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.
Snodgrass'Muff said:Sure, it's an obvious "report" but it does raise the question: What could the Sox realistically get for Lackey? He's older than Samardzija, and not as good, so a package like Addison Russell, Dan Straily and McKinney is a pipe dream. We're also not throwing in a Jason Hammel. That said, Lackey might be the most valuable trade piece we have that the front office would be willing to part with. If the team feels confident they can extend Lester, I wouldn't be surprised if Lackey gets traded.
Snodgrass'Muff said:Sure, it's an obvious "report" but it does raise the question: What could the Sox realistically get for Lackey? He's older than Samardzija, and not as good, so a package like Addison Russell, Dan Straily and McKinney is a pipe dream. We're also not throwing in a Jason Hammel. That said, Lackey might be the most valuable trade piece we have that the front office would be willing to part with. If the team feels confident they can extend Lester, I wouldn't be surprised if Lackey gets traded.
INDEED! Keep Lester with a juicy 5-yr contract (125) and trade Lackey, and if they get a measurable return (Craig), Peavey.Snodgrass'Muff said:Sure, it's an obvious "report" but it does raise the question: What could the Sox realistically get for Lackey? He's older than Samardzija, and not as good, so a package like Addison Russell, Dan Straily and McKinney is a pipe dream. We're also not throwing in a Jason Hammel. That said, Lackey might be the most valuable trade piece we have that the front office would be willing to part with. If the team feels confident they can extend Lester, I wouldn't be surprised if Lackey gets traded.
What for? Are you punting 2015?Snodgrass'Muff said:Sure, it's an obvious "report" but it does raise the question: What could the Sox realistically get for Lackey? He's older than Samardzija, and not as good, so a package like Addison Russell, Dan Straily and McKinney is a pipe dream. We're also not throwing in a Jason Hammel. That said, Lackey might be the most valuable trade piece we have that the front office would be willing to part with. If the team feels confident they can extend Lester, I wouldn't be surprised if Lackey gets traded.
Super Nomario said:What for? Are you punting 2015?
I see that group as Lester and six question marks.Snodgrass'Muff 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 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: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.
Snodgrass'Muff said: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.
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 3m
While media focus is on Peavy, #RedSox listening on all their starters. Lackey and/or Doubront also could go. Likely not Lester or Buchholz
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 3m
Also get the impression #redsox are ready to make a move with their catching situation.
The Gray Eagle said: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.
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:I see that group as Lester and six question marks.
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.
dcmissle said: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.
Rudy Pemberton said:Why would they resign Lester and trade Lackey? Combination of those two moves makes no sense (unless Lackey has made it clear he won't pitch next year which would depress his trade value). They could trade Lester and Lackey, which basically announces that next year is the beginning of a total rebuild.
Rudy Pemberton said:Why would they resign Lester and trade Lackey? Combination of those two moves makes no sense (unless Lackey has made it clear he won't pitch next year which would depress his trade value). They could trade Lester and Lackey, which basically announces that next year is the beginning of a total rebuild.
Gordon Edes @GordonEdes 3s
Sox player most likely to be in demand at trading deadline: Lefty reliever Andrew Miller. Braves already scouting him; they'll have company
TomRicardo said:I mean how much more do people think they are going to get out of 35 YO pitcher?
jimbobim 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.
You're not going to fill that spot as cheaply as you would just by hanging on to Lackey.E5 Yaz said: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.
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:Lackey might actually be, outside of Uehara, the most desirable trade piece the Sox have
Super Nomario said:You're not going to fill that spot as cheaply as you would just by hanging on to Lackey.
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.
Super Nomario said:You're not going to fill that spot as cheaply as you would just by hanging on to Lackey.
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.
Super Nomario said:You're not going to fill that spot as cheaply as you would just by hanging on to Lackey.
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.
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: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.
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: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.
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: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.
Rasputin 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?
But there's just not much on the FA market after this season, most of the better FAs are going to be pitchers.Super Nomario 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.
Hoplite said:Pierzynski makes sense for Pittsburgh
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140709-when-the-red-sox-sell-who-will-they-sell.ece
johnnywayback 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...
Super Nomario 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.
Rasputin said: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?
E5 Yaz said: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.
Snodgrass'Muff 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.
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.
glennhoffmania said:
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.
E5 Yaz said: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.
ivanvamp 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.
E5 Yaz said:
Quality return for Badenhop and/or Breslow? Really?
jimbobim 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.