Pretend You're the GM…and the Sox are Sellers

jimv · May 18, 2014

If Lackey continues to pitch the way he has since TJ surgery, combined with his low cost for the 2015 season, he's a valuable chip. Everyone's always looking for pitching, a good starter with post season experience at short money - that's got to be worth something

Toe Nash · May 18, 2014

Neat thread idea, though somewhat depressing.

I think if you're planning to compete in 2015, which they are, they have to stand pat for the most part. I think Lester is an integral part of that so you don't move him. I guess an idea would be to trade him somewhere who you think won't extend him and look to re-sign him as an FA, but I doubt Lester would like that too much and there's a lot of ifs involved as most teams could probably find the money for him if they wanted.

The problem is that there are a lot of potential guys to trade, but if the team is selling that probably means most of them are still injured or struggling and have low value. This would apply to Peavy, Victorino, Middlebrooks, and Buchholz. You'd be selling low so in most cases it probably makes sense just to keep them around.

Lackey and Doubront are pretty important for their salary levels too, so I don't think you deal them unless you LOVE what the prospects have done this year (and even then).

The core of Bogaerts, Ortiz, Pedroia is pretty untouchable. Bradley, Jr, too -- if he doesn't start hitting it's going to be selling low, so just send him down to AAA and hope he can get going again.

Uehara is interesting. You could probably replace him adequately with Miller or Taz and going forward he is going to have less and less value, so I think you might get something nice from desperate team. He would be the main guy I'd try to deal, as much as I like him.

Overall there's just not a lot to do unless you give up on competing next year too (or compete with a vastly different group of players) and that seems like a mistake.

Red(s)HawksFan · May 18, 2014

I think if you are in a position to sell at the trade deadline, the ideal guys to move are the ones for which there is a replacement in Pawtucket or Portland that could be moved up and given time to learn on the job in August/September. Peavy falls into that category for sure since you can really take your pick of the Pawtucket rotation to bring up in his place. Either or both of Pierzynski and Ross can be moved to make room for Vazquez and/or Butler. Gomes could be shipped out with Brentz and/or Hassan taking his place. They may not be starters of the future, but if the season's lost, might as well go whole hog with a youth movement to finish the season.

It certainly isn't a season to blow things up and trade away pieces that have a future with the team beyond 2014, and I'd put Lester on that list even with his deal expiring and I'd put Lackey on that list even at his age.

I can't see this team falling far enough out to consider this tack though. There's too much parity in the division and the league in general (Tigers excepted) to think they can't stay close enough to potentially be buyers in July rather than sellers.

jimv · May 18, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
With Lester and Peavy free agents, I don't see how you could consider trading Lackey. Next years rotation is sketchy enough as is.

Frankly, there is so much parity this year that I have a hard time envisioning the Sox as sellers. But if they were- Uehara, Gomes, and Peavy seem like pieces most likely to be moved that could actually bring back value.

That being said, what exactly do the Sox need in return? 1B and OF prospects?

You are correct, the future rotation is unclear at best, but Lester would be a far better veteran anchor (plus he's a home grown product and familiar to the most casual fans) so he would be my choice to sign and keep. Lackey on the other hand.....

YTF · May 18, 2014

Lester of course would net the largest return even as a rental. Would rather resign him, unless the team sucks so badly we're looking at a fairly big rebuild. If Peavey continues to pitch as he has so far, he and Koji may hold a broader appeal to the quantity of teams looking to shore up the 4-5 spots in the rotation or bullpen. I would prefer to hang on to Koji unless again we're looking at this being a several year rebuild. Capuano, Miller and AJ can all step in and impact a team and hold value. Again bullpens need to be shored up and it's only a matter of time before someone has a catcher go down and can use the experience and bat of a guy like AJP. Victorino IF healthy, holds value as a 3-4 outfielder, top of the order type guy, pinch runner, experienced veteran sort. I think Middlebrooks' biggest value is as an added player (hate to think of him as a throw in just yet) and his future may be limited here anyway. Same with Buchholz. Hoping he's seen as still having enough there so that while teams aren't going to look at him as a feature piece, he should still hold enough interest as a sweetener to a potential deal. Don't want to give up on Bradley just yet, but his potential and being cost controlled for some time is as big of an appeal to other teams as it is to the Sox. Agree with keeping Ortiz, Perdroia and Borgaerts. Another guy I want the Sox to hang onto would be Ross. He holds value as well, but for what the Sox might get for him I would rather he returned to work with the whichever of Vasquez or Swihart gets the call next season.

Usually you want to prevent from trading within the division, but if you're out of it and supplying just a one year rental, does it matter if you're getting a useful piece in return? As for Lester I believe you have to get several potential core players including an impact bat at corner outfield. And I would also begin pushing him well before the trade deadline. Yes competition for him may be at it's peak the closer you get to it, but more teams may feel they have a legit shot if he's on their roster sooner. If were talking the team being "well out" of contention by mid July, then the writing may be on the wall before then. Start asking teams, do you want 2 months of Lester or 3? My guess most would rather 3 and that may bring a little more in return.

Traut · May 18, 2014

You probably trade Peavy and otherwise sit tight. The Boston Red Sox should try and keep Lester. They are a better team with him. I may try and dump some salary with Peavy (Pierzynski, Sizemore). Otherwise, I sit tight and play the young guys when the rosters expand. No reason to do much else.

Red(s)HawksFan · May 18, 2014

jimv said:
You are correct, the future rotation is unclear at best, but Lester would be a far better veteran anchor (plus he's a home grown product and familiar to the most casual fans) so he would be my choice to sign and keep. Lackey on the other hand.....

The thing is, Lackey can be brought back for absolute dirt cheap next year. Obviously he's not the cornerstone for the next 4-5 years that Lester could be, but he is definitely an ideal pitcher to have in the rotation in the short term to allow the likes of Ranaudo, Barnes, and Owens to break into the majors at their own pace rather than having a rotation spot thrust upon them.

jimv · May 18, 2014

Red(s)HawksFan said:
The thing is, Lackey can be brought back for absolute dirt cheap next year. Obviously he's not the cornerstone for the next 4-5 years that Lester could be, but he is definitely an ideal pitcher to have in the rotation in the short term to allow the likes of Ranaudo, Barnes, and Owens to break into the majors at their own pace rather than having a rotation spot thrust upon them.

Which increases his value. If you're trading one and keeping one - Lester is the keeper

NoXInNixon · May 18, 2014

To me the most obvious move is to first make Lester your last, best offer for an extension and if he doesn't accept, trade him for the best prospect you can get, preferably a power hitter.

Someone will probably overpay for Koji, so that seems like another no-brainer.

Outside of that, there isn't a whole lot that another team would give up a lot for. I might trade away Peavy along with Lester, not necessarily to make the team better directly, but to free up one more rotation spot so we can have more tryouts for the 2015 rotation from the young guys. If we're not going to punt on 2015 along with 2014, it's useful to find out at last how many guys in Pawtucket will be able to contribute in Boston next year.

HomeRunBaker · May 18, 2014

You guys are absolutely out of your mind if you think Lackey is going to pitch next year for the league minimum. His is a contract that is certain to be restructured into a lucrative multi-year deal and i expext both sides recognize such. The question is how long do you go?

Rasputin · May 18, 2014

HomeRunBaker said:
You guys are absolutely out of your mind if you think Lackey is going to pitch next year for the league minimum. His is a contract that is certain to be restructured into a lucrative multi-year deal and i expext both sides recognize such. The question is how long do you go?

I don't go anywhere. He plays out his contract and leaves as a free agent. Unless you can't bring Lester back, I'm not sure why you would do otherwise.

MakMan44 · May 18, 2014

HomeRunBaker said:
You guys are absolutely out of your mind if you think Lackey is going to pitch next year for the league minimum. His is a contract that is certain to be restructured into a lucrative multi-year deal and i expext both sides recognize such. The question is how long do you go?

Yeah. First off, I'm with Ras. I'd rather have Lester and go with the pitching depth in the minors.

Secondly, this conversation has been had before. I still don't see why the Sox would restructure the deal.

CaptainLaddie · May 18, 2014

You really think so? I mean, he signed that deal.

MakMan44 · May 18, 2014

CaptainLaddie said:
You really think so? I mean, he signed that deal.

Sorry, is it directed towards me?

EDIT: I don't think so but doesn't hurt to check.

WenZink · May 18, 2014

Given all the flaws in their AL East competitors, it's difficult to see how the Sox could fall completely out of contention by mid-July, but if that should happen, there's no doubt that Jon Lester will be the piece that's dangled. If they couldn't/wouldn't come to terms with him in the glow of a 2013 WS championship, how can we expect that a deal gets done after a disappointing season? If Lester goes to FA, he'll already bring a 1st round pick in return, so the price will be high. He's also earned a reputation as a superior, post-season performer, so he'll have enormous appeal to a team headed for October. Not to mention if you can trade Lester to a team with sufficient resources, they might be able to sign him and keep him from going to the Yankees.

And I could also see Lackey bringing back more than his value to a small market team, like the Marlins or KC, who find themselves in the thick of it, need a post-season stud, but don't want to add payroll for 2015.

The Sox just have to target prospects in other systems and make an offer. They also have the advantage of having a surplus of their own prospects, so they can always throw one of their own kids into the package, along with Lackey or Lester, in order to make a significant upgrade.

I don't know what the Sox do for pitching in 2015, but given the fact that they offered Lester 4/$70, I assume they have something else in mind. I hope.

MakMan44 · May 18, 2014

I can buy that but he signed that contract in good faith and it would be really low of him to do that. That being said, baseball is a business and I can understand that tactic.

WenZink · May 18, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
Lackey signed that deal, sure, but with Lester and Peavy as free agents and Buchholz and Doubront not looking like aces, he's potentially got some leverage. Were I his agent, I'd let the team know John is thinking about retirement and / or spending next year with his kids.

Taking a year off doesn't get him off the hook. And if he bluffs retirement, then I hope the Sox call it and have the Dentist plan a "John Lackey Day" the last home stand of the season. I assume John is working towards his "twilight contract," the one that gets him to his golden years. So there's nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by going into 2015 with an attitude and lack of motivation. It's unlikely that he has cash-flow problems and will have to live on Spaghetti-O's while getting by on the league minimum for 2015. If he pitches well in 2015, he'll be in the running for a 4/56 contract.

Red(s)HawksFan · May 18, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
Taking a year off does get him off the hook, he just forfeits the one year at a minimum salary. It forces the Sox to spend a ton of money to replace him. He's in the drivers seat here, and anyone who expects him to play on a 1 year deal at 5-10% of his value, as a 35+ year old veteran, just because he signed the deal, seems naive to me.

So you're saying he'll take the Dempster route, and elect to go on the restricted list for the year (and get paid nothing) rather than suffer the indignation of pitching for a year at 3% of his previous year's salary?

I'm not sure it forces the Sox to spend any extra to replace him when they've got a rotation's worth of starters at AAA who could take his spot for less than they'd be paying him. Optimal? No. But I don't think the Sox are over a barrel in terms of having to renegotiate with him either.

geoduck no quahog · May 18, 2014

Isn't Mookie the most tradeable piece in the organization right now? Along with Some of the AAA pitchers and Owens?

You don't get value in return unless you give up value.

And then pay more for it.

DennyDoyle'sBoil · May 18, 2014

I think Lackey and the Sox could, if they each are reasonable, turn the situation into a win-win. Commitments for the Sox next year are low. It would be nice to try to spread Lackey's cost savings next year into future years. Pulling numbers out of nowhere, let's say you would be willing to commit $16m a year for a pitcher of Lackey's quality and age in 2016 and 2017. Maybe you throw a few extra million at him in order to take a bigger hit in 2015 when you have the money to spend, in order to get extra value in the two following years. So, maybe you extend him for 3/35. Now, you tack on about $11m to your 2015 luxury tax number, but you get a pitcher you value at $16m for a luxury tax hit of $11.67m in 2016 and 2017. You basically spend $1m extra the next three years to spread next year's $15 million savings over three years.

WenZink · May 18, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
Taking a year off does get him off the hook, he just forfeits the one year at a minimum salary. It forces the Sox to spend a ton of money to replace him. He's in the drivers seat here, and anyone who expects him to play on a 1 year deal at 5-10% of his value, as a 35+ year old veteran, just because he signed the deal, seems naive to me.

I don't think it does get him off the hook. Just a quick look at the current CBA[p85](and I'm not a lawyer, or even play one on tv) states, "A Club may also reserve, under separate headings on a Reserve List, Players who properly have been placed on the Voluntarily Retired List..." It's possible I'm not interpreting this correctly, but if I am, does that mean a player can sign a contract with the deal loaded up-front, collect the big money in the early years, and then "retire" for the last "low-money" year of a deal and then re-enter the FA market after he "un-retires?"

WenZink · May 18, 2014

geoduck no quahog said:
Isn't Mookie the most tradeable piece in the organization right now? Along with Some of the AAA pitchers and Owens?

You don't get value in return unless you give up value.

And then pay more for it.

Mookie has huge trade value, but not as part of a trade-deadline "sell-off." The buyers at the deadline are looking for experienced performers that get them over the hump and through the playoffs. Betts doesn't fit the description. He's a huge piece if/when the Sox are not sellers but buyers this year.

radsoxfan · May 18, 2014

DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
I think Lackey and the Sox could, if they each are reasonable, turn the situation into a win-win. Commitments for the Sox next year are low. It would be nice to try to spread Lackey's cost savings next year into future years. Pulling numbers out of nowhere, let's say you would be willing to commit $16m a year for a pitcher of Lackey's quality and age in 2016 and 2017. Maybe you throw a few extra million at him in order to take a bigger hit in 2015 when you have the money to spend, in order to get extra value in the two following years. So, maybe you extend him for 3/35. Now, you tack on about $11m to your 2015 luxury tax number, but you get a pitcher you value at $16m for a luxury tax hit of $11.67m in 2016 and 2017. You basically spend $1m extra the next three years to spread next year's $15 million savings over three years.

I think this is the likely scenario, though I'm not sure I would "throw a few extra million at him" for any reason. Assuming he is healthy at the end of this year and performing well, I think 15AAV is pretty reasonable on an extension. I'd probably offer to rip up his minimum year and give him a 3/30 contract. I could see an argument that given his age and the risk of committing to him a year in the future, something more like 3/24 (essentially 12 AAV on the 2 extension years) is more reasonable.

If they just can't come to terms, I'd expect the Red Sox to keep Lackey on his minimum deal and Lackey to begrudgingly pitch next year.

As to trading Lackey, I very much doubt it unless another team really values that contract next year and gives up a ton.

bosockboy · May 18, 2014

This seems like a thread that wouldn't exist if they were 22-20 instead of 20-22.

No one is running away with this division.

The Gray Eagle · May 18, 2014

In this scenario, Pierzynski should be the first one dumped.

Actually, in pretty much any scenario, he should be the first one dumped. We wouldn't get anything good for him and would probably have to eat some money to move him. I'd still be in favor of it. I'd be in favor of it right now actually.

If we were sellers, which is extremely unlikely, Peavy would also be dumped.

We'd probably have to throw in money to move Mujica. It'd be better to DL him instead if we could and try again next year with him.

Some teams wold be willing to give us a little something to get that Gomes playoff mojo.

If we are like 5 games out of the wild card around the deadline, I could see us dumping Peavy and AJ and promoting Vazquez and a Pawtucket pitcher to replace them, which wouldn't be a fire sale or anything, just an attempt to see if the young players could give us a boost while hopefully picking up something halfway interesting for Peavy.

Reverend · May 19, 2014

Part of the problem with the idea of the Red Sox being sellers is that they would need to be sellers without appearing to be sellers. I mean, the last time anyone in the FO said anything that gave an inkling that they didn't expect to be a contender for a season, the fan base flipped out and the team dropped eleventy bajillion dollars on Carl Crawford to appease them. And that sucked.

Even if they were willing to admit to being in a bridge year, though, seller usually means selling something good. It doesn't mean selling off players like Peavy because because if the guys like Peavy were performing well enough to sell, well, then the team wouldn't be in the position of needing to be a seller, right? At this point, you'd only be able to sell Peavy for anything if you could find a GM who had never even heard of FIP.

Edit: Corrected "eleventy jazillion" to "eleventy bajillion."

ivanvamp · May 19, 2014

It is now May 19, and we are 43 games into the season. I can't decide if I am officially worried about this year's team or not.

I am worried because...

- The offense simply cannot score runs. 11th in the AL in runs. 9th in OPS. 12th in SLG. 15th in SB%. 10th in OPS+. 10th in avg with RISP.

- The young kids have all kinds of potential, but they're just not getting it done, especially offensively: JBJ (0 hr, 9 rbi, 66 ops+), Middlebrooks (2 hr, 9 rbi, 74 ops+), Bogaerts (2 hr, 6 rbi, 106 ops+). That's 4 homers and 24 rbi *combined* with a combined OPS+ well under 100.

- Only 5 regulars have an OPS+ over 100 (Napoli, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Gomes, Ortiz). So, including Carp, Ross, and Sizemore, that's more than half the regulars are wielding an OPS+ that is below average. Only two regulars (Napoli and Ortiz) have an OPS+ higher than 107.

- The starting pitching is coming back to earth. Lester has been terrific, but Buchholz has been bad pretty much all year. Lackey has gone through a stretch where he's been relatively poor. Doubront is inconsistent and sports an era of 4.54. And Peavy has been pretty luck and even still has gotten drilled lately, and his era is up to 4.33.

- The bullpen, which was great to start the year, has struggled some. Uehara is always very, very good. But he's not absolutely lights-out like he was last year (and NOBODY expected he would be, but still…it's a drop off in performance). Miller, Capuano, and Taz have all been terrific over the course of the year, but Miller struggled in Milwaukee, and Capuano has a 5.63 era in 8 May appearances.

I am not worried because...

- It's only May 19. Yes, 43 games in the books, but 119 still to go.

- They are just 3 games out of first place. And the division doesn't seem to be able to produce a runaway winner.

- They have talented players.

- The kids are getting valuable experience and I hope that as they mature this season, the offense will improve.

- They have an embarrassment of riches in both money and prospects should they decide to add a piece or two, either internally or via trade.

- They have a sound organizational philosophy.

- Regression to the mean should be a favorable thing for the Sox moving forward.

- It's only May 19.

- And they're only out 3 games.

Tyrone Biggums · May 19, 2014

Trautwein's Degree said:
You probably trade Peavy and otherwise sit tight. The Boston Red Sox should try and keep Lester. They are a better team with him. I may try and dump some salary with Peavy (Pierzynski, Sizemore). Otherwise, I sit tight and play the young guys when the rosters expand. No reason to do much else.

This is correct. I would honestly also look at trading Koji it the Sox are sellers. This is a big IF. Honestly the Sox are only 4 games out and it can't get any worse. I'd be looking to bring up Cecchini or Betts as a spark right now. Bring up De La Rosa and deal Doubront. Team needs a spark and De La Rosa has looked like a revelation for the most part in Pawtucket.

Reverend · May 19, 2014

Interesting point. If the Red Sox decided they were out of competition this season and estimated that they would not be willing to give Lester a deal he would accept, then it would absolutely make sense to deal him to a contender. Of course, all hell would break loose...

But yes, it's an interesting point. Very interesting. Hmm.

ALiveH · May 19, 2014

One issue with being a "seller" is that implies we get back some minor league talent. Don't we have plenty of that already, and if you got more, which positions would you target? The biggest need I see is somebody who can mash & more pitching b/c you can never have enough. Seems like we have all the up-the-middle positions and high OBP (at least in the minors even if it's not translating to guys in the majors yet) pretty well covered with prospects.

mfried · May 19, 2014

Tyrone Biggums said:
This is correct. I would honestly also look at trading Koji it the Sox are sellers. This is a big IF. Honestly the Sox are only 4 games out and it can't get any worse. I'd be looking to bring up Cecchini or Betts as a spark right now. Bring up De La Rosa and deal Doubront. Team needs a spark and De La Rosa has looked like a revelation for the most part in Pawtucket.

Damn: Koji is one of the few players that shows energy and spark on the time. I actually look forward to seeing him. Yesterday's garden-variety 6-2 loss was truly desultory, and Koji is never desultory. De La Rosa-Doubront is an idea, as are Cecchini-Betts. I would consider trading Lackey to a contender for a decent prospect, and creating space on the roster for the minor leaguers.

chrisfont9 · May 19, 2014

Trautwein's Degree said:
You probably trade Peavy and otherwise sit tight. The Boston Red Sox should try and keep Lester. They are a better team with him. I may try and dump some salary with Peavy (Pierzynski, Sizemore). Otherwise, I sit tight and play the young guys when the rosters expand. No reason to do much else.

Yeah, I think Peavy is not a qualifying offer candidate, so flipping him is a no-brainer. Someone will pay a bit for his pedigree, and we would (in this scenario) get two months of low-leverage major league starts from Barnes or maybe Rubby.

Gomes should get sent to a contender too, since he comes with that "winner" label that people overreact to. I wouldn't mind seeing what Brentz could do in 100 ABs. I doubt there's a market at all for Carp, but I'd ask around regardless. Find a way to get Cecchini a few ABs. Betts too maybe but in the scenario where I am GM, I'd push that off til next year.

I'd certainly explore the market for Buchholz, but suspect it's too depressed to make a move.

There was a recent article somewhere talking about how the Cardinals had a useful tendency to break in their SP prospects in ML relief roles. It might be worth clearing out a roster spot in the pen (Mujica?) to see what Rubby could to, or Webster, or maybe even Owens in September.

dbn · May 19, 2014

I'm taking this thread as I think it was intended: a complete hypothetical. I suspect the division will be close enough all season long that the Red Sox will not be sellers.

Even in the hypothetical, they intend to compete in 2015, so I'd only consider players who are free agents at the end of this season.

Lester: no. Trading him would probably make it more difficult to sign him for 2015-
Peavey: of course.
Dempster: of course, but worthless.
Gomes: no. He probably wouldn't return enough to justify the clubhouse impact.
Pierzynski: of course in spades.
Ross: no because you've traded Pierzynski.
Uehara: maybe. I'd rather try to get him to re-sign on a year-to-year thing. He seems to like it here. The only reason I'd consider trading him is that he'd probably bring a nice return.
Capuano: why not?
Miller: I'd like to re-sign him but would trade him if the right offer came along.
Sizemore: see above, Miller.

Other non-2014 FAs:
Carp: yes, likely no place on team going forward.
Herrera: if he'd bring something, sure, but he wouldn't.

Any other non-2014 FAs are beyond the scope of this thread, IMO. Of course you'd trade player X or prospect Y if the right deal was there, but this thread is about going into "seller" mode.

Plympton91 · May 19, 2014

Why do you want to resign Sizemore?

Uehara is interesting. What would it take to bring him back? Would he be worth hanging a QO and overpaying 1 year to make sure he doesn't go anywhere and avoid a multiyear commitment? Would you go 2 years? 3 years? Would another team?

dbn · May 19, 2014

Plympton91 said:
Why do you want to resign Sizemore?

Uehara is interesting. What would it take to bring him back? Would he be worth hanging a QO and overpaying 1 year to make sure he doesn't go anywhere and avoid a multiyear commitment? Would you go 2 years? 3 years? Would another team?

Sizemore: perhaps not. The combination of their lack of any impact OF, and that I'm still hopeful that he's going to shake off the rust and do good things (at the plate at least) has me partial to him. By the trade deadline, I may (probably?) will feel differently. I'll amend my statement to include "if the Sizemore experiment starts to show signs of success...".

Uehara: I'm hoping that he likes being a Red Sox enough, and realizes that he is in the twilight of his career (an amazing twilight, but still the twilight), that he'd listen to reasonable year-to-year extension offers before he hits FA. That doesn't answer your questions, though.

yep · May 20, 2014

RE: the Lackey stuff...

Given perfectly-rational economic actors, in a clinical sense: Lackey would refuse to pitch in 2015 without a contract-restructuring, and the Red Sox (or acquiring team) would in turn offer enough to get him back on the mound. Contracts are worth the paper they're written on, and sunk costs are sunk costs.

In the real world, front-office management is a game of people and personalities. Lackey might or might not place some moral or "brand" value on retroactively "earning his contract". Whatever contract he might secure in 2016 or beyond will surely be better if he pitches well in the majors in 2015, than if he takes the year off out of spite. Similarly for the Red Sox or any acquiring team, his real value in 2015 is likely to be greater than his contract-value. A lawyer might argue about the sanctity of the contract, but an economist (or club-manager) is best-served by looking at real cost/performance. 10:1, the deal is re-structured, unless Lackey insists (for moral or market reasons) on seeing it through.

Plympton91 · May 20, 2014

yep said:
RE: the Lackey stuff...

Given perfectly-rational economic actors, in a clinical sense: Lackey would refuse to pitch in 2015 without a contract-restructuring, and the Red Sox (or acquiring team) would in turn offer enough to get him back on the mound. Contracts are worth the paper they're written on, and sunk costs are sunk costs.

In the real world, front-office management is a game of people and personalities. Lackey might or might not place some moral or "brand" value on retroactively "earning his contract". Whatever contract he might secure in 2016 or beyond will surely be better if he pitches well in the majors in 2015, than if he takes the year off out of spite. Similarly for the Red Sox or any acquiring team, his real value in 2015 is likely to be greater than his contract-value. A lawyer might argue about the sanctity of the contract, but an economist (or club-manager) is best-served by looking at real cost/performance. 10:1, the deal is re-structured, unless Lackey insists (for moral or market reasons) on seeing it through.

Yeah, this is really an interesting case of the game theory concept of "subgame perfection." Adding the year at minimum salary at the beginning looked great, but in the end it is neither optimal for Lackey to pitch at the minimum nor for the Red Sox to let him sit out. So, the contract was actually unlikely to be fulfilled in the event that the option triggered. What they maybe could have done was make this year the minimum salary year, and next year a typical $16 million year. Then he would potentially have to sit out two seasons in order to avoid the minimum salary penalty.

WenZink · May 20, 2014

Plympton91 said:
... Adding the year at minimum salary at the beginning looked great, but in the end it is neither optimal for Lackey to pitch at the minimum nor for the Red Sox to let him sit out. So, the contract was actually unlikely to be fulfilled in the event that the option triggered. What they maybe could have done was make this year the minimum salary year, and next year a typical $16 million year. Then he would potentially have to sit out two seasons in order to avoid the minimum salary penalty.

I see no problem with Lackey pitching in 2015 (at the league minimum) in order to earn another contract. It makes more sense then Jon Lester pitching for $13 million this year when he has a 6 yr/$120 mil contract coming this winter, IF he doesn't get injured during the course of the current season. Hell, one of the downsides of signing Lester to a deal through his mid-30s is that he's already thrown so many innings, so why didn't he choose to take the year off and play long-toss with Stephen Drew down in Camp Boras? He'd probably increase his value on the FA market.

Question: If Lester had opted to take this year off, would he still have been a FA this winter? And if Lackey did the same next year, would he be a FA in the winter of 2015-16?

Puffy · May 20, 2014

Based on Lackey's own very reasonable public statements about playing for the league minimum, he seems to be at peace with the idea:

"We'll play this year out and see what happens. I'm not worried about the money. I've made plenty of that."

I'm not discounting the possibility (or even likelihood) of reworking the contract or negotiating an extension (or even making a trade), but I think some of the speculation regarding the contract is a bit overblown.

WenZink · May 20, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
Yes. If you sit out a year, you get placed on restricted list and forfeit your salary for that year. Contracts don't carry over. If Dempster decides to pitch next year, Sox don't suddenly owe him what he would have made this year, for example. He'd be a free agent.

Fine, so my question is, why didn't Lester opt to sit out after the Sox offered him 4/70 last winter? It makes much more sense for Lester to forfeit $13mil, since he's gtd something like 6/120 this fall. If Lackey sits out, he's only going to get a small deal for his late 30s in the fall of 2015.

Lester's agent must be a moron risking 10 times the amount of gtd cash than the $13 mil he's getting this year. Or maybe players just don't do that kind of thing when they're still pitchng well. Lackey will suck it up and pitch next year, IMO.

Al Zarilla · May 20, 2014

WenZink said:
Fine, so my question is, why didn't Lester opt to sit out after the Sox offered him 4/70 last winter? It makes much more sense for Lester to forfeit $13mil, since he's gtd something like 6/120 this fall. If Lackey sits out, he's only going to get a small deal for his late 30s in the fall of 2015.

Lester's agent must be a moron risking 10 times the amount of gtd cash than the $13 mil he's getting this year. Or maybe players just don't do that kind of thing when they're still pitchng well. Lackey will suck it up and pitch next year, IMO.

For the Red Sox?

WenZink · May 20, 2014

Al Zarilla said:
For the Red Sox?

For the Red Sox or for which ever team he's traded. I don't see any upside in Lackey refusing to pitch, unless he's done with baseball forever. If he pitches well, there's another $50-$60 mil deal out there for the his age 37-40 years. Derek Lowe got $60/4 from the Braves for his age 36-39 years and that was in 2009. If Lackey takes the year off, he will have missed 2 years out of his previous 4, and will be lucky to get a 2 year deal for $20 mil. Not to mention that Lackey is good team player and a good guy, in spite of the crap that Shaughnessy, Tomase and Joe Haggerty tried to sell us.

WenZink · May 20, 2014

Rudy Pemberton said:
The upside for him is that the Red Sox realize that he'll cost a lot to replace on the open marketplace, and decide to renegotiate and guarantee him more money over more years, as opposed to suddenly having to replace three of their starters in one off-season. I agree that actually sitting out doesn't do much for Lackey; but the threat of doing so might.

Regardless of that, I don't see how they can afford to consider moving Lackey with so much uncertainty in the rotation.

Projecting into year 2016 and beyond, It's entirely possible that the Sox don't see Lackey as more than a reliable, 3rd-4th starter, and the Sox seem to have an abundance of pitchers (Workman/Webster/De La Rosa/Barnes/Owens/Johnson/Ranaudo?) that are projected as having 3rd-4th starter potential. They must think that 2 or 3 of that group will attain that potential, so I don't see a lot incentive to keep Lackey after his discount-year. Of course if all the AAA/AA kids bomb out completely than Big John will have earned leverage.

I thought that if Dempster hadn't given the Sox $13 million of cap room, last winter, that the Sox would have torn up his contract and given him and added one year, into 2016, at something like 3/31 ($16 mil/2 remaining on his current deal + $15 mil for 2016), because it woiuld have given them $5 mil more on cap space for a mid-season deal this year.

The Best Catch in 100 Years · May 20, 2014

ivanvamp said:
- The young kids have all kinds of potential, but they're just not getting it done, especially offensively: JBJ (0 hr, 9 rbi, 66 ops+), Middlebrooks (2 hr, 9 rbi, 74 ops+), Bogaerts (2 hr, 6 rbi, 106 ops+). That's 4 homers and 24 rbi *combined* with a combined OPS+ well under 100.

Nit-picky point, but Xander does not deserve to be in this discussion. 111 wRC+ (OPS+ slightly underrates his contributions), and a top-10 SS in MLB by both wRC+ and WAR. (Also, RBI? Seriously?)

MakMan44 · May 20, 2014

My question is what would it cost to sign Lackey to a new deal? I'm willing to concede that the Sox might rip up the old contract and sign him to an extra year or two but where do you draw the line, dollar wise?

I ask because this year is actually a relatively deep SP FA class and Lackey isn't getting any younger. At what point does it make sense to spend a few extra million getting a SP who is Lackey's equal or better but at a younger age?

ivanvamp · May 20, 2014

The Best Catch in 100 Years said:
Nit-picky point, but Xander does not deserve to be in this discussion. 111 wRC+ (OPS+ slightly underrates his contributions), and a top-10 SS in MLB by both wRC+ and WAR. (Also, RBI? Seriously?)

I am pretty new school on RBI, like almost everyone here. However, when a team is having this difficult a time scoring, despite being fourth in MLB in OBP, then I start to take RBI a little more seriously. As in, why can we put so many guys on base, but we can't get any of them home?

So yes, when you have two guys who are supposed to be run-producers giving you a combined 15 RBI in a quarter of the season, that's a major problem. And not just reflective of not having other guys on base. It's reflective of them too.

Savin Hillbilly · May 27, 2014

MakMan44 said:
My question is what would it cost to sign Lackey to a new deal? I'm willing to concede that the Sox might rip up the old contract and sign him to an extra year or two but where do you draw the line, dollar wise?

I think a rational deal would involve options. Something like $9M guaranteed for 2015 with $7.5M team options for 2016 and 2017. That's kind of win-win: Lackey gets a big raise for next year in exchange for sacrificing some market leverage for the following years (when he'll be 37 and 38), while the Sox take a modest risk on the guaranteed year in exchange for a potential multi-year bargain, with built-in flexibility in case they want to go with one of the kids instead. If Lackey balks at that kind of deal, he really has no beef; the Sox hold all the cards here.

Pretend You're the GM…and the Sox are Sellers

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

lost his degree

Member

Member

Member

bet squelcher

Will outlive SeanBerry

stole corsi's dream

dj paul pfieffer

stole corsi's dream

New Member

stole corsi's dream

New Member

Member

not particularly consistent

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill

New Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

for king and country

captain obvious

Well-Known Member

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion

for king and country

Member

Member

Member

Member

bubble burster

Member

Member

bubble burster

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

Member

stole corsi's dream

captain obvious

loves the secret sauce