on the remaining amounts. If they picked up the option in spring training, then it would be a 4/$52.5 contract whereas if they pick it up at the end of this year it makes it a 3/$35.5 contract (or thereabouts). So, in that case, the longer the Red Sox wait to trigger the option, the bigger the luxury tax relief in subsequent seasons? They weren't going to be under this year anyway, so get a bigger drop in next year's cap number?

The Red Sox had the MRI and knew the ligament was damaged. This is the exact circumstance that the clause was put into the contract to protect against. There is no chance that Lackey gets out of that option if the Red Sox choose to exercise it. Another reason they may have to wait is that he has not officially missed the whole season yet.

[Cumberland Blues]

Another reason they may have to wait is that he has not officially missed the whole season yet.

I wondered about this when I read that Lackey threw a bullpen session the other day. How long is the usual timeline from first bullpen to game action after TJ? If there's any chance he's close enough to pitch in a game by the end of Sept, do we have to worry about a greivance if they don't activate him?

Edit....looked up the thread where Hairps did all the awesome TJ timeline stuff - looks like the lag is typically long enough between first bullpen and first game that this is not a concern.

Edited by Cumberland Blues, 20 August 2012 - 04:08 PM.
answered my own question

[Average Reds]

Because we can't be certain when the injury occured?

When did Ellsbury hurt his shoulder? April 13
When did Middlebrooks break his wrist? August 10
When did Lackey hurt his elbow? _____?

I don't know the language of the contract, but couldn't the argument be made this happened when he was on the Red Sox, and therefore it wasn't pre existing?

Working from memory, but I think what Otto was trying to say is that both sides were aware that Lackey had some damage to the elbow when he signed and the Sox insisted on the clause during negotiations specifically to cover themselves in case the damage worsened to the point where he would lose a season due to TJ surgery.

Stated plainly: Lackey cannot challenge when the injury occurred because his condition was known to all when he signed.

[941827]

Idle speculation from the LA Times beat writer for the Angels:

I would not be surprised if #Angels try to engage #RedSox in a Vernon Wells-for-John Lackey swap of bad contracts this winter. (more)

Wells might be better fit in Fenway, #Angels will need pitching if let Haren/Santana go. $ already spent. Might as well be in areas of need.

https://twitter.com/MikeDiGiovanna

Wells will have 2/$42 left after this year.
Lackey has 2/$30.5 with a club option for another year at the major league minimum.
Beckett has 2/$31.5 left.

I think Lackey has enough value as a $10/mm year 5th starter to demand more in return for him, unless you assume a very good prospect would come from the Angels with Wells to make up for the salary discrepancy.

Edit: Even if you replaced Lackey with Beckett, I'm not sure there is any prospect the Angels would offer who would make up for the harm caused to the Sox by taking on another $10m+ in salary for a guy with an 84 OPS+.

Edited by 941827, 20 August 2012 - 10:46 PM.

[judyb]

If it has to cost more money to dump a guy than it would to just release him, just release him.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

If it has to cost more money to dump a guy than it would to just release him, just release him.

Obviously if the additional salary taken on produces additional value, you shouldn't just release him.

In the specific case of this Vernon Wells swap ... holy shit, just let the guy pitch, and if he still sucks, release him.

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

Here's hoping Lackey's uncanny resemblance to a horse corresponds to a higher likelihood of coming back closer to original pre-Tommy John projections than the smaller in stature Matsuzaka has. Getting something out of this team's sunk costs would be a refreshing change.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Idle speculation from the LA Times beat writer for the Angels:



https://twitter.com/MikeDiGiovanna

Wells will have 2/$42 left after this year.
Lackey has 2/$30.5 with a club option for another year at the major league minimum.
Beckett has 2/$31.5 left.

I think Lackey has enough value as a $10/mm year 5th starter to demand more in return for him, unless you assume a very good prospect would come from the Angels with Wells to make up for the salary discrepancy.

Edit: Even if you replaced Lackey with Beckett, I'm not sure there is any prospect the Angels would offer who would make up for the harm caused to the Sox by taking on another $10m+ in salary for a guy with an 84 OPS+.

Considering this team's most glaring issue has been and will be starting pitching, I don't see what can be gained by trading a pitcher coming off Tommy John (i.e. a rather unknown quantity...could be good, could be just as bad as pre-surgery) for an under-performing outfielder who is due more money over the next two seasons. I would expect that the point of moving Lackey (or Beckett) this winter would be to save money on their contracts in order to re-invest it in and hopefully improve the rotation. Simply re-allocating the Lackey (or Beckett) money to a broken down outfielder doesn't do anything toward that end.

Besides, this is coming from an Angels beat guy. He's looking for the best way for the Angels to get out from under Wells' deal. It's not even worth paying attention to from the Boston perspective.

[judyb]

I'm not sure if this is a realistic question or not, but might there be a way to swap Lackey or Beckett for Vernon Wells plus cash from LAA so that it would actually save the Red Sox some luxury tax limit space for the next 2 or 3 seasons and still be something the Angels would be willing to do? Assuming the Angels aren't close enough to the luxury tax limit to worry about it themselves, and since the Wells contract is so backloaded, it seems possible that evening up the salaries could save the Red Sox a good amount of space under the limit without costing LAA any more real money than just keeping Wells would.

[Plympton91]

Here's hoping Lackey's uncanny resemblance to a horse corresponds to a higher likelihood of coming back closer to original pre-Tommy John projections than the smaller in stature Matsuzaka has. Getting something out of this team's sunk costs would be a refreshing change.

Remember that even by the end of this season, Matsuzaka won't be as far along in his "rehab" as Lackey will be when training camp opens next year. Lackey has the advantage of not needing to be rushed at all.