Lackey + Angels = WTF?!?!

by Sethy on Feb 25, 2009 10:21 PM PST

OK, so I'm not a math major, but he equation makes sense to me. It's killing me that the Angels haven't re-signed Big John to an extension, locking him up and keeping him away from the free agent market at the end of the 2009 season.

Yes, he's made it known that he wants some run support. And no, we didn't do anything this off-season to really make him feel comfortable that he will actually win 15+ games with an ERA in the mid-3's. But if he hits the open market, he's a goner.

Either the Angels are sitting on their hands and blowing this last-chance opportunity (Lackey said he will not discuss his contract during the season) or Lackey's mind is set and, barring a large, large Angels offer, he's hitting the market anyway.

To fuel my disgust, Phil phucking Rogers had to go and name Big John the top free agent of the 2010 class.

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

jeez please...

…have a LITTLE faith in Arte. You make it sound like Jackie Autry and her five dollar bank balance is still in charge of the franchise.

by Rev Halofan on Feb 25, 2009 10:23 PM PST reply actions 2 recs

You mean the bitch didn't even have the common sense to put that in a savings account?

She should have at LEAST like, $5.38 now. You can buy a tenth of a hot dog at a ball game with that interest, buddy.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Feb 25, 2009 10:35 PM PST up reply actions

Sorry

I’m still scarred from events of the late 80s and the entire 90s.

by Sethy on Feb 26, 2009 7:45 AM PST up reply actions

I have a buddy who cornered Reagins at a ST game a couple of days ago. He said that Reagins essentially said that it seems that John wants to test the FA waters.

by Downing Rules on Feb 27, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions

It isn't that hard to understand

Lackey has probably looked at the deal that AJ Burnett signed with the Yankees and figured that is a good baseline for negotiations.

However, as we have seen with Manny, Dunn, Abreu and others, just because you’re at the top of your field doesn’t mean the offers will rain down upon you. If next Winter is like this one—and quite possibly, the economy won’t be significantly better—then it is unlikely any team will make Lackey an offer similar to Burnett’s, in the same way Abreu and Dunn signed deals for far less than those reached earlier by Burrell and Ibanez.

In the meantime, if the Angels make a generous bid and it is rejected for now, then the team has established a baseline to negotiate against itself. That isn’t a bright way to conduct business.

Therefore, it may be best to wait until the season ends and then open negotiations, especially since the team will have its exclusive window to do so before the free agency doors are kicked wide open. In addition, we have no idea how the season will end for Lackey—he might win the Cy, or he might have some arm injury which limits his number of starts and effectiveness. Waiting is a gamble for both sides.

Finally, if the team’s offense improves as he has requested, he might be persuaded to stay with a competitive offer.

There is plenty we don’t know. About the only thing that is certain is that in this economy and baseball market, it would be the wrong move for the Angels to drop their pants in an attempt to preemptively lock up Lackey.

by George Kaplan on Feb 26, 2009 5:15 AM PST reply actions

last time I checked the LA Times said Tony had opened negotiations with John's agent

and that Lackey might be the one interested in free agency and not re-signing right now. Cant see how thats the Angels fault

maybe read up before you freak out.

by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 26, 2009 8:24 AM PST reply actions

Heard him a couple months back on AM830...

and it was very obvious to me based on his comments that he is VERY excited about the opportunity to test the market and land a big time deal.

Things have changed alot with the economy since, and I personally don’t think it will be much better at that time.

by Wytelitning on Feb 26, 2009 9:22 AM PST reply actions

Lets face it...We got a killer staff and good prospects...

Losing John would be a bummer but not the end of the world. After next year he will be 31 and most likely nearing, if not past his peak—still effective and damn good pitcher— but his best years might be behind him at that point.

Love me some John, don’t get me wrong. But if the guy wants to go elsewhere then let him. Walden, Ortega, Adenhart along with Santana and Big Joe will keep the Halos staff in good shape.

by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Feb 26, 2009 3:37 PM PST reply actions

nicely said

Lackey is really good…. but if he leaves, then he leaves.

who knows what a rotation of Santana, Saunders, Weaver, Adenhart, Walden is capable of?

Kotch would've had that.

by howiestheman on Feb 26, 2009 9:34 PM PST up reply actions

yeah, pitching im not terribly worried about

if lackey wanted to test the waters and leave, his money would just go towards extending a vlad/weaver/saunders/kendrick type player or a free agent

that said i still want him back

by ihearhowie2.0 on Feb 26, 2009 10:53 PM PST up reply actions

I want Lackey back as well

You can’t really expect that losing an arm like his wouldn’t have a negative impact on the team.

But, that being said, I want the Angels to get a big bat first to really give Lackey a reason to stay.

I'm still not over losing Tex.

by 10 27 02 on Feb 27, 2009 4:38 PM PST up reply actions

Good rotation

Not too much experience. I think everything should be done to keep John and if he goes then trade or sign for another experienced horse.

by TheAntiSox on Feb 27, 2009 6:26 PM PST up reply actions

So enjoy the show

The only way Big Thunder is going to get the big bucks that he wants. Is if he dominates the league.

by eyespy on Feb 26, 2009 4:21 PM PST reply actions 1 recs

One would hope

But to think that a player performs better on his contract year is very selfish by the player. If a player could always perform like he would on a contract year, then why doesn’t he? If Lackey does dominate the league this year because it’s his contract year then screw him, don’t resign him. That lack (pun intended) of effort is flippin ridiculous.

by TheAntiSox on Feb 27, 2009 6:32 PM PST up reply actions

Pump up the Jams

Big John always brings it. He was hurt last season, but when he came bake into the rotation he did better than he was supposed to. Before that he always brought the A-Game.

Just with the contract year up John will be emitting the winning musk of success to the whole team. That way ensuring a great season that will be his resume complete for his career up to date.

Then the Angels will get a fair shake in the contract negotiations because Big Thunder is a real man. Not like the u-haul.

by eyespy on Feb 27, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions

agreed

Hard to say, if he has an excellent year, that it’s only because of his contract year. He’s been great over the past 3-4 years, and last season he was hurt – for the first time in his career.

by Sethy on Feb 28, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions

Very true

But say for the sake of argument he puts up a 20+ win season then come on.

by TheAntiSox on Feb 28, 2009 5:53 PM PST up reply actions

This would make sense

…only if there was any evidence Lackey had held back in some way in the past.

What I saw of him in the last several years is that he leaves every bit of himself on the field when he is taken out of the game. He is a battler who wants to be the ace, who wants the ball in the key games.

In his 2008 season, which we can stipulate was not a full season because of his early season injury limiting him to beginning in May, he had 7 no decisions among his starts. In those games he averaged nearly 7 IP per game, had an ERA of 3.88 and a K/BB of 3 to 1. In fact, he pitched horribly in only two of those seven games (7/10 and 8/3), and but for more offense should have easily won the other five games for a 17 win, abbreviated season.

The whole idea that he would suddenly find a previously unseen higher gear because he’s in his final year before free agency is too ludicrous to discuss. Especially since he was 19-9 in 2007—would that make a 20+ win season that unusual for him?

by George Kaplan on Feb 28, 2009 11:06 PM PST up reply actions

human nature

athletes aren’t robots. their human. its his contract year and thats definitely has to be in his mind going into the season. if he has a dominate year, so what. it doesn’t mean he was going through the motions before this year. i hope he does. most contract year players hope to have dominate years. i wish i can say i’m giving a 100% effort all the time with everything i do but there are times when i’m giving less then 100% and i know it. i’m not saying Lackey doesn’t give it 100% everytime he’s out there but there is an added edge you get i think when you know its a contract year or your back is against a wall type of situation.

by HALO_86 on Mar 1, 2009 10:23 AM PST up reply actions

From the LA Times this morning

Link here:

Indeed, Lackey, who has a 91-63 record and 3.81 earned-run average in six-plus big league seasons, is in a walk year, but the Angels hope to stop the 30-year-old right-hander in his tracks.

They have begun negotiations with agent Steve Hilliard on a contract extension they hope will keep Lackey in Anaheim for at least another five years. The deal could cost about $80 million.

“It’s a great place to play, obviously,” Lackey said, when asked if he wanted to remain in Anaheim. “But I feel like I’ve done some things that need to be taken care of.”

Translation: Lackey will gladly remain an Angel, as long as the team rewards him with a contract worthy of a staff ace on a perennial contender.

“I’d like to get it done before the regular season,” Lackey said. “But I’ll do my thing on the field regardless of what’s going on. Motivation is not my problem. Hitting is. I’ve seen six strikes this year.”

by George Kaplan on Mar 8, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions