Heyman says Lackey/Corey Littrell to Cardinals for Kelly/Craig
- Thread starter MakMan44
- Start date
It's sort of amazing how few of the Cardinals top prospects ended up succeeding after being traded to other teams:
http://thebaseballcube.com/prospects/?T=27&Page=Team
http://thebaseballcube.com/prospects/?T=27&Page=Team
Merkle's Boner said:
I wouldn't either. The only thing that makes sense to me right now is that he really wanted out of Boston this year, which is why he wouldn't give assurances to Boston that he would play for them next year for $500K, but needed to confirm to St. Louis that he would in order for the deal to be consummated. He might have been willing to do that to go to the Cardinals but not for some other teams. Otherwise, I think more teams would have been in on him, especially teams with more prospects than money to spend.
We'll see what happens in the spring. I do expect an extension of some sort.
Again, it looks like this decision is based less on the fact that they think Craig is never bouncing back, and more that they think Taveras (considered one of the top prospects in baseball) is a better player long term, and that Matt Adams is too valuable to their lineup right now.
Was looking ahead at what our rotation is going to be this coming week...
Found this for next Tuesday.
Found this for next Tuesday.
There are very few examples of them trading top prospects over the last seven years though, so not much to go on.
THe key names are Colby Rasmus, David Freese, Chris Perez and Brett Wallace.
Wallace never panned out.
Perez hit his projection as a closer for a few years.
Rasmus has been basically the same player in Toronto as he was in St. Louis.
Freese wasn't that big of a prospect anyways, and the choice to let him go was easy given Matt Carpenter's emergence and the need to make room for Kolten Wong.
Craig is the one guy on those lists recently who had any sort of prolonged success for their big league club before they moved him.
Ed Hillel said:
Yes because Craig is signed through 2017 to not insignificant $$ if he continues to be a - WAR player.
If a prospect washes out it sucks but doesn't cost you financial or even 25 man roster flexibility. They very well may eat 20M + if Craig can't get straightened out. Perhaps it is all tied to the foot injury, which in and of itself is scary, but the FG article about not catching up to inside fastballs is not a great sign.
Zero doubt in my mind the only way Lackey was pitching for the Sox in 2015 is with a large multi-year extension. It's pretty clear Ben recognized this as well. Ray Charles could see this.rodderick said:
Stitch01 said:
One thing I don't see in here is the fact that the Cardinals will likely continue to contend next year while the Sox were in last place at the time Lackey made his comments. If I were an aging player, I wouldn't want to stick around a crappy team either, especially if I wasn't getting paid.
Except that Dave Duncan ran their entire pitching staff from rookie ball to MLB, and frequently talked about 19 year old kids they'd just drafted years before they had any shot at the bigs.Papelbon's Poutine said:
The Cardinals have developed a plethora of good pitching because Dave Duncan is one of the greatest pitching coaches of all time and instead of limiting that strictly to working with the ML club he basically ran all facets of pitching for them. He dictated terms to their scouts, his input was regularly taken into account by two different GM regimes, he frequently gave advice to minor league coaches and managers on how to use their pitchers. He was the buck stops here guy for the Cards when it came to pitching for his entire tenure there.
But yeah, I'm sure the 3rd round pick who got his first mL action a few months after Duncan stepped down had nothing to do with the guy. Nevermind that last year Dave Duncan was doing radio interviews talking up how big a fan of Joe Kelly's he was, and taking credit for the decision to convert Kelly from reliever to starter coming out of college.
Drek717 said:
Maybe Duncan had something to do with acquiring Kelly, but I gotta think his involvement the last few years has been pretty minimal, since he's been working for the DBacks. If Duncan still likes him, then that seems like a good thing.
Anyway, Kelly just started throwing 95 this year, so he's got that going for him.
j44thor said:
Ok, I see what you are saying. I just think the contract is fine even if he tanks. If he starts producing again, it's one of the better contracts in the league. It's a gamble, I just wouldn't call it massive.
It is a gamble the Sox are more than capable of taking financially, I just don't think the centerpiece of a deal for 1.5 years of John Lackey should be a 20M+ gamble. If they got Craig for Peavy that would be one thing, getting him and Kelly for Lackey is disappointing.Ed Hillel said:
But who knows, maybe the Sox really like Kelly. I never have because he has a penchant for just suddenly losing command of his fastball at random times in the middle of outings. I've seen so many of his starts where he's doing fine, looks like he's dealing through the first few frames, then suddenly just lays an absolute egg around the 4th-6th inning and gives up a crooked number in the middle of a close game.
He could be a lights out reliever and he's under team control for a good long time (2016 arb guy per BRef), so I guess you can't really complain too much, there is a good chance half the AAA contingent we're all wishing upon a star over won't even be good relievers in the majors, Kelly is likely at least that. Hopefully Farrell and Nieves can work some magic and help him find something other than the fastball/curve combo if he's to remain a starter.
Drek717 said:
Even if they bring back Uehara for 2015, that's likely the end of the road for him, so if Kelly is a closer in waiting then that's a perfectly good return for Lackey.
Craig is a crapshoot, but I guess potentially wasting $30 million on 30 year old Allen Craig on his whole four year contract is quite different from potentially wasting $45 million for the 5th and 6th years of a contract for a 30 year old pitcher.
I have read some of this thread, but obviously not every word. I still don't understand why Lackey wouldn't honor his contract, if only to avoid ruining his reputation going forward. Wasn't he paid a lot of money to be on the DL? Can someone make this clear to my very little brain, as I am blinder than Ray Charles, apparently.HomeRunBaker said:
Just texted with a buddy who is a die-hard Cardinals fan (i.e. life-long fan, subscribes to MLB.com so he can watch them every day from NYC, etc). I asked him for his take on Kelly and Craig.
Here was his response:
Joe Kelly has a good fastball, and great for the clubhouse. Solid guy...95+ fastball decent curve...young.
Craig can rake when he's right...just hasn't been right all year. Solid D in Right, but sadly for you he has power to R / RC. He'll need to learn to pull the ball.
Plus you have years of control on both, they'll be starting players each year.
Here was his response:
Joe Kelly has a good fastball, and great for the clubhouse. Solid guy...95+ fastball decent curve...young.
Craig can rake when he's right...just hasn't been right all year. Solid D in Right, but sadly for you he has power to R / RC. He'll need to learn to pull the ball.
Plus you have years of control on both, they'll be starting players each year.
InsideTheParker said:
Because he could hurt himself and/or suck, which would hurt his earnings for the next couple of years. So he would much rather negotiate a three year deal that rips up that last year. The reading that some of us have on the CBA is that he would be a free agent after he sat out the year, so even if it hurt his reputation, given the prices on the FA for pitching he could probably make a tidy sum without risking injury/sucking for minimal money.
Baseball players holding out for a better contract is not something new, it's actually something that happened a lot back in olden times.
Lackey's agent would absolutely be pushing for him to hold out for a new contract, and be making that case to him every single day.
Adding a year onto his contract for like $12 million more makes loads of sense for both parties. Forcing a holdout to make him pitch for the minimum makes little sense for either side. If the Cardinals don't want to give him an extension, I'm sure they could flip him to a team that would after this season.
The extension won't happen till after this season, the team has no incentive to do it until he gets through the year without a major injury. If he does that, then he will get an extension from the Cards or be traded to a team that will give him one.
Lackey's agent would absolutely be pushing for him to hold out for a new contract, and be making that case to him every single day.
Adding a year onto his contract for like $12 million more makes loads of sense for both parties. Forcing a holdout to make him pitch for the minimum makes little sense for either side. If the Cardinals don't want to give him an extension, I'm sure they could flip him to a team that would after this season.
The extension won't happen till after this season, the team has no incentive to do it until he gets through the year without a major injury. If he does that, then he will get an extension from the Cards or be traded to a team that will give him one.
Jeff Passan @JeffPassan 5h
Theo Epstein's final gift to the Red Sox was the John Lackey contract he got absolutely eviscerated for at time. $500K option: Theo's idea.
And now we see that Lucky's PR machine just can't allow that idea to sit out there unchallenged.
Theo Epstein's final gift to the Red Sox was the John Lackey contract he got absolutely eviscerated for at time. $500K option: Theo's idea.
PedroKsBambino said:
And now we see that Lucky's PR machine just can't allow that idea to sit out there unchallenged.
Peter Gammons @pgammo 1m
@JeffPassan @FTatis23 Great point, but the concept was created by Larry Lucchino, to be fair
OK, so if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the Cardinals have zero expectation of paying Lackey only $500K next year. And they don't much care, since their emphasis is on this year and this post-season, and they don't doubt that they can trade him in the off-season. So I guess this is perfectly legal and that the commissioner has no problem with it. There is zero expectation that people will honor the contracts they have signed.
Not pitching isn't not honoring the contract. He won't pitch for anyone but the Cardinals next year if they can't come to an agreement that suits both parties. Much like Dempster could choose not to pitch this year, Lackey could choose not to pitch next year
So to all the naysayers who are down on the Lackey deal why are so many fans pissed in Cardinal land? If they robbed us shouldn't they be popping corks?
Stitch01 said:
If he's younger, he almost certainly sits out the year, because the risk of career-ending injury is not worth $500K. Given his age, I think it's far more likely he plays, because he isn't going to be able to play at all much longer.
Someone in the Cherington presser thread wrote that Lackey has told the Cardinals he will honor the contract. They did not give a link, however.
Of course Lackey would say that now, he gains nothing by saying otherwise. All this will happen behind the scene and Lackey will get an extension in the off season.
Carmen Fanzone said:
Since Gammons is one of Theo's closest media buddies and got him his start in baseball, he's not especially likely to be a minion of Lucky.
I miss neither the two-sided media war those guys wouldn't let go, nor the one-sided interpretation of it most around here had.
Some of us had more to do today than read every thread on Sosh. But in this thread it was assumed that the Sox made the trade because it was obvious that Lackey wouldn't pitch for the $500K. That is what I was responding to.Papelbon's Poutine said:
Fans are loyal. They develop attachments. That's not necessarily relevant in terms of on-field value. Craig and Kelly both seem like likable guys, and they've been important parts of a couple of World Series teams, and they're legit players, not spare parts. It would be weird if Cardinals fans weren't pissed. That doesn't necessarily mean the Sox made a good deal here (though I hope we did).strek1 said:
BTW, Kelly sounds like a hoot:
strek1 said:
Who actually likes Lackey? Not many corks got popped around here about him, even when he was pitching well.
I think the most joy he inspired was recent, and based on people fantasizing on what he might bring back in trade.
EvilEmpire said:
I think the most joy he inspired was when we woke up on the day of Game 6 of the World Series, looked at the pitching matchup, said "Pfft, we got this," and sat down with an adult beverage or twelve to watch him pitch us to the win.
But, you know, your methods may vary.
The Sox got two players with 4 years of control. Established major leaguers no less for Lackey who wasn't sticking around. How is this a bad deal? I would argue this is at the very least on par with what the Rays got for Price as stunning as that sounds. If Craig rebounds this is a massive steal for Boston.
I agree. Like I said before this isn't a Willy Mo "Project" dump, this is a hitter who has proven ability. If he finds it again watch out. Fenway can be fun if you're a decent hitter.Tyrone Biggums said:
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Let's see what the Opening Day roster looks like before we concede that point.