Lackey at the league minimum in theory should fetch a pretty huge return.
If you trade him, and whiff on Lester, then you're a 60 win team.
If you trade him, and whiff on Lester, then you're a 60 win team.
Red Sox Deadline Discussion
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Snodgrass'Muff said:
By no means is Lackey worth as much as Samardzija, but he'll also be a hell of a lot cheaper next year unless the deal is reworked. So wouldn't a smaller market team be willing to give up something pretty decent to have Lackey for minimum wage next year?
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I disagree a bit. Lackey v Samardija are not identical and you'd surely prefer Shark but Lackey is probably preferable to the price of D.Price or Hamels. Additionally Hammel was a back rotation starter who was on a good run.
Peavy and Lackey as a package would be an interesting deal to maximize value similar to what the Cubs did.
Again going to need a satisfactory package.
Trading Lackey would definitely hand extra leverage to the Lester camp, which, if you DID/DO want to sign JL long-term, makes it (even more?) stupid that you didn't get that deal done sooner.
EDIT: Clarifying the "who" as Lackey.
EDIT: Clarifying the "who" as Lackey.
Super Nomario said:
I don't think trading Lackey is punting 2015, so long as they extend Lester. You can build a playoff caliber rotation out of Lester, Buchholz, Workman, RDLR, Webster, Ranaudo and Doubront and the free agent market, while not spectacular, has a number of names you can use to supplement that group if you feel the need.
I look at the future of this club and see 2015 as a year in which they might be a contender, but will need a lot of things to break in their favor. Keeping Lackey and extending Lester is the best way to contend in 2015, but trading Lackey might be the best path to contending in 2016 and beyond. The Lackey situation is sort of unique and the team should absolutely explore cashing in on that small window of enhanced value. It's entirely possible they won't find a deal worth making, but they should see what's out there.
I see that group as Lester and six question marks.Snodgrass'Muff said:
I agree with this, but by trading Lackey, you're adding a major question mark and requiring that something else breaks in their favor to contend.Snodgrass'Muff said:
Snodgrass'Muff said:
I think the lynchpin to making a move is Lester. If they feel confident he comes back then it makes trading everyone else easier. They have a stacked rotation in AAA and Henry Owens in Portland. Not only that but they'll have money to spend next season and be able to add a free agent. They probably won't deal everyone, but I'm excited to see what they could do if they dealt Peavy, Lackey and Doubront.
https://twitter.com/PeteAbe/status/486907358119874560
Not sure if this is just Abraham's hunch or if he's talked to people. Also, does "making a move" with their catching situation mean a trade, a DFA or what? Could Vazquez be long for Boston?
EDIT- What Corsi said.
Not sure if this is just Abraham's hunch or if he's talked to people. Also, does "making a move" with their catching situation mean a trade, a DFA or what? Could Vazquez be long for Boston?
EDIT- What Corsi said.
Get rid of Drew, AJP, and Peavy. Save lots of $$ for 2015. Sign both Lester AND Scherzer. 
Use four prospects to land Stanton.
Rotation: Lester, Scherzer, Buchholz, Lackey, RDLR
Lineup:
C - Vazquez
1b - Napoli
2b - Pedroia
3b - Middlebrooks/Holt
SS - Bogaerts
LF - Stanton
CF - Bradley
RF - Victorino
DH - Ortiz
Use four prospects to land Stanton.
Rotation: Lester, Scherzer, Buchholz, Lackey, RDLR
Lineup:
C - Vazquez
1b - Napoli
2b - Pedroia
3b - Middlebrooks/Holt
SS - Bogaerts
LF - Stanton
CF - Bradley
RF - Victorino
DH - Ortiz
Might mean dumping AJ, might mean dumping Ross. I would dump AJ, but Ross has whiffed 37 times in 111 PAs and looks pretty washed up. They've combined for an OBP of somewhere around .270 on the year. AJ's defense looks lousy to me, while Ross looks less good than last year. Wouldn't be hard to upgrade on either.
Assuming Vazquez's defense is as awesome as it's supposed to be, he could be a really terrible hitter and still be a better overall package than either of these guys. And he needs to start the learning process of becoming a catcher in the big leagues, the sooner the better since this season is already in garbage time.
Assuming Vazquez's defense is as awesome as it's supposed to be, he could be a really terrible hitter and still be a better overall package than either of these guys. And he needs to start the learning process of becoming a catcher in the big leagues, the sooner the better since this season is already in garbage time.
The Gray Eagle said:
I'd rather keep Ross to mentor Vazquez for the rest of the year. It's not like either of their stat lines for the rest of 2014 really means anything at this point.
And at that, you're handing camp Lester a fully loaded .357 -- unless you're willing to write off any realistic chance of competing for a title for the next few years. You are then committed to paying full market value for an ace. Masterson (for example) + kids ain't getting it done, and equally important, will not be perceived as getting it done.Super Nomario said:
dcmissle said:
I'm guessing that if a Lackey trade goes down, it'll be right before the deadline and only if they've come to terms with Lester. Of course, they could try bluffing about 2015 being a rebuilding year, though I doubt Lester's camp would buy it. They should be gauging interest now, though.
I'm not dead set on moving Lackey for whatever the best package ends up being. It all depends on what they can get back for him. If you can get a top 25 or so player back for him, I think you have to do it. Maybe you can pry someone like David Dahl from the Rockies or Jesse Winker from the Reds. I don't think Lackey is a long term piece for this franchise. I doubt many people do. Even if they can extend him at a reasonable rate, his current level of production just isn't likely 2 or 3 years from now. The 2015 league minimum option balloons his value. If they can leverage that into top 25 prospect, I think that would be a smart use of this particular resource.
Maybe the market for him is much cooler than that. If it is, you plan to keep him around for 2015 and maybe look to extend him for 2 years after that at reasonable money.
Depends on the return for Lackey, the Sox have lots of pitching prospect depth and about zero OF depth. They could move Lackey, sign Lester, still have Lester/Buchholz/Workman/Doubront/RLDR/Owens/Webster/Ranaudo plus free agency to build a rotation around. They could definitely contend next year without Lackey.
Rudy Pemberton said:
It makes perfect sense.
This season is close to a lost cause, so a piece such as Lackey (particularly with his 2015 contract) becomes a valuable trade commodity for teams needing another arm. Certainly a better trade chip than Peavy, because performance.
Resigning Lester keeps a true No. 1 on a Sox staff that can follow with Buchholz, and an assortment of young guns.
It doesn't mean whatsoever that 2015 is a "total rebuild." If nothing else, there are free agents and trades that could fill Lackey's rotation spot.
Lackey might actually be, outside of Uehara, the most desirable trade piece the Sox have
Well, you resign Lester and trade Lackey IF you can get something you expect to be very useful in 2015 and beyond for Lackey. Like a good young OF. Lester anchors the staff until Owens et al become quality MLBers.
Rudy Pemberton said:
Because Lackey has a shit ton of value now and may never be more valuable where Lester is the sort of pitcher a big market team goes out and signs, no questions asked.
You're not going to fill that spot as cheaply as you would just by hanging on to Lackey.E5 Yaz said:
Well sure, but he's a desirable trade piece for the same reason he's useful to the Red Sox - he's a solid mid-rotation starter making peanuts in 2015. Xander Bogaerts would be a desirable trade chip too, but that doesn't mean the Red Sox should trade him.E5 Yaz said:
Super Nomario said:
The question becomes whether what Lackey gives you in 2015 would be of a greater benefit than what you could acquire for him. A solid Lackey season on a team that doesn't contend isn't all that useful.
The X comparison is just nonsense. Lackey is a believable trade option; X is not.
Absolutely see what you can get for Lackey. A "solid mid-rotation starter making peanuts in 2015" is indeed a very useful piece for the Red Sox, but I'd think it would be even more useful for a team without our financial resources. He's more valuable to someone else than he is to us, which makes him a perfect trade candidate.
Obviously, if that isn't reflected in the offers you get, you keep him. Fine. But if it is, I'm perfectly happy to gamble that we can buy the equivalent of what a 36-year-old would have given us next year without killing our ability to get other pieces we need.
Obviously, if that isn't reflected in the offers you get, you keep him. Fine. But if it is, I'm perfectly happy to gamble that we can buy the equivalent of what a 36-year-old would have given us next year without killing our ability to get other pieces we need.
Super Nomario said:
At the moment, Lackey is only useful to the Sox through next season (as Tric said, how much longer can the team count on his current performance?). If traded, the return is likely to be very useful to the Sox for the next 5-6 years. You have to make that deal.
Super Nomario said:
You don't need to fill that spot as cheaply. The Sox have a ton of payroll flexibility even if they do extend Lester at something around 25 million AAV.
And as has been pointed out, the X analogy is worthless. Bogaerts is under control for another 5 seasons after this and is a major part of the "next great Red Sox team." Lackey is not. He might be a complimentary piece in 3 years. I'd be shocked if he's still effective and pitching in Boston in 4. If you can cash him in for a near major league ready prospect in the top 25 range, you don't hesitate. You can spend 10-12 million to replace Lackey's likely 2015 production if you aren't willing to trust the combination of Lester, Buchholz and the kids.
It's all speculation, but Brian MacPherson suggests that Peavy makes sense for St. Louis, Gomes makes sense for Seattle, Pierzynski makes sense for Pittsburgh, Drew makes sense for the Tigers or Brewers and Uehara makes sense for Baltimore, Detroit, LAA and Pittsburgh.
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140709-when-the-red-sox-sell-who-will-they-sell.ece
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140709-when-the-red-sox-sell-who-will-they-sell.ece
Sure, if you don't think you can contend in 2015, you might as well trade Lackey (and Napoli, and a bunch of other players, probably).E5 Yaz said:
What return are we talking about? The only names I've seen thrown about are two 20-year-old A-ball OF, who might be useful for the next 5-6 years or might never be useful at all.Dogman2 said:
I see a lot of holes on the offensive side of the ball they need to fill as well - having the payroll flexibility of a starter making as little as Lackey would definitely help.Snodgrass'Muff said:
Hold the phone.
If you trade Lackey--even if you re-sign Lester--you're going into the offseason having to either acquire a very good pitcher, or trust that one of Doubront, Workman, Buchholz, de la Rosa, Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo, is going to step up.
Do you really want a rotation of Lester, who is pretty reliable, Buchholz who can't seem to pitch more than a half a season, and a bunch of guys who are either erratic (Doubront), still making the transition to the majors (Workman), or just starting to make that transition (de la Rosa and everyone else.)
And if you're willing to sign a free agent, who are you going to get (and pay for) who is as good as Lackey without breaking the bank?
If you trade Lackey--even if you re-sign Lester--you're going into the offseason having to either acquire a very good pitcher, or trust that one of Doubront, Workman, Buchholz, de la Rosa, Webster, Barnes, Ranaudo, is going to step up.
Do you really want a rotation of Lester, who is pretty reliable, Buchholz who can't seem to pitch more than a half a season, and a bunch of guys who are either erratic (Doubront), still making the transition to the majors (Workman), or just starting to make that transition (de la Rosa and everyone else.)
And if you're willing to sign a free agent, who are you going to get (and pay for) who is as good as Lackey without breaking the bank?
Let's assume that the Sox weren't going to just have Lackey pitch for $500k in 2015, but rather that they were going to work out some sort of 2-3 year extension at around, what, $12 million per year. He might be able to get more on the open market but that's where the Sox' $500k leverage helps.
So you trade him now. And then in the offseason, sign James Shields to a 4/68 deal. Shields is currently making $13.5m, so this represents a $3.5 million increase, and four years at that. He's 32 right now, so that would take him up through where Lackey is right now. So yes, it's more expensive than Lackey, but let's be honest, Shields is better, and younger.
Of course, sign Lester too. Have the two of them anchor the rotation, and in the process pick up a valuable piece that you got from dealing Lackey.
So you trade him now. And then in the offseason, sign James Shields to a 4/68 deal. Shields is currently making $13.5m, so this represents a $3.5 million increase, and four years at that. He's 32 right now, so that would take him up through where Lackey is right now. So yes, it's more expensive than Lackey, but let's be honest, Shields is better, and younger.
Of course, sign Lester too. Have the two of them anchor the rotation, and in the process pick up a valuable piece that you got from dealing Lackey.
Rasputin said:
Why is breaking the bank not an option? The Sox have a ton of payroll flexibility. Sign Lester and another free agent -- if Scherzer's too much, what about James Shields or Justin Masterson? Or Brandon McCarthy? Or Dan Haren? Or...
johnnywayback said:
Because if they were willing to break the bank, wouldn't Lester already be under contract for five or six more years? And this scenario requires that we not only sign Lester but another free agent pitcher who is probably in his thirties.
And Justin Masterson isn't the kind of guy you want anchoring your rotation.
Super Nomario said:
They aren't looking at 30 or 40 million free. Even if you are aggressive about estimating their arb and medical payouts for 2015, you come in at around 110 million already spent. That's almost 80 million under the cap, which should be 189 million next season. Signing Lester at 25 and a Lackey replacement for 15 would only kill half of that. Landing one major bat could kill up to 25 million more leaving them 15 million shy of the tax threshold.
They're going to fill some of the holes with kids. Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez and Bradley will all get significant playing time and will cover C, CF, RF and either 3B or SS. 1B, 2B, DH are covered. LF should be as well with Victorino coming back. Either he slides over to protect him from injury or Betts does with him resuming duties in RF. So the offense is looking for upgrades at either 3B or SS. They could even be looking to fill the 3B/SS hole with a stop gap with eyes toward Marrero for 2016 or even late 2015, so that shouldn't be too expensive. So I'm not seeing a need to spend big on the offense, and even if there was, I'm not seeing a lot of good bets. Hanley Ramirez is going to be a free agent, but he'll cost more than this team should be willing to spend. After that, there are no superstar bats to target without making a trade.
Edit: I'd forgotten about Victorino.
Rasputin said:
Gavin Floyd, Francisco Liriano, Justin Masterson, Ervin Santana, James Shields and Edison Volquez are all going to be available and in that solid veteran but not elite pitcher range. The fact that so many will hit the market will depress their value a bit and finding a 3 or 4 year deal at 10-12 million for one of them shouldn't be too hard. One of these guys with Lester, Buchholz and the kids plus prospect in the top 25 range is preferable to me over Lester, Lackey, Buchholz and the kids.
The primary reason a Lackey trade scenario gets discussed (at least I think it is) is that he's one of the few viable trade options the Sox have that might be worth something on the market. The rest of these names -- with the potential exception of a Uehara or Miller, and maybe Peavy -- aren't likely to bring back Jack Squat. They get dealt with the hope you get lucky on the return.
So, in this type of season, as you near the deadline, you look to see what the Sox have that actually might be interesting to another team ... and could bring something in return. You're really only thinking about 2015 here if you believe that one player -- Lackey, in this case -- is a lynchpin move that significantly lessens the Red Sox chances to rebound next season. I think we all can say, to varying degrees, that this isn't a one player away team.
So, Lackey's name ends up on Twitter and the concept gets bandied about, primarily because he could have decent trade value this season and it's a conceivable move.
So, in this type of season, as you near the deadline, you look to see what the Sox have that actually might be interesting to another team ... and could bring something in return. You're really only thinking about 2015 here if you believe that one player -- Lackey, in this case -- is a lynchpin move that significantly lessens the Red Sox chances to rebound next season. I think we all can say, to varying degrees, that this isn't a one player away team.
So, Lackey's name ends up on Twitter and the concept gets bandied about, primarily because he could have decent trade value this season and it's a conceivable move.
E5 Yaz said:
I really think you're selling Squat short here.
As for Lackey, there is value in moving him. He should bring back a decent return given his contract but that isn't the only benefit. It allows the Sox to avoid a potential headache over the offseason if he hints at retirement or something along those lines. If you can get an affordable solution to LF or another SP then you don't have to break the bank to fill the rest of the holes.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
The above is all fine in theory but if you think there not going to bring in any offensive help for this historically bad offense I think your greatly underestimating the pressure they will be under. Now if they put all the rookies in the lineup after the ASB and they look ready for next year maybe the plan becomes more reasonable but expecting Victorino to be a regular steady OF seems like folly at this point as it has been devestating this year.
Nevermind the pressure that puts on all those young guys. Eventually the front office will have to spend money again even if they have to overpay for a Hanley.
glennhoffmania said:
The something being if he decides that, given how he's returned from the injury, he deserves a reworked deal, with an extension. The idea that he will simply be glad to pitch for 500K or whatever it is next season is naive at best
E5 Yaz said:
It seems to me that every year contending teams deal away useful prospects for bullpen arms. Quality bullpen arms is something the Red Sox have in abundance. Not that I'd prefer for Miller to go, but between him, Badenhop, Breslow, and, of course, Uehara, the Sox could definitely bring some quality pieces back in return.
Would it be possible to start a "news only" thread for trade rumors, limited to industry sources? Commentary on that "news" could carry on here.
There's 2 weeks to go before the deadline.
There's 2 weeks to go before the deadline.
E5 Yaz said:
Well, obviously less so for those guys. But still. Everyone needs a lefty out of the pen, it seems. Breslow at least has a lot of playoff experience. Badenhop has been solid his whole career. Last 3 years he's been a very good reliever. Lots of contending teams could use a guy like him.
jimbobim said:
They only have so many 40 man and 25 man roster spots. Where do they fit in? The outfield will have Bradley, Nava, Victorino and Betts whether we like it or not. They just aren't dumping any of those guys and Nava will be out of options next year. Sure, they can start Betts in AAA, but he's still taking up a 40 man spot and the fact that they have him out there now suggests he's probably not going to ride the shuttle next year. The infield is Napoli, Pedroia, Bogaerts and Vazques leaving either 3B or SS open.
So where do you fit the upgrade? If they sign Hanley, that's 25 million. Add Lester at 25 and that's 50. Add a Lackey replacement at 15 and that's 65. They still have 15 million or so left under the threshold. They may need to replace Koji or pay him more. After that, they can fill in the pen with prospects. They are still probably 10 million under the threshold here, and have added a major bat in Hanley Ramirez. If they go smaller than Hanley, they have more money free. I don't see gaps in the roster that they can fill without giving up on prospects that they seem pretty determined to get over the hump.
Is Victorino a great bet to be healthy? No. But he's on the roster and if he's healthy in spring training, he's on the major league roster to start the year. You can't go out and sign a Melky Cabrera and expect them to split time. If they are actually committed to breaking in these kids they will not be splashing the pot in the free agent hitters market, and even if they weren't committed to the kids, I'd argue that splashing the pot for hitters would be a bad use of resources. The pool is really weak.