Do you think John Lackey should be willing to play for $500K in 2015?

[Lose Remerswaal]

Just yes or no.  If the Sox don't offer him a renegotiation or an extension and expect him to play next year for his contracted $500K should he do it?
 
We know he signed the contract.
We know it's an unprecendented contract.

 

[ivanvamp]

Yes he should.  Do I expect that to happen?  No.

 

[MakMan44]

If push came to shove, either retire or pitch for $500 K, I think he would do it and he should. 

 

[Joshv02]

Since this thread is about shoulds, what is the moral justification for Lackey not honoring his commitment?  
 
I can see the practical/bargaining positions, and I can understand why the Red Sox may not want to push the scenario, etc. - that isn't the question in this poll.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Obviously he should be willing to play.  But there is such huge precedent in sports (if not in baseball) for holding out in order to renegotiate contracts that I'm not going to be upset once it happens.

 

[johnnywayback]

Of course he should.  He signed the contract.
 
What the Red Sox should do if he isn't willing (shame/lawyer him into complying, work out some alternative arrangement, shrug and let him retire) is a whole other thing.  As is whether the Red Sox should have foreseen that attempting to hold him to said contract might cause problems -- and, thus, whether this provision should have been the safeguard they chose to write into the contract in the first place...

 

[75cent bleacher seat]

Excellent question...I voted   yes...
 
Should we have another poll asking if the Sox should offer to renegotiate without Lackey requesting they do so?

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Excellent question...I voted   yes...
 
Should we have another poll asking if the Sox should offer to renegotiate without Lackey requesting they do so?

perhaps someone should add that!

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

I think the question is strange. "Should" really has nothing to do with this. He has a contract with the Sox. He may have leverage to get the Sox to modify that contract or extend him. He may not. It's just business.

 

[YTF]

Voted yes. The plain and simple of it all is that he signed a contract. A contract that the Sox honored when they paid him paid him over $15 mil when he was unable to pitch.
 
Just yes or no right?

 

[Bone Chips]

Depends on what he does next.  If he retires for good, then bon voyage my friend and thanks for the best sports memory of my life (Game 6 WS).  If he sits out a year and then plays major league baseball again, I'd consider that a real lousy move.

 

[moondog80]

Since this thread is about shoulds, what is the moral justification for Lackey not honoring his commitment?  

That he continued to pitch hurt in 2011 when lots of people would have shut themselves down, and he may have been putting his future earnings at risk by doing so.

That's the argument anyway. I can sort of buy it, but I see the other side too.

 

[Rasputin]

That he continued to pitch hurt in 2011 when lots of people would have shut themselves down, and he may have been putting his future earnings at risk by doing so.

That's the argument anyway. I can sort of buy it, but I see the other side too.

 
Guess what. If he had shut down for 2011 instead of 2012, he'd still be facing a minimal salary for 2015 so this argument is bullshit.
 
He sighed a contract. He should honor it. Anything else is absurd.

 

[bankshot1]

Should he? Yes, he should perform as he contracted for.
 
Will he play for $500K? Probably not.

 

[Stitch01]

He should do whatever he feels is in John Lackey's best interest, within the confines of whatever is allowed under the CBA, after considering all factors relevant to John Lackey (financial compensation, what he feels he owes to the club, how much he wants to pitch in Boston, etc)
 
I don't have enough information to say whether that's pitching for 500K next year or sitting out and becoming a free agent in 2016 (if that, as it appears, is allowed under the CBA)
 
I don't think it is immoral or wrong at all for Lackey to exercise the remedy of sitting out a year rather than pitching for the Red Sox in 2015.

 

[moondog80]

 
Guess what. If he had shut down for 2011 instead of 2012, he'd still be facing a minimal salary for 2015 so this argument is bullshit.
 
He sighed a contract. He should honor it. Anything else is absurd.

Thanks. I hadn't realized he signed a contract.

The question is, by gutting it out for the team's benefit in 2011, when it was well within his right to say he couldn't pitch, was there a chance he would make the injury worse and thus damage his chances of making it back from the injury?

 

[Toe Nash]

I think the question is strange. "Should" really has nothing to do with this. He has a contract with the Sox. He may have leverage to get the Sox to modify that contract or extend him. He may not. It's just business.

This deserves to be quoted. I don't know why it's become a question of morals. If you asked "Should Babe Ruth play for his $30,000 salary?" in 1922, what would the answer be? Presumably yes, because that was the contract. Of course, it was his only option.
 
I know that's an extreme example, but it's a silly question.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Never mind "should," I'm really struggling with "willing." I can't tell if I'm being asked whether Lackey should play in 2015, or whether he should be a happy camper about it.

 

[Joshv02]

I find it more strange that people don't think that people should honor their commitments.
Its very different to think about the punishments for not honoring your commitments.  And while not honoring one's commitment may not be immoral all the time -- and there are certainly good examples -- it is, I'd think, the baseline and we'd need a good explanation to think otherwise.
 
John Lackey was a free agent with the right to sign with any team under (virtually) any terms.  We don't need to figure out if Curt Flood should play or not, I don't think.  The contract certainly contemplated that he'd have to be paid $500k for a year.  Therefore, he gave an express promise that he'd do so if he was paid many millions of dollars before then.  He received the benefit of the agreement.  Why should he not be required to provide the benefit the Red Sox in return?
 
(Again, this is only an ought/should argument; if he doesn't, his breach isn't enough to castigate him to eternal damnation.  Just that it isn't what someone should do.)

 

[begranter]

Thanks. I hadn't realized he signed a contract.

The question is, by gutting it out for the team's benefit in 2011, when it was well within his right to say he couldn't pitch, was there a chance he would make the injury worse and thus damage his chances of making it back from the injury?

I disagree.  I don't think he gutted it out for the team's benefit, but rather his own.  He tried to avoid the very surgery that enacted the clause in his contract forcing him to play for the veteran minimum.  He was already hurt and his options were get the surgery or try and pitch through it.  He sucked so much he couldn't keep pitching through it.  The team would've been better off if he had the surgery right away and began his comeback.  Instead, an epic bucket of suck for a year and then an entire lost season.
I'd argue Lackey knew he was hurt but didn't want to get surgery until after getting his 5 year contract, telling the Red Sox he was healthy enough to pitch even though they probably should have known better.  If he had been able to rehab in the off-season and avoid surgery, regardless of his pitching ability, he probably would have specifically to avoid this clause of his contract.  Really it's a miraculous job by his agent to get that contract with all the questions surrounding Lackey's falling velocity and elbow health when he hit free agency.
He was paid the year he missed, he should play the year he promised in his contract.  Or retire.

 

[EvilEmpire]

If he doesn't want to play for that amount, of course he will retire.  And he'll miss the next season and be able to reevaluate after to see if he wants to stay retired.  Just like everyone else.  He wouldn't be the first player to retire with time left on his contract.  Often enough it works to a team's advantage. 
 
I just don't understand the angst over this.  Players and teams use whatever leverage they have all the time.  It's just business.

 

[Stitch01]

I find it more strange that people don't think that people should honor their commitments.
Its very different to think about the punishments for not honoring your commitments.  And while not honoring one's commitment may not be immoral all the time -- and there are certainly good examples -- it is, I'd think, the baseline and we'd need a good explanation to think otherwise.
 
John Lackey was a free agent with the right to sign with any team under (virtually) any terms.  We don't need to figure out if Curt Flood should play or not, I don't think.  The contract certainly contemplated that he'd have to be paid $500k for a year.  Therefore, he gave an express promise that he'd do so if he was paid many millions of dollars before then.  He received the benefit of the agreement.  Why should he not be required to provide the benefit the Red Sox in return?
 
(Again, this is only an ought/should argument; if he doesn't, his breach isn't enough to castigate him to eternal damnation.  Just that it isn't what someone should do.)

He certainly shouldn't breach the agreement by pitching for another team in 2015.  The contract and the CBA should prevent that from occurring. 

 

[moondog80]

I disagree.  I don't think he gutted it out for the team's benefit, but rather his own.  He tried to avoid the very surgery that enacted the clause in his contract forcing him to play for the veteran minimum.  He was already hurt and his options were get the surgery or try and pitch through it.  He sucked so much he couldn't keep pitching through it.  The team would've been better off if he had the surgery right away and began his comeback.  Instead, an epic bucket of suck for a year and then an entire lost season.
I'd argue Lackey knew he was hurt but didn't want to get surgery until after getting his 5 year contract, telling the Red Sox he was healthy enough to pitch even though they probably should have known better.  If he had been able to rehab in the off-season and avoid surgery, regardless of his pitching ability, he probably would have specifically to avoid this clause of his contract.  Really it's a miraculous job by his agent to get that contract with all the questions surrounding Lackey's falling velocity and elbow health when he hit free agency.
He was paid the year he missed, he should play the year he promised in his contract.  Or retire.

That's another way to look at it and you might be right. But if the opposite (my scenario) is true, that would be the moral justification.

Either way, I think there's very little chance he pitches in 2015 for 500k.

 

[luckysox]

He SHOULD  be willing to play for 500K, and the Red Sox SHOULD offer him a 2 year contract extension for '15-'16 at just under the going rate instead of letting him play for 500K.  Should is so much fun.

 

[Otis Foster]

He certainly shouldn't breach the agreement by pitching for another team in 2015.  The contract and the CBA should prevent that from occurring. 

If nothing else is clear, this is.
 
I really think we need to know more. That is a very curious clause. I'd like to know how and why it's there.
 
Repeating myself, I wonder if this reflects the inability of the parties to agree on the post-surgery salary, even though they agreed that the RS should retain some hold over him. If that's the case, then 500 K was a notional salary, dropped into the contract with the mutual understanding that he might retire before accepting it. The parties would evaluate where they were if he had surgery, and if he performed well, they'd look at a new package. OTOH, if he gave them the requisite number of years w/o surgery,  he was free after 2014 whatever his record
 
In those circumstances, this is playing out exactly as the parties had foreseen, and Lackey is in effect pitching to extract a rewrite from the Sox - while they know that one way or another, he's not going to pitch for 500 K pretax in 2015.
 
Otherwise, it makes no sense and his agent sold him out.
 
Edit: I wandered away without answering:  'No' because I think the parties specifically contemplated this outcome.

 

[Rovin Romine]

If nothing else is clear, this is.
 
I really think we need to know more. That is a very curious clause. I'd like to know how and why it's there.
 
Repeating myself, I wonder if this reflects the inability of the parties to agree on the post-surgery salary, even though they agreed that the RS should retain some hold over him. If that's the case, then 500 K was a notional salary, dropped into the contract with the mutual understanding that he might retire before accepting it. The parties would evaluate where they were if he had surgery, and if he performed well, they'd look at a new package. OTOH, if he gave them the requisite number of years w/o surgery,  he was free after 2014 whatever his record
 
In those circumstances, this is playing out exactly as the parties had foreseen, and Lackey is in effect pitching to extract a rewrite from the Sox - while they know that one way or another, he's not going to pitch for 500 K pretax in 2015.
 
Otherwise, it makes no sense and his agent sold him out.

 
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2009/12/contract_langua.html

 

[pokey_reese]

Yeah, I don't know about this whole, "sacrificing himself for the team" business.  A.) he knew that clause was in the contract, so he can't act surprised that it has come to this, and B.) he was lousy for the team in 2011.  If he really wanted to do the right thing for the Red Sox, it could just as easily have been going under the knife as early as possible so as to be an effective pitcher again, rather than being replacement level for months in addition to his rehab time.
 
As others have pointed out, the whole thing with a guaranteed contract is that it means the player can collect his huge paychecks when he isn't playing, but it should cut both ways.  Call it a $17 million 2-yr contract if you want, where the years just happen to be non-consecutive.

 

[Reverend]

I find it more strange that people don't think that people should honor their commitments.

 
I find it more strange that people in moral terms as commitments about contracts with corporations that don't reciprocate. Part of the tendency of people to adopt the ethos of the dominant economic system, I guess, but it's still an odd phenomenon to me.
 
 

I disagree.  I don't think he gutted it out for the team's benefit, but rather his own.  He tried to avoid the very surgery that enacted the clause in his contract forcing him to play for the veteran minimum.  He was already hurt and his options were get the surgery or try and pitch through it.  He sucked so much he couldn't keep pitching through it.  The team would've been better off if he had the surgery right away and began his comeback.  Instead, an epic bucket of suck for a year and then an entire lost season.
I'd argue Lackey knew he was hurt but didn't want to get surgery until after getting his 5 year contract, telling the Red Sox he was healthy enough to pitch even though they probably should have known better.  If he had been able to rehab in the off-season and avoid surgery, regardless of his pitching ability, he probably would have specifically to avoid this clause of his contract.  Really it's a miraculous job by his agent to get that contract with all the questions surrounding Lackey's falling velocity and elbow health when he hit free agency.
He was paid the year he missed, he should play the year he promised in his contract.  Or retire.

 
ESPN piece on the season here:

It now looks like Lackey might have actually been gutting out the 2011 season with a bum elbow, unbeknownst to everyone else.
 
And there are indications that although he came to the Red Sox with a history of elbow trouble, and it was a big enough concern that Boston negotiated an option clause into his contract in case he missed significant time, he might have actually hurt himself worse by pitching this season through the tenderness that Epstein admitted the team was "monitoring" once Lackey had an MRI and spent 20 days on the disabled list from May 16 to June 5 with what the club called a "strained" right elbow.
 

 
 
Boston.com piece with statement from Cherington defending Lackey here:

"John Lackey pitched through circumstances this year that I don't think any of us can fully understand, and he got beat up for it along the way," said Cherington. "He was dealing with some stuff both on the field and off the field that were really difficult. I thought he showed tremendous toughness pitching through that. That game he pitched in New York at the end of the season where he helped us as we were grinding away for every win we could, I thought got overshadowed by how the season ended.
 

 
 
 

He SHOULD  be willing to play for 500K, and the Red Sox SHOULD offer him a 2 year contract extension for '15-'16 at just under the going rate instead of letting him play for 500K.  Should is so much fun.

 
You said the "s word."

 

[rundugrun]

Yes, he should, but as others have articulated, he will not.

 

[radsoxfan]

Of course he should play for 500K in 2015.  
 
He's not going to be playing for 500K next season in a vacuum.  He is playing the final year of a 6 year, 83M contract that he signed (well 5 year 82.5M contract with a vesting team option for 0.5M… same thing).  The fact that 2015 is so cheap is meaningless.  He and his agent felt 6/83M with that injury clause was the best they could do on the open market.  This was the contract he signed, and the one he felt was the best overall value.
 
Do we even know what the Red Sox offer would have been if they didn't get the injury clause?  5/75? 5/70?  Clearly it would have been something much less than what Lackey got. The Red Sox purchased insurance from Lackey, and that insurance has value.  If Lackey didn’t want to play the role of insurance company, he should have signed a different contract.
 
If Lackey is too sad about playing for 500K, he should have been taking 20% of his salary every year, put it in the bank, and then given himself a nice signing bonus to start 2015. If that doesn't make him feel better, then he should fire his agent for adding that clause into the contract.  But it's absurd for him to retire prematurely, or think his 2015 salary is somehow unfair.
 
 
On a separate note, if Lackey continues to perform well, it's certainly possible for both sides to come to a mutually beneficial extension.   I wouldn't give Lackey any "pity money", but it's possible the Red Sox would be interested in giving Lackey a 1 or 2 year extension after 2014.  It's tricky to know how much an older pitcher is worth on an extension starting a year into the future. But I would probably offer something like 1/15.5 (2/16 overall) or 2/26.5 (3/27 overall).
 
They can essentially rip up the 500K option so Lackey feels better, but the Red Sox still get the value of that cheap option year they fought to get included in the initial contract. 

 

[TheoShmeo]

If he doesn't want to play for that amount, of course he will retire.  And he'll miss the next season and be able to reevaluate after to see if he wants to stay retired.  Just like everyone else.  He wouldn't be the first player to retire with time left on his contract.  Often enough it works to a team's advantage. 
 
I just don't understand the angst over this.  Players and teams use whatever leverage they have all the time.  It's just business.

I'm not sure I see angst.
 
It's just an interesting and unusual circumstance.  How often have we seen a player whose relative annual value is in excess of $10 mm get locked into a contract that is for $500k?  How often have we seen a player consider retirement rather than playing for a salary that he agreed to play at? 
 
To the extent I have angst over Lackey, it's over the possibility of him not being in a Red Sox uniform next season given how well he's pitched thus far in 2014.  The money is not my primary concern, though it's inextricably linked to the first issue.

 

[moondog80]

Yeah, I don't know about this whole, "sacrificing himself for the team" business.  A.) he knew that clause was in the contract, so he can't act surprised that it has come to this, and B.) he was lousy for the team in 2011.  If he really wanted to do the right thing for the Red Sox, it could just as easily have been going under the knife as early as possible so as to be an effective pitcher again, rather than being replacement level for months in addition to his rehab time.
 
As others have pointed out, the whole thing with a guaranteed contract is that it means the player can collect his huge paychecks when he isn't playing, but it should cut both ways.  Call it a $17 million 2-yr contract if you want, where the years just happen to be non-consecutive.

 
 
He was lousy because he was pitching hurt.  The Red Sox knew this, but kept running him out there because they had no better options.  None of us can say for sure what his motives were (team or self), but I think you can make a pretty good case that the best move for John Lackey was to get the surgery ASAP, because at that point it was inevitable (he wasn't going to pitch his way out of it and avoid the clause in the contract) and because he was best served by avoiding embarrassment, not taxing an already damaged arm, and getting a head start on rehab so he could prove himself useful before his contract came up again.

 

[Rasputin]

Thanks. I hadn't realized he signed a contract.

The question is, by gutting it out for the team's benefit in 2011, when it was well within his right to say he couldn't pitch, was there a chance he would make the injury worse and thus damage his chances of making it back from the injury?

 
Considering the surgery involves replacing the injured ligament, I rather suspect not, but if you want to spend ten dollars, there are doctors around here who would know better.
 
Also, and I cannot stress these two things enough, the fact that he pitched hurt instead of spending that year on the DL shouldn't matter in the slightest since that's exactly the kind of thing the Sox were concerned about before signing the contract. And, this whole argument is ridiculous.
 
If you're arguing that he shouldn't honor his contract, you're wrong, and quite probably an idiot and an asshole as well. I mean, Christ, what kind of business do you work in where you think contracts shouldn't be honored? (note, this is not necessarily you, moondog, as it looks like you're advocating for the devil here)
 
And, as has been pointed out many times by many folks, with Buchholz seemingly being incapable of pitching more than 20 games a year and Doubront not really taking the next step, having a guy like Lackey around for a couple extra years would be a good thing. 
 
I rather suspect Lester is going to get done at the break then come the off season, the Sox will pick up that option and start working on an extension.
 
Also, for the record, in the unlikely event that the Sox don't want to negotiate an extension, I think he will play for the 500k because if he weren't willing to play for that, why the hell would he have signed the contract?

 

[Reverend]

 
Considering the surgery involves replacing the injured ligament, I rather suspect not, but if you want to spend ten dollars, there are doctors around here who would know better.

 
My understanding from the last time--or maybe the time before--this was rehashed was that further injury wasn't a concern so he pitched through it for the team.
 
I'm thinking of starting a thread on the subject biannually as a SoSH tradition.
 

 

 
If you're arguing that he shouldn't honor his contract, you're wrong, and quite probably an idiot and an asshole as well. I mean, Christ, what kind of business do you work in where you think contracts shouldn't be honored? (note, this is not necessarily you, moondog, as it looks like you're advocating for the devil here)

 
American contract law disagrees, as even the law has exceptions for severing contracts when it may be economically beneficial to do so (c.f. below).
 
But anyway, not honoring it is covered by the CBA, so it's part of the system. Contracts are not the Moral Law, they are expedients. As expedients there may be moral reasons to support upholding them, but they are utilitarian in scope.
 
 

And, as has been pointed out many times by many folks, with Buchholz seemingly being incapable of pitching more than 20 games a year and Doubront not really taking the next step, having a guy like Lackey around for a couple extra years would be a good thing. 

 
The intelligent thing to do is to bargain a multiple year deal that satisfies both parties, yes.

 

[moondog80]

 
Considering the surgery involves replacing the injured ligament, I rather suspect not, but if you want to spend ten dollars, there are doctors around here who would know better.
 
Also, and I cannot stress these two things enough, the fact that he pitched hurt instead of spending that year on the DL shouldn't matter in the slightest since that's exactly the kind of thing the Sox were concerned about before signing the contract. And, this whole argument is ridiculous.
 
If you're arguing that he shouldn't honor his contract, you're wrong, and quite probably an idiot and an asshole as well. I mean, Christ, what kind of business do you work in where you think contracts shouldn't be honored? (note, this is not necessarily you, moondog, as it looks like you're advocating for the devil here)
 
And, as has been pointed out many times by many folks, with Buchholz seemingly being incapable of pitching more than 20 games a year and Doubront not really taking the next step, having a guy like Lackey around for a couple extra years would be a good thing. 
 
I rather suspect Lester is going to get done at the break then come the off season, the Sox will pick up that option and start working on an extension.

 
 
I get this.  But I think that he did put team ahead of self in 2011, and that deserves some consideration.  How to quantify that, I have no idea.
 
Seems like this sort of clause is doomed from the start.  If you're ever in a spot to exercise it, it's going to result in a veteran performing at a relatively high level being paid an embarrassingly low salary.  Yes, I know he agreed to it and all, but the reality is that very few guys will just accept this without, at the very least, some bitter feelings toward the team.  Which may be fine as long as it stays private, but it often does not. 

 

[Rasputin]

 
 
I get this.  But I think that he did put team ahead of self in 2011, and that deserves some consideration.  How to quantify that, I have no idea.
 
Seems like this sort of clause is doomed from the start.  If you're ever in a spot to exercise it, it's going to result in a veteran performing at a relatively high level being paid an embarrassingly low salary.  Yes, I know he agreed to it and all, but the reality is that very few guys will just accept this without, at the very least, some bitter feelings toward the team.  Which may be fine as long as it stays private, but it often does not. 

 
If you're a professional athlete and you're going ot be embarrassed to play for that little money then you have a really easy way to not be embarrassed. Don't sign the fucking contract.

 

[Plympton91]

Every player has the option to retire or take a year off rather than play baseball.  JD Drew and Jason Varitek both entered the major league draft; that is not much different from "signing a contract" as Lackey did.  If you enter the draft, teams are expecting that you will play for the team that drafts you given an offer that is reasonably better than your next best alternative.  But, when the money they were offered wasn't what they wanted (Varitek), or the organization they were selected by wasn't who they wanted to play for (Drew), they held out and did something else for a year.  There is no problem morally with John Lackey not playing baseball in 2015.
 
I continue to say that the Red Sox don't expect him to either, and didn't expect him to when he signed the contract.  Lackey provided the Red Sox with additional leverage in contract extension talks, I guarantee you he did not promise to play for the minimum in 2015.
 
The other motivation Lackey may have, depending on how friendly he is with his ex-wife, is the way spousal support was structured.  If Lackey can screw the ex-wife by not playing in 2015, that may enter into his calculus, one way or the other.

 

[WenZink]

Lackey's only obligation, contractual or moral, is that if he decides to play in 2015 for $500K, he should perform up to his physical ability and doesn't whine about it.
 
Now, if he wants to continue pitching and earn another contract, then he should be willing to pitch in 2015.  If he takes a year off, then in the winter of 2015-16, he'll be a 37 year old pitcher who's only thrown 400 innings over the last 4 years, so any contract offer is likely to be small base with big incentives.  And if he chooses to take a year off, he'll have to find a way to keep in shape on his own dime.  Given how much Lackey seems to love the concept of "team," I just don't think he's the type to relish being a lone wolf.  The biggest issue is if he pitches in 2015 as a pending free agent, what happens if Lackey is expected to pitch through some type of pain and to gut it out in a late season run at a playoff berth?  The Sox don't/won't care about it might cause further injury, while Lackey may be risking big money while performing for peanuts? 
 
Now he has every right to use the threat of retiring in 2015, to negotiate an extension, and the Red Sox have every right to use the minimum salary year as leverage to negotiate a team-friendly extension.  So it seems unlikely that they'll enter the off season with this not resolved. And although the Sox don't appear to need any luxury tax help in the coming years, a new deal, averaging in the $500K year, could end up with a multi-year deal with a lowered AAV, enabling them to offer big pre-arb offers to players like Bogaerts.   One difficulty is in determining Lackey's market value in the event of a trade.
 
For the record, I think Lackey is a good risk for a pitcher in his late 30's. 

 

[Rasputin]

Every player has the option to retire or take a year off rather than play baseball.  JD Drew and Jason Varitek both entered the major league draft; that is not much different from "signing a contract" as Lackey did.  If you enter the draft, teams are expecting that you will play for the team that drafts you given an offer that is reasonably better than your next best alternative.  But, when the money they were offered wasn't what they wanted (Varitek), or the organization they were selected by wasn't who they wanted to play for (Drew), they held out and did something else for a year.  There is no problem morally with John Lackey not playing baseball in 2015.
 
I continue to say that the Red Sox don't expect him to either, and didn't expect him to when he signed the contract.  Lackey provided the Red Sox with additional leverage in contract extension talks, I guarantee you he did not promise to play for the minimum in 2015.
 
The other motivation Lackey may have, depending on how friendly he is with his ex-wife, is the way spousal support was structured.  If Lackey can screw the ex-wife by not playing in 2015, that may enter into his calculus, one way or the other.

 
 
Yeah, going into the draft is exactly like signing a contract except for the part about signing a contract and the part where you had a choice in where you end up..
 
But yeah, other than that, dead on.

 

[EvilEmpire]

Would folks honestly be upset if, at the end of the season, Lackey simply announced his retirement?  Even if the Sox then used an offer of an extension to entice him to reconsider?  Because if he doesn't want to play for 500k, I think that is exactly what is going happen.  Assuming they don't amicably work out an extension before hand, which I think is more likely. 
 
I'm trying to understand if the negative connotation of "holding out" is causing people to get worked up.  Because guys retiring with time left on their contracts isn't unusual or controversial.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Would folks honestly be upset if, at the end of the season, Lackey simply announced his retirement?  Even if the Sox then used an offer of an extension to entice him to reconsider?  Because if he doesn't want to play for 500k, I think that is exactly what is going happen.  Assuming they don't amicably work out an extension before hand, which I think is more likely. 
 
I'm trying to understand if the negative connotation of "holding out" is causing people to get worked up.  Because guys retiring with time left on their contracts isn't unusual or controversial.

I wouldn't be upset at all if he retired .. and stayed retired. But taking a year off because he doesn't feel like pitching for a measly $600,000 is completely unprofessional. He signed the contract .. He knew exactly the consequences .. what If the Sox simply decided to not pay him in 2012 ? Sorry John .. You're washed up .. We're not paying the remainder of your contract. What's the difference?

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Because Lackey, unlike Dempster or Foulke would be making the decision solely because he doesn't want to play for his contracted amount of money.  That makes it a completely different situation.

 

[EvilEmpire]

You think Lackey would be the first guy to retire rather than play for an amount he doesn't feel is worth the time, effort, and demands of a baseball season?  I don't think so.  I imagine quite a few players assess the full cost/benefit for themselves and their families when they decide to retire.  If not most.

 

[Reverend]

The CBA is the contract. The player contracts occur within the vehicle of the CBA.
 
I'm curious as to why some of you think the Restricted List exists as part of the CBA at all. I'm serious.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

But under this scenario Lackey's not retiring .. He's just taking a year off .. Which is convenient for him to do so given his current contract. Mind you he'll be welching on a signed contract and earning a well deserved reputation as an incredibly selfish player who doesn't honour contracts . If you guys think this is a) a reasonable choice or b) simply business then I couldn't disagree more.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Why is it any more unprofessional than Ryan Dempster not playing this year? Or with Foulke retiring after signing with the Indians, and then changing his mind a year later and going to Oakland? It seems like folks are simply annoyed because of what he's scheduled to make in salary, which seems odd, why does that matter to any of us?
Yes, he has a contract, which is the amount of money he gets...if he plays. If he decides not to play, he gets nothing. Every player has this option.

No .. Part of the undertaking of the contract is that , barring extremely unforeseen events, the player will play.

 

[EvilEmpire]

But under this scenario Lackey's not retiring .. He's just taking a year off .. Which is convenient for him to do so given his current contract. Mind you he'll be welching on a signed contract and earning a well deserved reputation as an incredibly selfish player who doesn't honour contracts . If you guys think this is a) a reasonable choice or b) simply business then I couldn't disagree more.

 
Other than emotionally loaded language, this scenario is indistinguishable from a player retiring for a year and then deciding to make a comeback.  If Lackey decides not to play next season there is no reason for him not to retire and say nothing about coming back until next season is already complete.  Why wouldn't he do it that way rather than announce a holdout or something stupid?  He already knows plenty of Sox fans are going to be all over him about it.  Why deal with that?  He'll know that if the Sox want him to stick around they'll still have the opportunity to entice him not to retire.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Other than emotionally loaded language, this scenario is indistinguishable from a player retiring for a year and then deciding to make a comeback.  If Lackey decides not to play next season there is no reason for him not to retire and say nothing about coming back until next season is already complete.  Why wouldn't he do it that way rather than announce a holdout or something stupid?  He already knows plenty of Sox fans are going to be all over him about it.  Why deal with that?  He'll know that if the Sox want him to stick around they'll still have the opportunity to entice him not to retire.

If Lackey "retires" for a year then he should be willing to reimburse the Sox to the extent of his 2012 salary. This is very simple .. Lackey received a huge contract BECAUSE he agreed to pitch for the league minimum in an extra option year in the event of a major injury. You take the bad with the good.

 

[EvilEmpire]

If Lackey "retires" for a year then he should be willing to reimburse the Sox to the extent of his 2012 salary. This is very simple .. Lackey received a huge contract BECAUSE he agreed to pitch for the league minimum in an extra option year in the event of a major injury. You take the bad with the good.

 
This is batshit insane.

 

[Rasputin]

Wouldn't it just make sense for the Sox to re-do his contract and sign him to a reasonable extension? Something like 3/27 with $5 mil coming next season?

 
Yes, yes it would. I suspect it would be for more dollars, but yes, it makes a whole truckload of sense.