John Lackey in 2015 and beyond
- Thread starter Hank Scorpio
- Start date
Drek717 said:
I don't think the bolded is a fair way to look at it. Both sides signed a deal. If Lackey sucked or got hurt, they still owe him $15m. If he wins the Cy Young and is worth double that he still only gets $15m. Both parties assume risk in the deal. In 2012 the Sox' got stuck. Shit happens.
But that doesn't mean he shouldn't honor his contract for 2015. They're separate issues to me. He didn't enter into the contract blindly and if they don't work out an extension or a trade I really hope this doesn't become a distraction, because there's no reason it should.
Huh?Bone Chips said:
What leverage does Cherington have over Lester if Lester really wants to test the market? About as much as he had over Ellsbury.
As for Lackey, you're right; we have no idea if the team has discussed his contract, or plans to discuss it during the offseason. Nor is there any urgency to do so right now; Lackey is under contract for 2015.
If Cherington does have a plan to address both pitchers, why do you think he would eliminate any of his leverage and let the media and fans know about it now? Have you ever heard Bill Belichick discuss player contracts while under negotiation?
And, I'll add, again, that John Henry is a big boy with more financial saavy than most and thus knows exactly what that contract option was buying him. It was not buying him a well above average pitcher at league minimum in 2015. Sorry folks.Rudy Pemberton said:
It'd be nice if someone in the camp of "it's a contact, dammit" actually addressed the counterpoints being made in the thread.
I've shifted much more towards the "an short extension makes sense" camp but why do they have to address counter points? I'll concede that JH and co might have known it would come to this but this very clause is popping up in extensions now. I saw that Verlander has one in his extension and I'm almost certain that Felix does to so it's not like teams and players are completely opposed to the change the clause is creating.Plympton91 said:
That being said, it is still a contract signed. The Red Sox are well within in their rights to expect him to hold up his end of the contract, just like they are also able to rip it up and sign him to a new one. Unless there's something going on unreported, they held up their end and to simply suggest "well, they knew he'd never actually do it anyway" doesn't wave away that fact. Again, I think they sign a fair extension but the "it's a contract, dammit" camp has a pretty valid point IMO.
You know John Henry? Because I'm not sure how else you would know more than anyone else on this thread.Plympton91 said:
It's just as likely that the Sox FO was determined to buy 5 seasons of Lackey pitching at a relatively fixed cost, with the possibility that one of those seasons could get tacked on to the end. Lackey and his agent did agree to it.
While I give the chances of an extension around 50/50 (could be worth it just to avoid the media shitstorm that would result), the Sox hold more cards than you give them credit for in this instance.
The reason the counterpoints ought to be addressed is because to say they are irrelevant is to suggest that Henry and the FO don't understand the CBA.
I, like Plympton and several others, have a lot of trouble believing that.
I, like Plympton and several others, have a lot of trouble believing that.
I can't believe this thread is still alive.
Yes, the RS have the right to compel him legally to pitch for them in 2015, if he pitches for anyone. He also has the right to say he'll retire if they don't restructure the deal. That's why it was structured the way it was. They weren't represented by a couple of guys dragooned from night court. I am absolutely convinced that both parties knew it would likely come to this and they intended to preserve the standoff till the parties could reasses where they were in 2014.
It's 2014 and the dance has begun. Despite the protestations of injured innocence on the part of the RS, there will be negotiations. If they can't restructure, the RS can leave him to negotiate a more acceptable deal with someone other than the MFYs, contingent on the new team providing acceptable compensation. (Sound familiar?)
This site is populated by people with deep business experience but some posters insist on carrying on like Carrie Nation ranting about that old demon rum.
Yes, the RS have the right to compel him legally to pitch for them in 2015, if he pitches for anyone. He also has the right to say he'll retire if they don't restructure the deal. That's why it was structured the way it was. They weren't represented by a couple of guys dragooned from night court. I am absolutely convinced that both parties knew it would likely come to this and they intended to preserve the standoff till the parties could reasses where they were in 2014.
It's 2014 and the dance has begun. Despite the protestations of injured innocence on the part of the RS, there will be negotiations. If they can't restructure, the RS can leave him to negotiate a more acceptable deal with someone other than the MFYs, contingent on the new team providing acceptable compensation. (Sound familiar?)
This site is populated by people with deep business experience but some posters insist on carrying on like Carrie Nation ranting about that old demon rum.
Plympton91 said:
I've addressed some of them already in the thread*, so I won't repeat it again. But I think it's totally reasonable for the Red Sox to expect Lackey to pitch for 500k in 2015, and it's totally reasonable for Lackey to do so.
As to the "insanity" of extending Lackey now…. I don't think it's insane at all. It would be insane if they gave FA market value now. But there is always a middle ground. The Red Sox take on increased risk, Lackey takes less money in return. I think there is a reasonable 1 or 2 year extension to be made that can be tacked onto the 500k 2015 season (either now or in the offseason).
Edit: realized I think I talked about the contract more in other competing Lackey threads
Reverend said:
But again, the same basic clause is popping up in other contracts signed (not Verlander's, I misread a post). If this wasn't allowed in the CBA, in this very specific way,
It's completely confusing as to what exactly happens if Lackey sits out 2015 (Was there a definitive answer found?) but from what I've seen and read, it's not like they've done anything wrong.
I don't mean wrong in a moral sense. If the CBA had wording that took the teeth out of the clause by allowing Lackey to sit out in 2015 and come back in 2016 as a free agent, then yes, the FO probably went into the contract knowing that Lackey would not be pitching for $500K.Reverend said:
I don't think there has been a solid answer to whether or not that is the case and thus I used "wrong" because so far, I haven't seen anything to suggest the clause would be undone by the CBA.
EDIT: I would argue that its appearance in Felix Hernandez's extension would suggest that it's enforceable in some way but that's pretty much just conjecture on my part.
Did you read the text of Attachment 10 to the CBA posted and linked to up thread? To me, anyway, it's clear and definitive. If there's disagreement there, then the two sides here cannot meet because there is an empirical disagreement about the nature of the contract that means the sides are discoursing in different realms.MakMan44 said:
I would be interested to hear an argument that Attachment 10 doesn't clarify that Lackey would be a free agent in 2016, as I think it is clear. Also, the CBA IS, I believe, authoritative over the MLB rules I posted and that the reporter tweeted, as the rules exist under the CBA and it would be under the terms of the CBA that the matter would be resolved by an arbitrator or in court if t came to that (which I don't believe it will, because as per above, I believe all the parties involved understand the CBA).
No worries--I meant it as a serious non-snarky question in response to your raising the matter of whether or not there had been an answer.MakMan44 said:
That's what this place is good for: we hashed it out, and now, I think, understand the ground rules for future negotiations. Gotta read the whole thread though.
I'll be more careful in the future, in an effort to avoid repeating discussions.Reverend said:That's what this place is good for: we hashed it out, and now, I think, understand the ground rules for future negotiations. Gotta read the whole thread though.
With that out of the way, I do find it somewhat interesting that the Red Sox didn't extend him either before this season or during last season.
Bone Chips said:
You're basing your 'Ben whiffed' assumption on a single media report based on an anonymous source.
We don't know what is or isn't going on because that is Cherington's style. The $70 million 'lowball' narrative may be complete BS or (more likely, IMO) incomplete information, but this front office will not go public to refute it.
That is a big part of the value of the clause. They don't have to make a decision quickly. Lackey will pitch for them next year or not at all.MakMan44 said:
He *was* asked about it recently and deflected the question, which isn't the same as saying "yes" or "no". From what I gleaned his view is that they'll discuss an extension and it won't be an issue. Seems like one for the offseason more than anything, but I guess I wouldn't be shocked if something happened sooner.HillysLastWalk said:
chrisfont9 said:
Yes, exactly. He has not said, or hinted at, not playing for $500K next year.
And as I also mentioned, this is a media creation. Even Buster Olney admits as much
As with all of these over-hyped media creations, I already sense Jonh Lackey is getting "dinged" even though he's said, basically, nothing. And there's not a single person here or in the media that knows his thoughts on this matter.
This thread reminds me of a certain "landlord-tenant" thread elsewhere here. People who say that "Lackey signed a contract" seem to ignore that there is another contract in play here - the CBA.
It's funny - it seems that fans are much more receptive when management finds loopholes to help their team succeed (i.e., Millar) than when players find loopholes to help their case.
If I were Lackey, I'd pitch for the $500K, but mostly because I can't even begin to fathom how much money he has already made. However, at this point, Lackey appears to be well within his rights to sit out a year, let the contract go away, and then try to come back and find someone else to pitch for.
It's funny - it seems that fans are much more receptive when management finds loopholes to help their team succeed (i.e., Millar) than when players find loopholes to help their case.
If I were Lackey, I'd pitch for the $500K, but mostly because I can't even begin to fathom how much money he has already made. However, at this point, Lackey appears to be well within his rights to sit out a year, let the contract go away, and then try to come back and find someone else to pitch for.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Can you explain what you're referring to in the first line? Yes, there's a CBA and it allows Lackey to sit out a year and become a FA after 2015- at least according to how several of us interpret the agreement. But no one has claimed that Lackey is forced to play or that he has to do anything other than decide whether to pitch for Boston or retire.
To your second point, it's completely correct. But that's because people root for teams, not players. I don't think this view is surprising at all.
glennhoffmania said:
Basically trying to say (not well apparently) what you said. People who are saying that because Lackey has a "contractual agreement" he should pitch in 2015 seem to neglect the fact that another contractual agreement appears to allow Lackey to sit out 2015.
If Lackey chose to sit out, Id be hard-pressed to fault him even from a moral POV. In fact, he may have agreed to that clause only because he knew that he had this option.
It seems like the better way to write the clause would have been to add another year and prorate the $15.75 owed ($15.25M + 500K) over the last two years. OTOH, that may not be allowable from a union point of view.
He has no incentive to sit. I suppose sitting could help force a trade, but that's really it. Otherwise, he gets $500k less than he gets for playing and sits around feeling miserable instead of playing baseball, which he actually seems to enjoy. Moreover, without an extension Lackey will be angling for another big-ish contract (3x18m??) and can do that much more effectively by pitching than by sitting.
In theory, but IMHUI (U is for uninformed), if they get to spring training without an extension, then Lackey is just playing a walk year and his future with the Sox is 2015 or nothing. I can't imagine a scenario where he sits out, and then they sign him to a big extension. I suppose Lester's whereabouts would inform this decision though.Rudy Pemberton said:
chrisfont9 said:
If Lackey and the Red Sox are unable to agree on an extension, Lackey has to weigh the risk of playing for $500K in 2015 and getting injured, or just sucking, versus the risk of negotiating a new contract in 2016 after sitting out the year. That doesn't seem like a completely clear choice one way or the other.
chrisfont9 said:
Lester for sure, but also Buchholz's health/effectiveness and perhaps Doubront's as well. If those three guys are returning after strong showings in the second half of this season, I would think the Sox would be far less pressured to do whatever it takes to have Lackey back in the rotation. The fourth and fifth spots could arguably go to any two of Workman, De La Rosa, Webster, Ranaudo, Barnes, or Wright with Owens still in the pipeline as well.
Which is why any talk of the Red Sox or Lackey needing to take any action regarding 2015 before, say, October is foolhardy at best.
It doesn't to me, but then, I'm highly risk averse. If he sits out 2015 he'll sign a minimum of a 2 year, $20 million contract. If he pitches well in 2015, he might get 3X$16; if he gets hurt, his career is over for $500k. Easy decision.chrisfont9 said:
Exactly. On top of that, it was reported back in this thread that $500K only nets out to an actual salary for Lackey (after agent's fees, union dues and clubhouse expenses) of about $265K. At that dollar amount I think it's a no-brainer to sit for a year rather than risk injury and losing out on $15 to $50 million of future earning potential. The Red Sox have very little leverage here, which is why I'm a little surprised at some of the talk coming from Ben saying that he expects Lackey to play next year for $500K. I know it's posturing and all that, but I'd prefer him to just dodge the questions entirely and not rile up the fan base against Lackey.tomdeplonty said:
Plympton91 said:
I think it would be an easy decision if he were younger. But the fact that he'd be sitting out what must be one of his last few years of his career might change the calculation. That's why I think it's hard to predict what he'll do, if they reach an impasse on the extension.
It seems to me that those folks arguing in favour of the view the Lackey will sit out the year .. and not honouring his contract .. Don't seem to have any kind of negative view on what this seems to say of Lackey's character .. Or complete lack of professional responsibilities.
(Bearing in mind that this is completely hypothetical at this point)
In my view what team would want a guy like that .. who willingly signs a contract .. And already has benefited greatly from it despite not even pitching for a year (not to mention the greater renumeration due to that clause) And then turns around and does a fake retirement to dodge his responsibilities.
The Sox would be completely in the right if they completely blackened his name.
(Bearing in mind that this is completely hypothetical at this point)
In my view what team would want a guy like that .. who willingly signs a contract .. And already has benefited greatly from it despite not even pitching for a year (not to mention the greater renumeration due to that clause) And then turns around and does a fake retirement to dodge his responsibilities.
The Sox would be completely in the right if they completely blackened his name.
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I wouldn't take a negative view on Lackey sitting, myself. I assume both parties had first-rate lawyers, who thoroughly explained the moves available to each side in different scenarios, including one where the Red Sox exercise the option, and Lackey sits, because the CBA allows for that. And after all the explanations, both sides signed the contract.
Most of those folks think nothing of the kind and think that this is about an initial bargaining position to begin negotiations and that all the smart, well-informed people who were in the room when it was signed understood this.BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
This is not a morality play.
The other scenario to consider here is that the Sox would threaten to go after some of Lackey's contract money for prior years if he refuses to honor the option. They would argue, correctly I believe most lawyers around here would agree, that the consideration for the the current contract included his playing the option year at the contractual price if the condition precedent was satisfied (which it was), and if he walks away from the option and tries to play in MLB again that he'd owe them some of the value of the initial contract back. He certainly can retire at any time, which no one seems to be disputing...it's trying to play again where the issue arises, I imagine.
Larry Lucchino, lest we forget, was a world class litigator once upon a time...he's not going to miss an angle here. I agree with the many who have said that this will all be negotiated away (it's really in neither parties interest to go nuclear here) but I think both also have weapons to deploy in the negotiation, even if we never hear about all of them being used. The Sox argument would be that they wouldn't have signed the deal without that option, and the negotiation likely is at worst ambiguous on this point, and thus they'll argue that Lackey's choice is roughly to pay back 1/5 of the contract (which can be debated, but the most likely way it would fall is that the elbow injury was valued at 1 season by both sides, thus the minimum salary option), play for $500k in 2015, or retire permanently.
My guess? If Lackey is good the rest of the way the Sox sign him to something like a 2/$18m or 3/$30 mil extension this offseason that reflects a material discount, but also a big raise on Lackey's alternative scenario.
Larry Lucchino, lest we forget, was a world class litigator once upon a time...he's not going to miss an angle here. I agree with the many who have said that this will all be negotiated away (it's really in neither parties interest to go nuclear here) but I think both also have weapons to deploy in the negotiation, even if we never hear about all of them being used. The Sox argument would be that they wouldn't have signed the deal without that option, and the negotiation likely is at worst ambiguous on this point, and thus they'll argue that Lackey's choice is roughly to pay back 1/5 of the contract (which can be debated, but the most likely way it would fall is that the elbow injury was valued at 1 season by both sides, thus the minimum salary option), play for $500k in 2015, or retire permanently.
My guess? If Lackey is good the rest of the way the Sox sign him to something like a 2/$18m or 3/$30 mil extension this offseason that reflects a material discount, but also a big raise on Lackey's alternative scenario.
Rudy Pemberton said:
As I said above:
The facts of Dempster's deal are completely different---what makes the claim against Lackey viable is that they bargained specifically for this below-market option as a way to hedge risk he'd have an elbow injury...which he then had. SImply put, as a matter of contract law, you can't take the consideration you are owed and then walk away from a material portion of the consideration you promised. There'd be a debate about whether the option was material, and while that would get very factually-specific (and has near-zero chance of actually being litigated) it's quite credible to argue it is and thus I'd expect it to have real impact on the negotiation.
Even in the remote scenario where something like suing Lackey could even be entertained, I don't think the Red Sox would do it. It would look incredibly petty, and would certainly impact the way other FAs (and extension candidates) look at them.Rudy Pemberton said:
Rudy Pemberton said:
There is no prior precedent that is remotely similar that I am aware of---'precedent' in law is all about the facts. Is there another case where a negotiated below-market option came into play?
Just to be clear: there's a huge difference between noting this is an option and using it as part of a broader discussion of Lackey's contract (which I can imagine Sox doing) and actually suing the guy (which, as I said before, I cannot imagine them doing here)
PedroKsBambino said:
I agree with the last part of your post. And there's not a reason in the world for the Red Sox to do this before Lackey gets through the season without further injury. (If he suffers a career ending line-drive to the knee this September, there's no reason why the Sox would want to pay him out in 2015 and 2016.)
Both sides have some leverage. Lackey could decide to retire for one year, at which point the Sox would need to find a replacement in the rotation. The downside for Lackey is that he's got about 3 more years of high earning potential, and losing one of those years would likely also impact what he would get when he "unretires".
I don't disagree that there's a middle ground to be had here; the Sox likely have a chance to get him back for 2 more years at less than full FA market value, if they so desire.
But there's no reason for the team to do anything right now. Let's see how Lackey's surgically repaired elbow holds up first.
I don't disagree that there's a middle ground to be had here; the Sox likely have a chance to get him back for 2 more years at less than full FA market value, if they so desire.
But there's no reason for the team to do anything right now. Let's see how Lackey's surgically repaired elbow holds up first.