Hot Stove Rumors - The Fenway Edition

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
Rasputin said:
How likely do you really think it is that Workman, de la Rosa, Barnes, Webster, and Ranaudo are going to combine for fewer innings than John Lackey?
 It is not likely that any one with the possible exception of Workman could slot in as a #3 starter which is what you would need if you moved Lackey. 
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
Minneapolis Millers said:
Ras- what if some team pulled a Royals with us, offering a Myers type for Lackey?  Couldn't that make the Sox better in 2014?  What if the Padres offered Headley, Gregerson and a B- prospect for Lackey and Middlebrooks?  Any team with extra hitting could trade it for Lackey, given our depth at SP.  It's not that far-fetched.
 
Is there a Myers type to be had? He was the Baseball America #4 prospect in the game headed into 2013. I don't follow other teams' systems to even have a reasonable guess at who that might be going into 2014, but of course you would look at it, and maybe it would be worth it but the player would have to be pretty much ready to go from Day 1 the way Myers was and be an improvement over the incumbent or play first or catcher.
 
Also, that trade was almost universally regarded as a terrible one for KC and I don't think it's reasonable to assume your trading partners are morons. It happens sometimes, but not all that often, and after the Punto deal, we have no room to complain for years.
 
And just for the sake of perspective, let's pretend that Myers is available, and he plays third. You trade Lackey for him. Then you have to trade something else to get a Lackey quality starter back or you're going with a rotation of Lester, Buchholz, Doubrton, Peavy, and Dempster and I don't think anyone wants that. Well Lackey quality pitchers are expensive so we'd be trading more than one of Barnes et al. which, even if it evens out the overall major league talent level, cuts a pretty big hole in the pitching prospects you're going to be using over the next few years which means that if you kept the wrong ones, you end up making the near future worse instead of better. And sure, maybe whatever pitcher you end up trading for is going to be good enough that you can afford to get less from that crop of pitchers but at some point you have to stop talking in hypotheticals and start dealing with what is reall there.
 
Which is to say, is there a Myers type to be had, and if there is, is there a Lackey-caliber pitcher to be had, and if there is, then why isn't the team with the Myers type talking directly to the team with the Lackey type rather than bringing us into the middle of it?
 
Also, I'm not going to pretend to know all that much about the Padres, but they don't look to me like a team that is going to be trading offense for pitching any time soon.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
Doctor G said:
 It is not likely that any one with the possible exception of Workman could slot in as a #3 starter which is what you would need if you moved Lackey. 
 
No, it's not, even if you include Workman.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Minneapolis Millers said:
Ras- what if some team pulled a Royals with us, offering a Myers type for Lackey?  Couldn't that make the Sox better in 2014?  What if the Padres offered Headley, Gregerson and a B- prospect for Lackey and Middlebrooks?  Any team with extra hitting could trade it for Lackey, given our depth at SP.  It's not that far-fetched.
 
The problem with this scenario is outside of the Cardinals who are flush with young arms there really are no contending teams that have a Myers type prospect. Buxton is with Minnesota, Correra is with Houston and a few years away and Xander is with the Sox. Thats really all that I can think of. Your best return for Lackey due to his track record and age would be a couple B level prospects from a team that needs another starter on the cheap. Someone such as the Giants, A's, MFY (would never happen) or Atlanta. 
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
Rudy Pemberton said:
Fair enough; but comparing Lackey to a pre-arb player isn't really fair. Players never go from making $15m to $500k unless something terrible happens. So the fact that a player has never retired in such a situation is true- but there's also never been a situation remotely likely this one (and hey, he did sign the deal).

That being said, it's all speculation and until Lackey starts complaining about it (and let's hope he never does) it's probably not something we need to worry about it. Look at it this way, it would only become an issue if Lackey has another really good season next year, right? A good problem to have.
 
Lackey is not an idiot and quite capable of looking at the contract in its entirety. He is at the end of a contract, which paid him very well for 3 years of 2.4 WARP (not annually, but total over the 3 years) and 1 year of 1.9 WARP. He realizes that he underperformed for the first 3 years and that he made out very well with his last contract even after adding the league minimum year (now slated to end up at 83 M for 6 years).   The clause in the contract was not a hidden item, but one that was negotiated to protect the Red Sox who were aware of a pre-existing condition. In addition, in 2015 he would be pitching for a new contract.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Rumors have the Sox linked to Hudson. Sign him to a deal that's less than lackey's 2014 cost. Trade Lackey for a 3rd baseman who's better than Middlebrooks. (Why wouldn't the trading team just sign Hudson? Because he doesn't want to go there. It happens. The Twins are finding this to be true right now.). Which 3rd baseman?Don't know. But the point is that such a deal could reasonably be made without the need to find a stupid trade partner and with the belief that it actually improves the Sox next year.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
In my lifetime said:
 
Lackey is not an idiot and quite capable of looking at the contract in its entirety. He is at the end of a contract, which paid him very well for 3 years of 2.4 WARP (not annually, but total over the 3 years) and 1 year of 1.9 WARP. He realizes that he underperformed for the first 3 years and that he made out very well with his last contract even after adding the league minimum year (now slated to end up at 83 M for 6 years).   The clause in the contract was not a hidden item, but one that was negotiated to protect the Red Sox who were aware of a pre-existing condition. In addition, in 2015 he would be pitching for a new contract.
That's all true, but the bottom line is, whether it's justified or not, this has the potential to be a bad situation.  Plenty of people have held out to have contracts re-negotiated.  In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have a voidable 2014 instead of the bonus 2015 as the Sox' protection clause, because no matter what was agreed to 5 years previous, it's human nature that he'd be a bit resentful if it plays out that way.  And really...he had a shredded elbow but still took the ball because he was the best option the Sox had in a pennant race, was vilified beyond belief because, well, guys who need TJ surgery usually don't pitch like aces (but never used the elbow as an excuse), worked his butt off to come back and was a key part of a WS team?  I might be resentful too.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
radsoxfan said:
 
According to wiki.answers (I'm sure not the ideal source), if a player elects to retire, he is placed on the "voluntary retired list" and is due no further compensation under his contract.  If that player then unretires, his rights are still retained by the club he was under contract with when he went on the retired list.
 
The example they use is for a player that has 2 years left on his contract though, so perhaps they are referring to someone who just retired for 1 year and would be under contract regardless. 
 
Either way, as you mentioned, I think retiring would be a pretty bad marketing strategy for Lackey if he wants to pitch in 2016 and get a good contract.
 
Interesting.  Here's what I found after a quick search through the CBA:
 
 
A Player who properly has been placed on the Restricted List,
or who properly has been placed on the Disqualified List for failure
to render his services to his Club, shall be eligible to become a
free agent as provided in Article XX, if otherwise qualified as set
forth therein.
 
 
My interpretation is that if a player refuses to play for the team that holds his rights, he'd be on the DQ list but would still become a free agent under the normal free agent rules.  There could be more specific provisions related to the situation we're discussing so I could be wrong, but I have to start paying attention to the conference call I'm on and can't look further right now.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
moondog80 said:
That's all true, but the bottom line is, whether it's justified or not, this has the potential to be a bad situation.  Plenty of people have held out to have contracts re-negotiated.  In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have a voidable 2014 instead of the bonus 2015 as the Sox' protection clause, because no matter what was agreed to 5 years previous, it's human nature that he'd be a bit resentful if it plays out that way.  And really...he had a shredded elbow but still took the ball because he was the best option the Sox had in a pennant race, was vilified beyond belief because, well, guys who need TJ surgery usually don't pitch like aces (but never used the elbow as an excuse), worked his butt off to come back and was a key part of a WS team?  I might be resentful too.
You might be resentful but I don't think it's human nature to feel that way.
 
Sox should entertain offers for anyone. I doubt they get an offer for Lackey that makes sense this year but it's possible.  As was said, next off season, or even mid season this year, if he pitches well, then you look to to extend him for another year using the option year as leverage. If at that time you can't agree to a deal and feel it might be an issue then you actively look to trade him.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
One point to keep in mind with all of this talk of possibly trading Lackey - if he is still a member of the Red Sox at the end of the 2014 season, he gains 10-5 rights and can veto any trade.  If he is going to be traded, the time is this offseason.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
RedOctober3829 said:
@jcrasnick: Free agent Chris Young is on the #redsox list of fallback CF options if they don't re-sign Jacoby Ellsbury.
Not shocked. Seems like a natural platoon partner for JBJ. Buying low on a rough season in Oakland. Some bounce back should be expected and the Sox could do much worse as a 4th or 5th outfielder.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Edes says Drew won't be back
 
Hardly a shock. Obviously this is still rumor not fact, but it sounds like somebody's pretty sure, and "a baseball source" makes it sound like that somebody isn't Boras (especially when Edes quotes Boras on the record in the same paragraph).
 
"A number of teams" interested me, though. The Mets and Cardinals are obvious, but "a number" sounds like more than two. Curious who the others are.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,297
AZ
Savin Hillbilly said:
Edes says Drew won't be back
 
Hardly a shock. Obviously this is still rumor not fact, but it sounds like somebody's pretty sure, and "a baseball source" makes it sound like that somebody isn't Boras (especially when Edes quotes Boras on the record in the same paragraph).
 
"A number of teams" interested me, though. The Mets and Cardinals are obvious, but "a number" sounds like more than two. Curious who the others are.
 
The way that article is written, it's almost like there was a last minute edit at the top with respect to Cherington, but then the bottom of the article wasn't edited accordingly.  This paragraph kind of appears out of nowhere as the sixth paragraph:
 
 
 
The departure of Drew would leave the Red Sox in need of infield depth on the left side, Cherington acknowledged. On paper, the Red Sox would start the season with rookieXander Bogaerts at shortstop and Will Middlebrooks at third base.
 
The "Cherington acknowledged" suggests Edes spoke to Cherrington (unless he's reporting something Boras said that Cherington said).  It's probably a little reckless to speculate that Cherington confirmed Drew wouldn't be back and then asked not to be attributed.  But that's sure how it reads.  Why would Cherington be acknowledging anything about the departure of Drew if he hadn't confirmed the departure of Drew?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
moondog80 said:
That's all true, but the bottom line is, whether it's justified or not, this has the potential to be a bad situation.  Plenty of people have held out to have contracts re-negotiated.  In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have a voidable 2014 instead of the bonus 2015 as the Sox' protection clause, because no matter what was agreed to 5 years previous, it's human nature that he'd be a bit resentful if it plays out that way.  And really...he had a shredded elbow but still took the ball because he was the best option the Sox had in a pennant race, was vilified beyond belief because, well, guys who need TJ surgery usually don't pitch like aces (but never used the elbow as an excuse), worked his butt off to come back and was a key part of a WS team?  I might be resentful too.
The premise of John Lackey, the guy who traveled with the team for a full year while injured, sitting at home and not pitching, while he was completely healthy... I mean, he might ask his agent to make this threat (though I doubt it), but it would be the emptiest threat ever in the whole history of empty threats. This would be right up there with when I tell my kid I'll bring them to school in their pajamas if they don't hurry up and get dressed.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
 
The way that article is written, it's almost like there was a last minute edit at the top with respect to Cherington, but then the bottom of the article wasn't edited accordingly.  This paragraph kind of appears out of nowhere as the sixth paragraph:
 
 
The "Cherington acknowledged" suggests Edes spoke to Cherrington (unless he's reporting something Boras said that Cherington said).  It's probably a little reckless to speculate that Cherington confirmed Drew wouldn't be back and then asked not to be attributed.  But that's sure how it reads.  Why would Cherington be acknowledging anything about the departure of Drew if he hadn't confirmed the departure of Drew?
 
Could be as simple as he asked him that if Drew goes elsewhere, won't that leave you with little depth on the left side?
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
 
The way that article is written, it's almost like there was a last minute edit at the top with respect to Cherington, but then the bottom of the article wasn't edited accordingly.  This paragraph kind of appears out of nowhere as the sixth paragraph:
 
 
The "Cherington acknowledged" suggests Edes spoke to Cherrington (unless he's reporting something Boras said that Cherington said).  It's probably a little reckless to speculate that Cherington confirmed Drew wouldn't be back and then asked not to be attributed.  But that's sure how it reads.  Why would Cherington be acknowledging anything about the departure of Drew if he hadn't confirmed the departure of Drew?
"Hey Ben, wouldn't Drew leaving leave you a little short on the left side?"

"Yeah, that's why God invented scrubs, jackass."
 

AZBlue

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 1, 2003
1,566
Phoenix, Airzona
Who would trade a top prospect for two years of John Lackey?  I think there are two possibilities.
 
1.  A team that has been out of the playoff picture and believes that Lackey would push them into the post season.  A team that also has redundancy at one or more positions where they have a movable top prospect.  A team where the GM or ownership is under serious pressure to end a post-season drought.
 
2.  A team that has been in the playoffs during many of the past 4-5 years and believes that it needs a No. 2 or No. 3 starting pitcher to be able to take the last step up to a World Series title...a team that is not in the AL East...a team that may see its window of opportunity in this cycle beginning to close.
 

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
AZBlue said:
Who would trade a top prospect for two years of John Lackey?  I think there are two possibilities.
 
1.  A team that has been out of the playoff picture and believes that Lackey would push them into the post season.  A team that also has redundancy at one or more positions where they have a movable top prospect.  A team where the GM or ownership is under serious pressure to end a post-season drought.
 
2.  A team that has been in the playoffs during many of the past 4-5 years and believes that it needs a No. 2 or No. 3 starting pitcher to be able to take the last step up to a World Series title...a team that is not in the AL East...a team that may see its window of opportunity in this cycle beginning to close.
It's too bad the Royales don't still have Will Myers.
 

The Best Catch in 100 Years

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
791
Kyrgyzstan
There wouldn't have to be a return as good as what TB got for Shields coming back (though that would be awesome) to convince me to deal Lackey. I mean, as bad as Myers/Odorizzi for Shields looked for the Royals, at least they got a guy not too far past 30 with not much of an injury history and a good track record beyond the previous season. Lackey for Myers/Odorizzi would have been one of the worst trades of all time. I'd be happy to deal Lackey for a promising youngster at a position of need who isn't on the Myers/Bogaerts/Buxton/Correa tier. Now, who could that be? Possibly a young catcher (those guys bust so often that I'm perfectly comfortable with having a bit of a stockpile, and Vazquez and Swihart are at least a year or two away anyway; not saying I'd do Lackey straight up for any of these guys but Hank Conger, Devin Mesoraco or--dare to dream--Yasmani Grandal would be an intriguing addition), OF or 1B.
 

ehaz

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2007
4,948
The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
There wouldn't have to be a return as good as what TB got for Shields coming back (though that would be awesome) to convince me to deal Lackey. I mean, as bad as Myers/Odorizzi for Shields looked for the Royals, at least they got a guy not too far past 30 with not much of an injury history and a good track record beyond the previous season. Lackey for Myers/Odorizzi would have been one of the worst trades of all time. I'd be happy to deal Lackey for a promising youngster at a position of need who isn't on the Myers/Bogaerts/Buxton/Correa tier. Now, who could that be? Possibly a young catcher (those guys bust so often that I'm perfectly comfortable with having a bit of a stockpile, and Vazquez and Swihart are at least a year or two away anyway; not saying I'd do Lackey straight up for any of these guys but Hank Conger, Devin Mesoraco or--dare to dream--Yasmani Grandal would be an intriguing addition), OF or 1B.
The Rockies were considering signing a catcher and moving Rosario to RF. Maybe he'd be expendable in a Lackey deal.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
To AZ Blue's list I will add

3. A team that for whatever reason has difficulty
attracting free agents, or must overpay to sign them. Lackey's cost over 2 years (with the option included) presents an inexpensive short term deal that should have real value in the trade market (especially in conjunction with the other two factors listed).
 

Wade Boggs Hair

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
1,418
Carlos Ruiz re-signs with Philadelphia for 3/$26M.
 
Faced with the prospect of losing their longtime catcher, Carlos Ruiz, to the Boston Red Sox, the Philadelphia Phillies agreed Monday to re-sign Ruiz to a three-year, $26-million contract, sources confirmed to ESPN.com.
 
The deal will pay Ruiz a salary of $8.5 million in each of the next three seasons, according to a source familiar with the contract. There is also a $4.5 million club option for the 2017 season or a $500,000 buyout.
 
Ruiz, who turns 35 in January, becomes the fourth-highest-paid catcher in baseball, with an average annual value of $8.67 million.
Only Buster Posey ($18.56 million), Yadier Molina ($15 million) and Miguel Montero ($12 million) are currently earning more at that position now that the Twins are shifting Joe Mauer from catcher to first base.
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9995925/philadelphia-phillies-re-sign-veteran-catcher-carlos-ruiz
 

LeoCarrillo

Do his bits at your peril
SoSH Member
Oct 13, 2008
10,396
Tim Hudson just got signed by the Giants. 2/23 per MLB network.


Giants will be spenders. Timmy and Zito crazycash off and apparently they pay off their ballpark in like 10 years. Meaning they pay off the sweet Silicon Valley wave of cash loans at low interest. Rough numbers, but their payroll could scale up to +20M very quickly.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Rudy Pemberton said:
What is a "setup type" reliever?
 
I interpret it to mean someone with the potential to be a shut-down 7th/8th inning guy but who hasn't established a long track record of being such so there is no premium to be paid.  Sort of like a guy with "closer stuff" who hasn't actually done a lot of closing.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
I interpret it to mean someone with the potential to be a shut-down 7th/8th inning guy but who hasn't established a long track record of being such so there is no premium to be paid.  Sort of like a guy with "closer stuff" who hasn't actually done a lot of closing.
 
I have been saying that if they build the bullpen this winter like they did last winter then that would be a logical target.  Last year they had Bailey, traded for Hanrahan, and signed Uehara.  Right now they have Uehara and Tazawa; they'll want a third one of roughly that caliber, then fill in with the Workman's of the world on the Pawtucket shuttle.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
xjack said:
If I were the Yankees, I'd rather have Brian Wilson close than Joe Nathan.
Wilson told the Yankees that he wont sign with them because of their beard rule
 

SemperFidelisSox

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2008
31,103
Boston, MA
Joaquin Benoit might be too expensive, but you'd have to think he would consider returning to a set up role if the price is right.

They could always buy low on Fernando Rodney and hope he finds some of that 2012 magic as a 7th/8th inning guy.
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,277
CT
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
I interpret it to mean someone with the potential to be a shut-down 7th/8th inning guy but who hasn't established a long track record of being such so there is no premium to be paid.  Sort of like a guy with "closer stuff" who hasn't actually done a lot of closing.
 
Edward Mujica......did a nice job closing for the Cards last season after Motte went down.  Established himself in a set-up role for a few seasons prior.  Just guessing that more established closers like Nathan, Wilson, Balfour will scoop up the closer jobs available this off season.  Mujica likely will have to return to a set-up role.......29 YO, made $3.2M last season.
 
3 Yr Avg:  70.1 IP, 61K, 11BB, 3.2 ERA, 1.00 WHIP
 

MoGator71

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,117
SaveBooFerriss said:
What is Buster Olney smoking?
 
He fantasizes a Lackey for Howie Kendrick trade in this column and says Kendrick could be a possibility for 1b if Napoli does not come back.
 
So, the Sox would be interested in trading an affordably, quality SP for a 5'10'' 1B with a 330 OBP and a 430 SLG.  Really???
 
http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/post/_/id/3859

 
Trumbo probably makes more sense, but I wouldn't trade Lackey for him and they wouldn't take Dempster for him, so I don't see a deal here.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
plucy said:
Steamer projects Bradley for 12 HR's to 14 for Ellsbury in 42 fewer PA's, slugging .016 lower. What does base running and defense have to do with corner power?
Yeah, Bradley and Ellsbury are probably a wash in terms of HR power. And while overall offensive performance will probably slip somewhat, power's the one thing that figures to improve, with Middlebrooks likely to get more playing time and Pedroia and Saltalamacchia bouncing back from low-HR seasons.
 
This could mean that they figure on not re-signing Salty and / or Napoli, I guess, in which case they probably take a power hit depending on the replacement.
 

BosRedSox5

what's an original thought?
Sep 6, 2006
1,471
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Look, I know that Ferrell is a smart guy. The organization respects him... but he's still just the manager. Whatever statements he might make regarding free agent moves or other team plans should be taken with a grain of salt.
 

rembrat

Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2006
36,345
You don't think John Farrell has input in the construction of, what ultimately is, his roster?
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,532
Providence, RI
rembrat said:
You don't think John Farrell has input in the construction of, what ultimately is, his roster?
 
I would be amazed if he didn't. He's worked in a front office before(Indians director of player development from 2001-2006) and I'm sure he's in all the conversations when it comes to roster moves.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,605
The Eastern Suburbs
BosRedSox5 said:
Look, I know that Ferrell is a smart guy. The organization respects him... but he's still just the manager. Whatever statements he might make regarding free agent moves or other team plans should be taken with a grain of salt.
 
You think he's 'just' the manager? You don't think there's a chance in this organisation that he's having these conversations and is on the same page as the front office?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
BosRedSox5 said:
 
No, not really. Managers rarely get much say. They may consider his input but he's not even in the room when these decisions are made.
 
Do you have more than your opinion to show that managers rarely get much say?