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.
6/9-6/11 Red Sox @ Orioles Series Thread
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 17:09:18 GMT -5
It's been a spirited discussion jmei. Since we're at an impasse, I sent an inquiry to the MLBPA. I'll post any response I receive.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 10, 2014 17:24:41 GMT -5
I haven't seen any such renewal clause language that you are referring to. The problem that I see here is that any contract, in order to be contractually binding, requires a term for performance. When the player performs services during that term, return consideration is obviously required of the team. When he does not perform services due to retirement, then return consideration is not required. Where, in the player contract, do we get this additional concept of extending the period of performance? You've cited language from the CBA that suggests the team is obligated to tender a contract offer to Lackey but, after the term of his contract has expired, he is free - as are all free agents - to decline that offer. This may seem unfair to the ballclub but remember that if Lackey were to actually sit out the entire 2015 season, he too has suffered a loss - the contractually agreed upon salary for 2015. This is why I see Lackey as having, at the very least, an interesting argument to take before the player's union. One thing that has been discussed in other forums is that, regardless of the outcome of Lackey's case, by threatening retirement he has essentially diminished the value the Sox can get for him in trade. So, one thing is for certain here, whether Lackey wins or loses, the Sox have already begun the process of misplaying this hand. I am not so sure. Any trading partner could reach an agreement to extend him while he is being traded...correct? Given his low salary...championship pedigree...current pitching prowess...I think the Sox and Lackey would find, at a minimum, plenty of interest that could benefit all sides. The value, as with all property, will be more determined by the laws of supply and demand..more than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jun 10, 2014 17:27:42 GMT -5
A 3.5-win player should be worth $16-18 mil, minus risk, right? So if Lackey were to get even a 2/18 deal, he'd be just about free for one of those years. I think 2/14 and 3/24 are low, especially considering the other pitcher contracts going around the past couple of years, even for a guy going on 36.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Jun 10, 2014 17:31:00 GMT -5
It's been a spirited discussion jmei. Since we're at an impasse, I sent an inquiry to the MLBPA. I'll post any response I receive. Are frigging kidding me? Aren't you a lawyer? How are you unable to understand/read what JMei has so clearly spelled out and backed up with text from the CBA? Is the text complex? yes. Is it clear? crystal!
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 17:35:00 GMT -5
A 3.5-win player should be worth $16-18 mil, minus risk, right? So if Lackey were to get even a 2/18 deal, he'd be just about free for one of those years. I think 2/14 and 3/24 are low, especially considering the other pitcher contracts going around the past couple of years, even for a guy going on 36. I would put the going rate at about $6m/win, so 3.5 would be $21m. That's why I tossed out 3/24 as something I'd be very happy with... 4 wins out of Lackey in 2016-17 is a rather modest expectation. But if it ended up being 2/20 I'd be perfectly fine with that. 2/10, that's just lowballing.
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Jun 10, 2014 17:44:04 GMT -5
When can we reasonably expect to see this in Boston?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Jun 10, 2014 17:50:07 GMT -5
Lackey has approximately $10 million left to be paid this year and then the $500K next near. The deal does need to be reworked though, otherwise he's likely to just sit out the 2015 season. When you've earned as much money during your career as Lackey has, $500K vs being able to spend a year with your family is a no brainer. At the very least, the threat of sitting out is an excellent bargaining tool with extremely little downside for him. Assuming he continues a very respectable 2014 pitching performance, Lackey could return in 2016 on a one year deal for $10 million if not more. With the player having all the leverage, negotiations for the Red Sox are likely to be a headache. Add that fact to Lackey already being 35 years old and the aforementioned solid 2014 pitching performance and you get a pretty nice candidate for the trade block. He'd certainly be worth more than Peavy was last year. This is crazy talk. If it's about money, the way for him to make it is to pitch (well) in 2015. And lets be real, these guys want to play. If he was so eager to walk away from the game and spend time with his family he could have done that several tens of millions of dollars ago.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 17:53:36 GMT -5
A 3.5-win player should be worth $16-18 mil, minus risk, right? So if Lackey were to get even a 2/18 deal, he'd be just about free for one of those years. I think 2/14 and 3/24 are low, especially considering the other pitcher contracts going around the past couple of years, even for a guy going on 36. Well, my logic is that the Red Sox are extending him one year in advance and thus bearing additional injury/performance risk, so there should be something of a discount (this is particularly true because Lackey turns 38 in 2016). Plus, there's always the specter of the qualifying offer-- the most likely alternative being that he pitches for the minimum in 2015 and gets offered the qualifying offer for 2016, which should be in the $16m range. I can't imagine a team willing to give up a pick and offer more than $16m for the 38-year-old, no matter how good he's been. There's also the fact that old pitchers don't get paid a ton, even when they've been really good. Kuroda, who turned 39 this year, accepted his QO coming off a 3.8 fWAR season rather than exploring free agency. 37-year-old A.J. Burnett (4.0 fWAR) signed for 1/$16m, 41-year-old Bartolo Colon (4.1 fWAR) signed for 2/$20m, 37-year-old Bronson Arroyo (2.7 RA9-WAR) got 2/$19m, 38-year-old Tim Hudson (prorated 3.4 fWAR) for 2/$23m, etc. etc. That said, you're probably right that 2/$14m or 3/$24m is probably a bit low. Maybe up that to 2/$16m or 3/$30m. But going higher than that would be overpaying while bidding only against yourself.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 10, 2014 18:05:50 GMT -5
37 year old pitchers don't retire for a year and come back.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jun 10, 2014 18:11:47 GMT -5
Dustin Pedroia entered tonight with a 93 wRC+, .702 OPS, and .090 ISO (.311 BABIP) vs. right-handed pitching. Not that we're brimming with alternatives, but at what point does getting this type of production from our nummber three hitter become an issue?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jun 10, 2014 18:12:52 GMT -5
It's been a spirited discussion jmei. Since we're at an impasse, I sent an inquiry to the MLBPA. I'll post any response I receive. Are frigging kidding me? Aren't you a lawyer? How are you unable to understand/read what JMei has so clearly spelled out and backed up with text from the CBA? Is the text complex? yes. Is it clear? crystal! To be fair, there is a little bit of ambiguity around the word "renew," which is not defined in the CBA and is a term that occasionally causes issues in contract law. A particularly indefatigable attorney could make the case that a renewal could not be unilaterally exercised and would require negotiation between the two parties, and if those negotiations fell apart, the right outcome is to not extend the contract. Now, that's not a winning argument, as it would run contrary to both the text and spirit of the CBA, nor would the player's union be particularly interested in pursuing the issue. But it has some plausibility, and the argument was pursued without resorting to pettiness, so I don't think it's worth calling out.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Jun 10, 2014 18:14:08 GMT -5
Right now, he shouldn't be the number 3 hitter. He should be hitting about 6th or 7th.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 18:15:14 GMT -5
It's been a spirited discussion jmei. Since we're at an impasse, I sent an inquiry to the MLBPA. I'll post any response I receive. Are frigging kidding me? Aren't you a lawyer? How are you unable to understand/read what JMei has so clearly spelled out and backed up with text from the CBA? Is the text complex? yes. Is it clear? crystal! Who said I'm a lawyer? There's no harm in writing to the MLBPA though. At the very least, it'll be interesting to see if they respond.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 18:16:01 GMT -5
Dustin Pedroia entered tonight with a 93 wRC+, .702 OPS, and .090 ISO (.311 BABIP) vs. right-handed pitching. Not that we're brimming with alternatives, but at what point does getting this type of production from our nummber three hitter become an issue? As I've mentioned before, you should be hitting your 4th or 5th best hitter in the 3 spot. So, can you name 5 players on the roster who are doing better?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 18:18:53 GMT -5
That's .... a lot of rain.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jun 10, 2014 18:21:39 GMT -5
Dustin Pedroia entered tonight with a 93 wRC+, .702 OPS, and .090 ISO (.311 BABIP) vs. right-handed pitching. Not that we're brimming with alternatives, but at what point does getting this type of production from our nummber three hitter become an issue? As I've mentioned before, you should be hitting your 4th or 5th best hitter in the 3 spot. So, can you name 5 players on the roster who are doing better? Yes: Mike Napoli, AJP, David Ortiz, Brock Holt, and Xander Bogaerts. And with another hit or two, Daniel Nava will make it 6.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jun 10, 2014 18:26:23 GMT -5
Dustin Pedroia entered tonight with a 93 wRC+, .702 OPS, and .090 ISO (.311 BABIP) vs. right-handed pitching. Not that we're brimming with alternatives, but at what point does getting this type of production from our nummber three hitter become an issue? I would say move him back to the 2 hole with the messed up wrist he is not going to be driving the ball anytime soon. I would probably have Xander hit 3rd with Papi protecting him and see if he can actually drive any runs in. I have not seen any signs that he can yet. But I have high hopes he can. Of course I thought JBJ was ready and that he would hit also.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jun 10, 2014 18:27:54 GMT -5
I think a fair contract for Lackey considering his age and his current one having him pitch for the league minimum would be 2yrs and 16-18 million. Give him a vesting option for a third year for 400 innings pitched in the next two years at around the qualifying offer.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jun 10, 2014 18:32:56 GMT -5
Ben Cherington on NESN during rain delay. Not panicking at all.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 18:37:10 GMT -5
As I've mentioned before, you should be hitting your 4th or 5th best hitter in the 3 spot. So, can you name 5 players on the roster who are doing better? Yes: Mike Napoli, AJP, David Ortiz, Brock Holt, and Xander Bogaerts. And with another hit or two, Daniel Nava will make it 6. But we all hate AJP and don't actually want to see him hitting more often, right? When I play OOTP Baseball, the 1-5 of my lineup typically has 5 lefties against a RHP and 1-2 lefties against a LHP. John Farrell on the other hand sees absolutely no reason why it should matter who the opposing pitcher is when he fills out the first 5 spots on his lineup card. (Well as long as Mike Napoli is healthy, anyway, he did platoon the 5 spot while Napoli was out.) Sooo... yeah, Farrell cares too little about splits. What else is new? Here's how I would line 'em up based on YTD performance: vs. RHP Napoli 1B (123 wRC+) Pierzynski C (118 wRC+) Bogaerts SS (112 wRC+) Ortiz DH (115 wRC+) Holt 3B (113 wRC+) Pedroia 2B (93 wRC+) Carp LF (91 wRC+) Nava RF (90 wRC+) Sizemore/JBJ CF vs. LHP Bogaerts SS (160 wRC+) Holt 3B (164 wRC+) Gomes LF (151 wRC+) Napoli 1B (155 wRC+) Ortiz DH (125 wRC+) Pedroia 2B (117 wRC+) Ross C (77 wRC+) Bradley Jr. CF (69 wRC+) Sizemore RF (30 wRC+)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 18:39:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 18:39:17 GMT -5
I would say move him back to the 2 hole with the messed up wrist he is not going to be driving the ball anytime soon. I would probably have Xander hit 3rd with Papi protecting him and see if he can actually drive any runs in. I have not seen any signs that he can yet. But I have high hopes he can. Of course I thought JBJ was ready and that he would hit also. You've got it all wrong. You want a BETTER hitter in the 2 spot than the 3 spot, so Xander is fine there. Also, "protection" has been disproven statistically (Tango et al., "The Book") and anecdotally ( www.fangraphs.com/blogs/joey-votto-and-protection-up-front/ ).
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 18:41:47 GMT -5
Herrera's hot streak was just a fluke, it probably ends here.
|
|
cdj
Veteran
Posts: 15,664
|
Post by cdj on Jun 10, 2014 18:42:49 GMT -5
Does Herrera have a brain? Serious question.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jun 10, 2014 18:43:12 GMT -5
This is excellent news, I will be marking these dates on my calendar:
JoeGiza Joe Giza NESN also says @jerry_Remy will be off June 19-27. @eck43 fills in #redsox
|
|
|