strek1 said:
Someone who follows the Cards looked at some comps to Craig and came away optimistic that there is precedent that he could hit better: http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2014/7/20/5918415/allen-craig-future-trade-rumor
Heyman says Lackey/Corey Littrell to Cardinals for Kelly/Craig
- Thread starter MakMan44
- Start date
Someone who follows the Cards looked at some comps to Craig and came away optimistic that there is precedent that he could hit better: http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2014/7/20/5918415/allen-craig-future-trade-rumor
Easy. It's a bad deal if Craig, who has been awful for a year, doesn't bounce back. Lackey had a lot of value. It was reasonable to expect a better return than a package whose centerpiece (Craig) is a huge question mark owed a not insignificant amount of money.Tyrone Biggums said:
Ugh, he's that guy? The stare down thing is the dumbest thing I've witnessed in recent baseball, and I watched the home run derby and have at times caught Harold Reynolds on Fox.Savin Hillbilly said:
kieckeredinthehead said:
Well, the good thing is his clubhouse popularity or whatever doesn't really have any bearing on you or me. But it seemed clear that his teammates kind of dug was he was doing and if we're talking about his clubhouse effect, isn't that what matters?
If the Red Sox had a clubhouse comedian that kept everyone loose, but then someone went on NESN and shared one of his jokes, a fan thinking it wasn't funny really doesn't matter.
This. I mean if Hacksaw is a good clubhouse presence then how can we(outside of Rembrat) possibly know what will help with clubhouse chemistry.DrewDawg said:
No, you're wrong. All of the moves Ben made today have been invalidated because Kelly's playoff thing was dumb. F-.DrewDawg said:
I don't know, I think the Red Sox got something pretty special.
Kelly's got some nice arm action on this one.
Kelly's got some nice arm action on this one.
And Lackey could blow out his arm tomorrow or retire next year....all deals have risk attached. If Matt Adams had not emerged this year this deal never would have happened. I like the Cards outfield prospects too but none other than Tavares has the upside of Craig. Piscotty looks like he would compare well with a bunch of 3rd outfielders in baseball. Would I rather have received a pitcher with more upside than Kelly? Sure. But there is a lot to be said about getting a pitcher in return that has pitched on the biggest stage of them all.twibnotes said:
I think we all forget that while the extra year of control was great, Lackey is 36. We got more than what you could reasonably expect for John Lackey today. His terrible contract was flipped into one World Series title and when healthy a top flight hitter. There literally is zero hitting in free agency, might as well take a risk.
Anything COULD happen, but when you are citing this kind of outcome, it doesn't say much about the deal. Lackey without question had value given his recent performance and contract. Given the huge holes in the rotation next year, I would have rather seen Ben retain Lackey (a two yr extension perhaps?) than move him for what is arguably a bad contract. Let's face it, if Craig is still scuffling next May or June, he would be a guy the Cards would be dying to give away.Tyrone Biggums said:
Put another way, if the Sox FO doesn't have a solid plan to turn Craig around, this is a pretty lousy get.
(I like the other deals Ben pulled off, for what it's worth - not down on the sell-sell-sell approach by any means)
Right. Again I think it's just the case of a guy hurting and having a down year. Remember Ortiz is probably done after next year. So clearly the plan as of right now is to put Napoli at DH, Craig at 1B and Cespedes in RF. Again things could easily change. Napoli could get traded tomorrow. I don't disagree with your thoughts on extending Lackey but if those reports are correct about him honoring his contract with the Cards maybe he was tired of Boston anyways.twibnotes said:
I think this is a very solid gamble. I certainly would have valued this package over one pretty good prospect like Bell. He's cheap enough where if it doesn't work out Boston will find a taker.
Speaking of precedence, I was just wondering what if this trade follows the Mike Lowell precedence (.236, .298, .360 prior to trade to Boston).wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Seems to me we are undervaluing a 26 year old starting pitcher, that we have under control until 2019. He obviously got lucky last year with his ERA but he still projects as a solid 2-4 starter with the scouting reports on his stuff. He only reaches the #2 if they can help him harness his stuff a little better and get more strikeouts, but the guy started game 3 of the world series last year and did just fine. I feel its a good return, regardless of Craig. I would not be surprised if Kelly has better numbers than Lackey next year.
Gash Prex said:
Uh huh. I think the way the deal worked was that we took Craig (and his moderate extension, which was making STL nervous given his recent performance) to get (five years of) Joe Kelly. Fewer years of an established veteran pitcher for more years of a young guy is a pretty standard trade format.
Craig could be a total wash, or a really useful piece at a bargain price, depending on how his foot injury works out. STL would prefer we assume that risk, given that they have Adams and Taveras.
All that in exchange for a season and change of Lackey.
The thing is, they got a pretty good prospect for A.Miller. They could have acquired a better prospect for Lackey (I presume). I would rather have a high end prospect than Kelly and Craig. A high end prospect could be included in a trade for C.Hamels over the winter. Since I doubt the Red Sox will offer Lester the 150-170 million that the Yankees will offer him, and I don't see the Red Sox going after Scherzer, I wonder about the top of the Red Sox's rotation in 2015. Hamels would solve that problem, but he is going to cost prospects. Thus, why not get a really good one for Lackey?
Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of Craig. I would like to see more plate discipline and walks; and his decline is troubling.
Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of Craig. I would like to see more plate discipline and walks; and his decline is troubling.
FanSinceBoggs said:
I agree that shiny new top 30 prospects are great to acquire .. lets say Lester went to the Pirates for Josh Bell instead of A's/Cespedes.
What is the likelihood of Bell ever being as good or better a player as Cespedes ? 20? 50? 70? My main complaint with Cespedes is that it's just one year (plus a QO pick) - compared to Bell's 5-6 years of control - so I can see an argument both ways.
But the real reason, i think, fans prefer prospects is that Big Time Prospects have no warts .. we haven't seen them play - what they represent is dreams of stardom. Bogaerts is a great example of this - #2 prospect in all of baseball - unlimited potential - but after watching him play for half a season we start to see the things he doesn't do very well - now he's just a young player learning how to play in MLB - last year he was a Future Mike Trout.
lexrageorge said:
Yeah. You never know, but Cherington said yesterday that he's definitely someone they want here long-term.
Word from Oakland was that Cespedes was on his way out after this season, as Beane knew he couldn't resign him. So, to Beane's mind they are trading 2 months of Cespedes for 2 months of Lester (and Gomes).
It is worth noting that the Red Sox cannot get a QO draft pick for Cespedes. The A's couldn't either, which must have lowered his value in the eyes of Beane.
The Cespedes trade made more sense from the A's perspective when we learned that he was under team control for only one more season. Beane probably had no intention of resigning him and since he can't get a QO pick for him, his value was diminished.
I suspect the Red Sox are interested in extending Cespedes' contract beyond 2015.
The Cespedes trade made more sense from the A's perspective when we learned that he was under team control for only one more season. Beane probably had no intention of resigning him and since he can't get a QO pick for him, his value was diminished.
I suspect the Red Sox are interested in extending Cespedes' contract beyond 2015.
True, so many prospects don't make it, but that might be an argument for acquiring more of them (rather than less). Moreover, they are valuable trade commodities. A quality prospect (in return for Lackey) gets you one step closer toward acquiring Hamels in the off-season. I would like to see the Red Sox acquire Hamels without giving up Mookie Betts, and so I saw Lackey as a trade chip toward that end.
FanSinceBoggs said:
The Red Sox have about 15 quality prospects, they don't need 16 in order to acquire Hamels without parting with Betts. SF's number 2 prospect just slotted in at 11 in our rankings. They don't lack ammunition.
FanSinceBoggs said:
I am sure they could have got a quality top prospect for Lackey but we were not getting an "ace" prospect such as Walker. How many more starting pitching prospects can we get? We already have plenty. Isn't a known commodity in Kelly a better value (even if it doesn't work out) over another SP prospect since we already have so many?
FanSinceBoggs said:
Where has it been quoted that they can't offer a QO? QOs are no longer tied to arbitration - which his contract explicitly excludes
Fangraphs and WEEI say the same thingBCsMightyJoeYoung said:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jon-lester-and-the-as-fascinating-big-bet-on-2014/
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2014/08/01/yoenis-cespedes-will-immediately-bolster-red-sox-outfields-lack-of-power/
Actually, pretty much everywhere else I look says they can't offer him a QO.
Gash Prex said:
I agree with what you're getting at....it may not be a "better value" but its part of "diversifying the portfolio," as it were.
We don't know anything. But we can get a sense of what the team thinks by what they did. And the fact that they used Lackey and Lester to net major leaguers suggests that *they* think that they need to add to the "major league player" side of the balance sheet.
At least that's the case *right now*. In 6 months or a year it may be different. And then you can cue the usual suspects complaining about "deviating from the plan."
Well, if you take him at his word, this changes the complexion of the trade a bit, though it's impossible to know if he'd be saying this if he'd been traded to a different team and/or stayed in Boston. This still might've been the best value the Sox could've gotten for Lackey.
https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/495327650076835840
https://twitter.com/BNightengale/status/495327650076835840
Jenifer Langosch @LangoschMLB 4mnattysez said:
Lackey reaffirms that he will honor contract and pitch next season for ML minimum. Said his decision partially hinged on where he landed.
https://twitter.com/LangoschMLB/status/495331906498867200
nattysez said:
Just to be clear, there's absolutely zero reason to think anyone remotely associated with MLB ever thought he wasn't going to play next year. So, it's exceptionally unlikely that anyone who is actually at all close to the game thought that his statement was news, or that the statement changed his value at all.
FWIW
Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam 20s
Lackey gave STL management assurance he would play in '15, but in BOS? "I don't know about that,'' he said. "I didn't get that far ahead.''
https://twitter.com/Sean_McAdam/status/496796375841898496
Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam 4m
(1 of 2) Lackey on being dealt: " "Pretty excited, actually. I wasn't real surprised. Honestly, this is as good a place for me (cont).'
Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam 6m
(2 of 2) ."me to be right now, so I was pretty happy with where it happened, I guess. You could see it kind of heading in that direction.''
https://twitter.com/Sean_McAdam/status/496795822571282432
Seems like those reports that he wanted out of BOS were true
Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam 20s
Lackey gave STL management assurance he would play in '15, but in BOS? "I don't know about that,'' he said. "I didn't get that far ahead.''
https://twitter.com/Sean_McAdam/status/496796375841898496
Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam 4m
(1 of 2) Lackey on being dealt: " "Pretty excited, actually. I wasn't real surprised. Honestly, this is as good a place for me (cont).'
Sean McAdam @Sean_McAdam 6m
(2 of 2) ."me to be right now, so I was pretty happy with where it happened, I guess. You could see it kind of heading in that direction.''
https://twitter.com/Sean_McAdam/status/496795822571282432
Seems like those reports that he wanted out of BOS were true
soxhop411 said:
Of course they were true.
Signed,
The guy laughing at all the naive fools too ignorant to see that John Lackey hated being here.
Maybe it wasn't about Lackey just being a misunderstood asshole and general malcontent. But if not, it was clearly about Lackey being pissed at the club for low-balling his buddy Lester and then having the audacity to expect him to pitch for a half-million bucks (and on what he saw as a rebuilding last-place team) without Lester around.