SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 28, 2013 23:15:28 GMT -5
Why do they even need to get a guy in there at a lower cost? You even said how reasonable his contract was. Go with the proven guy. But all these guys you mentioned have HUGE question marks. All Lackey has against him is age and your doubts. A lower cost is just a bonus it's not the entire reason why I move him.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Jul 28, 2013 23:30:43 GMT -5
I think that Lackey's value will never be higher than after this season and if what I predict comes true, than he may be harder to move midseason if one of the mentioned prospects makes a Will Middlebrooks-type impact and space is needed in the Rotation than he would be now and a trade would be more of a dump of a player rather than a trade that would make the recipient team better and therefore a good prospect could be fetched in return if sold at the end of the season. He is not part of the long-term plan so why not make your team better in the future at little cost in the present? Lackey is part of the plans for the present. No starting pitching prospect has made such an impact where this team NEEDS to open up a space for him. With the volatility of starting pitching, the prospects will all have ample opportunity next year to win rotation spots when MLB pitchers get hurt or become ineffective. Why should the Red Sox trade a starter on the off chance that a rookie comes up and is lights out? If a rookie does come up and make a huge impact, there will be plenty if ways to get him innings (because other starters will be either hurt or bad). There is a very good chance that no rookie will be ready to help the team next year, just like no rookie pitcher had seized a rotation spot this year.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 28, 2013 23:49:31 GMT -5
This year is not going to be the same as next. Next year, Webster and De La Rosa will be a year older, a year more comfortable in Boston, and a year more polished. Ranaudo, Britton, and Workman will all be out of AA and have more experience. There was almost no shot for the rookies to make it this year but next year it would seem a lot more likely that one of those could be your #5 starter. They don't have to be a break out star, I was just providing a situation in which a spot would need to be permanently opened, but if at least one of them can produce at a 4.20 ERA level I'm willing to live with the bumps if it ends up getting me a prospect for future use which you wouldn't get if Lackey is pitching ineffectively or is hurt. (Your situation in which a spot would be open)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 28, 2013 23:56:38 GMT -5
If, somehow, none of Webster, RDLR, Ranaudo(who I think would win the job due to his polish), Workman, or admitted long shot Barnes (who I don't force into the competition if he doesn't look ready, but if it turns out that he looks ready than I give him a shot) can give you a 4.20 ERA, than I will be very, very surprised. Surprise! Sent from my time machine, one year in the future.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 29, 2013 0:03:10 GMT -5
If, somehow, none of Webster, RDLR, Ranaudo(who I think would win the job due to his polish), Workman, or admitted long shot Barnes (who I don't force into the competition if he doesn't look ready, but if it turns out that he looks ready than I give him a shot) can give you a 4.20 ERA, than I will be very, very surprised. Surprise! Sent from my time machine, one year in the future. This thread is about predicting the future
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 29, 2013 0:16:59 GMT -5
I think that Lackey's value will never be higher than after this season and if what I predict comes true, than he may be harder to move midseason if one of the mentioned prospects makes a Will Middlebrooks-type impact and space is needed in the Rotation than he would be now and a trade would be more of a dump of a player rather than a trade that would make the recipient team better and therefore a good prospect could be fetched in return if sold at the end of the season. He is not part of the long-term plan so why not make your team better in the future at little cost in the present? We disagree wholeheartedly on Lackey's ability (I thought he would be a 2/3 SP coming into the year due to finally having much-needed surgery). But even if Lackey regresses in the way you suggest, your evaluation of the Red Sox prospects is a bit too high. You are trading two years of a 2/3 pitcher (in my opinion) in order to replace them with a pitcher who may, at their peak, be a 2/3 pitcher. This is very very risky. It could happen, but I wouldn't want to bet a rotation spot on Lackey being so easily replaced. Your reason is sound if you are referring to a small market team. This is the type of logic the Rays often use (like trading Shields for example) to trade established players with reasonable salaries for near-ready prospects with depressed salaries. But when you are operating off of a $186 million (give or take a bit) budget, I would be less than happy if the Red Sox adapted this philosophy during a season in which they are expected to compete. Also, I don't mean to be a dick, but for you: than = then (sorry, but I can't get my Mom's voice out of my head - no matter how old I get!).
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 29, 2013 0:44:51 GMT -5
I like to use some of the small market logic because the farm is what makes the whole thing happen and if you're a big market team thEn (thanks I don't do well grammer) it only means that you get to keep the Shields-types that the Rays need to let go so your farm can be less productive but still yield the same results (you get to hold on to the gems that you produce rather than letting them go). I don't want them to trade every high-salary player in order to get prospects and never re-sign any of them, but if the opportunity is there for a future improvement than I'd take it. In Lackey's case, I don't think that there is going to be much of a drop-off in the production and that is why I think that there is a chance to add to the team without giving away much. I don't think that I'm overrating them too much. All of them are projected to have sub-4 ERAs in their prime and I don't expect that there will be the same type of consistency that Lackey is giving now, but I think that at least one of them will be able to reach a mark well below their potential but still acceptable for a team's #5. You have roughly 5 prospects that have the potential to get it done and, for me, that's enough swings of the bat to pull the trigger on a Lackey deal. Another bonus of a deal is that you get an improved clubhouse for a rookie to grow in.
|
|
|
Post by kman22 on Jul 29, 2013 7:25:26 GMT -5
It might not be a deciding factor for the Red Sox, but the team option on Lackey for the league minimum might make him a lot more attractive to other teams.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 29, 2013 8:14:07 GMT -5
I'm for the same rotation with Workman, Britton and Rubby in the pen. I think Owens and Barnes are better prospects than Webster and hope one of them is ready to replace Dempster in 2015. And, the other can replace Lackey in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 29, 2013 9:05:37 GMT -5
I like to use some of the small market logic because the farm is what makes the whole thing happen and if you're a big market team thEn (thanks I don't do well grammer) it only means that you get to keep the Shields-types that the Rays need to let go so your farm can be less productive but still yield the same results (you get to hold on to the gems that you produce rather than letting them go). I don't want them to trade every high-salary player in order to get prospects and never re-sign any of them, but if the opportunity is there for a future improvement than I'd take it. In Lackey's case, I don't think that there is going to be much of a drop-off in the production and that is why I think that there is a chance to add to the team without giving away much. I don't think that I'm overrating them too much. All of them are projected to have sub-4 ERAs in their prime and I don't expect that there will be the same type of consistency that Lackey is giving now, but I think that at least one of them will be able to reach a mark well below their potential but still acceptable for a team's #5. You have roughly 5 prospects that have the potential to get it done and, for me, that's enough swings of the bat to pull the trigger on a Lackey deal. Another bonus of a deal is that you get an improved clubhouse for a rookie to grow in.[/b] So let me get this straight... you want to be like the Rays by developing players so you don't have to trade higher priced effective veterans but you want to trade Lackey? You want to replace a high mid rotation starter with 5 swings at a number 5 and don't think that's a drop off... You do realize each swing and miss is probably at least 3-5 bad starts... This Club House is one of the best we've seen, reportedly which means little. Lackey has always been thought of as a good teammate and who's to say he's not a great influence on young guys. I can ague, he worked his but off, got into shape and turned his career around - why isn't that a positive environment? Seriously, you want Clay and Lester paving the way for Webster? How bout 25 year old, come to camp out of shape Doubront? Don't just throw arguments against the wall and hope they stick. What do you consider a B level prospect? I'm all for future improvement but Lackey gives you 2 years of that with the last at league minimum! Baring injury next years rotation is the same as coming into this year. Doubront maybe blossoming into a number 2 before our eyes. The stuff is there and it seems he's learning to use it.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jul 29, 2013 9:22:36 GMT -5
This Club House is one of the best we've seen, reportedly which means little. Lackey has always been thought of as a good teammate and who's to say he's not a great influence on young guys. I can ague, he worked his but off, got into shape and turned his career around - why isn't that a positive environment? Seriously, you want Clay and Lester paving the way for Webster? How bout 25 year old, come to camp out of shape Doubront? Don't just throw arguments against the wall and hope they stick. But sometime's he's sarcastic in his answers to the media, so he's history's greatest monster.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 29, 2013 10:16:48 GMT -5
All of the factors add up to trading him. Selling High, some salary relief, a better clubhouse (Dempster is who I look to for leadership), a good prospect in return, not an insane drop-off (I think that Lackey will be a #4 or #5 in 2014),and I just think that at least one of our prospects is ready to step in and contribute at an average level it's all different wrinkles that make it more attractive to trading him and I looked at my posts and I'll admit that they're all over the place with each one seeming its own argument, but they all combine for my opinion that I would trade him. Any pitcher can have a great year out of their prime but it's very hard to come back and do it again at his advanced age without being a legend like Cliff Lee who's had a sub 4 ERA since 2008 or Hiroki Kuroda who has never had a 4+ ERA season in MLB. Not to mention that John Lackey is having the 2nd best year of his entire career (his best being 2007).
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 29, 2013 11:16:37 GMT -5
But Dempster is 1-1/2 years older than Lackey. Why are you so concerned with Lackey and not Dempster? If,as you say, you just want to improve the pitching staff, you should be looking to unload Dempster and NOT Lackey. What has Lackey done to you or your family, anyways?
Plus, you are just way too hopeful of one our prospects stepping in without any of them providing any evidence that are or will be capable.
And why the heck would you thin out the pitching depth for some B prospect? Because you aren't going to get a great prospect for Lackey.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jul 29, 2013 11:25:05 GMT -5
I would guess that there isn't much precedent for a first place team selling high on its best pitcher at the trading deadline. There's a chance that none of the Red Sox pitching prospects has a year as good as Lackey is having this year, ever. I hope that doesn't happen, but he's really been excellent.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 29, 2013 12:09:57 GMT -5
All of the factors add up to trading him. Selling High, some salary relief, a better clubhouse (Dempster is who I look to for leadership), a good prospect in return, not an insane drop-off (I think that Lackey will be a #4 or #5 in 2014),and I just think that at least one of our prospects is ready to step in and contribute at an average level it's all different wrinkles that make it more attractive to trading him and I looked at my posts and I'll admit that they're all over the place with each one seeming its own argument, but they all combine for my opinion that I would trade him. Any pitcher can have a great year out of their prime but it's very hard to come back and do it again at his advanced age without being a legend like Cliff Lee who's had a sub 4 ERA since 2008 or Hiroki Kuroda who has never had a 4+ ERA season in MLB. Not to mention that John Lackey is having the 2nd best year of his entire career (his best being 2007). This undermines your argument completely. After the surgery last year, it was reported that he was throwing as hard as 95-96 in rehab. That's when a few of us felt that he would have exactly the sort of rebound that he has had. He's always had very good control and the ability to be very efficient, getting out of innings quickly with a minimal number of pitches. He's not afraid to throw the ball over the plate. That's not something you're guaranteed to get from any of the young pitchers, and it's certainly not something you trade away for a B prospect. Let me put it this way: what do you think Lackey would draw right now if the Sox were on the skids and they were shopping him as the White Sox are shopping Peavy? Add in the fact that his contract has a guaranteed option at league minimum after 2014 - given his injury - and now what do you think he's worth? Starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in MLB. No one trades it away lightly. Certainly no one trades away a starting pitcher who's showing the stuff Lackey has been showing for a second-tier prospect. That isn't going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 29, 2013 12:13:20 GMT -5
Even if you did put him on the trade market, other teams would rightly be suspicious of why one of the best teams in baseball is shopping arguably their best starter despite not have payroll concerns.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 29, 2013 12:26:54 GMT -5
All of the factors add up to trading him. Selling High, some salary relief, a better clubhouse (Dempster is who I look to for leadership), a good prospect in return, not an insane drop-off (I think that Lackey will be a #4 or #5 in 2014),and I just think that at least one of our prospects is ready to step in and contribute at an average level it's all different wrinkles that make it more attractive to trading him and I looked at my posts and I'll admit that they're all over the place with each one seeming its own argument, but they all combine for my opinion that I would trade him. Any pitcher can have a great year out of their prime but it's very hard to come back and do it again at his advanced age without being a legend like Cliff Lee who's had a sub 4 ERA since 2008 or Hiroki Kuroda who has never had a 4+ ERA season in MLB. Not to mention that John Lackey is having the 2nd best year of his entire career (his best being 2007). This undermines your argument completely. After the surgery last year, it was reported that he was throwing as hard as 95-96 in rehab. That's when a few of us felt that he would have exactly the sort of rebound that he has had. He's always had very good control and the ability to be very efficient, getting out of innings quickly with a minimal number of pitches. He's not afraid to throw the ball over the plate. That's not something you're guaranteed to get from any of the young pitchers, and it's certainly not something you trade away for a B prospect. Let me put it this way: what do you think Lackey would draw right now if the Sox were on the skids and they were shopping him as the White Sox are shopping Peavy? Add in the fact that his contract has a guaranteed option at league minimum after 2014 - given his injury - and now what do you think he's worth? Starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in MLB. No one trades it away lightly. Certainly no one trades away a starting pitcher who's showing the stuff Lackey has been showing for a second-tier prospect. That isn't going to happen. How does it undermine the argument which is mostly based on selling high? If you look at his entire career than this year would be the outliar and a perfect year for selling high.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jul 29, 2013 13:37:28 GMT -5
Except you NEED that player if you're going to win the World Series this year. The Sox would have to get very lucky to win without two of Lackey, Lester and Buchholz playing very well in October... assuming they even make it that far.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 29, 2013 13:41:32 GMT -5
In fairness, I think he's talking about an offseason trade. Still a BAD move
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 29, 2013 14:01:22 GMT -5
You really need to take "it improves the clubhouse" out of your argument. Adding something like that just undermines anything else you're trying to say. If you think he's going to regress to what he was when he was hurt the first 2 year here, then sure you try to trade him, but honestly there's very little basis for that argument.
I'm not sure what measure you're basing this as his best year other than 2007 and being an outlier, but I don't see that as being true. His career is actually pretty damn good outside of 2008 (injured - not not terrible either), 2011 (was clearly pitching very hurt) and 2012 (missed full year). Even his first year here, wasn't all that bad overall, but he was also injured although not to the degree as 2011.
If anything, Lackey fits the argument of a very good pitcher getting healthy and pitching well. I'd understand your argument if he were throwing 90-91 and getting by on smoke and mirrors. I don;t see how you can watch the guy pitch and not see how good his stuff has been. Also, control was always a big part of what made him successful so when he came here and starting walking batters left and right it was weird. He's not only throwing harder again, but his control is as good or better than ever. He's right back to being what he was when he was such a desirable pitcher for all those years in Cali.
|
|
|
Post by sbones13 on Jul 29, 2013 14:37:38 GMT -5
All of the factors add up to trading him. Selling High, some salary relief, a better clubhouse Right, or NONE of these factors add up to trading him. He's the best pitcher on a first place team right now. So selling high means you're giving your best starter away when you already have Workman in the rotation and Webster, De La Rosa, Barnes, or Ranaudo don't show much inclination at all that they'll be this mythical "4.20 ERA" starter you're hoping for. Supposedly you're "Selling high" on a quality starter that makes $16 million over 2 years. So.... We're getting back a B level prospect? Sounds awesome. You're not really getting any salary cap relief at all on a #2-3-4 starter making $8 Million a year. Actually, you're getting rid of an asset that has FINALLY, after 4 years of waiting, become valuable to you. The better clubhouse thing is total garbage. He's pretty much beloved by everyone in there. Clubhouse guys, security, teammates young and old. Ask anyone over there and they'll tell you. I submit people would NOT be happy at all if they shipped his ass out after working so hard to make things right and turning it around. But yeah, he will NOT pander to the media, and Felger calls him a jerk. So let's deal him. This thread is kind of off the rails. But man, some people REALLY do not like John Lackey, I guess...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2013 14:44:17 GMT -5
Sell high on Pedroia and Papi while we're at it.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 29, 2013 14:51:24 GMT -5
I call it an outliar year because his ERA in every year that he had at least 27 starts minus 2011 where he was clearly hurt and 2008 where he wasn't fully healthy is at 3.93 and he is currently at 3.19 on the year. How can you look at that and say that it's not an outliar just like his 2011 season was in the opposite way? Why can't I say that him out of the clubhouse makes the team better? You don't go from calling out your teammates for every mistake that they make on TV to all roses and flowers in one year. He has made some improvements in his on-field attitude but I refuse to believe that he is a great leader and clubhouse guy.
|
|
|
Post by xxdamgoodxx on Jul 29, 2013 14:57:08 GMT -5
Sell high on Pedroia and Papi while we're at it. Pedroia and Ortiz are different. Pedroia is a career Sox player and is a core piece that will be used going forward. Ortiz is a face-of-the-franchise type player and he means a hell of a lot more to the fanbase than John Lackey. Lackey has pitched here for 3 years and, while he has been the team's ace since Buchholtz went down, he is nowhere close to the Red Sox's core for the future and means nowhere near the amount to the franchise that Ortiz does.
|
|
|
Post by sbones13 on Jul 29, 2013 14:59:08 GMT -5
Don't believe it all you want. And, of course, it's a free country you can say whatever you want. You're just horribly misinformed. He was never bad in the clubhouse in any way. He was always one of the most popular guys in there. He's emotional and would shake his head when guys screwed up, but always talked to them after. I challenge you to find ANY evidence that teammates had a problem with him. Other than jackasses on talk radio saying what THEY wouldn't like if THEY were his teammates.
I get that this what a lot of people think, and Lackey doesn't go on media blitzes to defend himself so it pretty much goes unchecked, but it's just SO wrong...
|
|
|