Where Would John Lackey Go?
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 1:45 AM PDT
Email
PrintWhile many of us are getting increasingly anxious that Lackey hasn't rolled over like a faithful dog to get a belly scratch and contract extension of the Angels' choosing, there is an equally important question to be asked, one which the Angels front office must be using in its negotiation calculus:
What other team would pay Lackey $90M/5 yrs?
This is an important question to consider, since any of us can ask for any salary, but that doesn't mean the market will support it.
In the case of Lackey, there are very few teams with the financial resources to invest $18M a year (annualized) in a single player. Furthermore, the game is awash with cautionary tales of why this isn't a good idea (Helton, Zito, Hampton, Park, etc).
Only a major-market team like the Angels is able to sit at this table and play. Which are the other teams?
° Yankees--they have Sabathia, Burnett and Wang right now, so Lackey would hardly arrive as the ace of the squad--he takes pride in being the big-game guy, the one who gets the ball for the opening game of a series or a must-win game. With the Yankees, he would surely be second-chair (at least) to Sabathia, and maybe to one or both of the others. Besides the Yankees have to figure out how to upgrade the offense with Posada aging and Matsui and Damon leaving at season's end.
°Cubs--See above; the Cubs already wrote Lackey's contract and had Zambrano sign it. Again, he wouldn't head the rotation. In addition, the uncertain ownership situation may mean the Cubs would be unable to pull the trigger on such a deal next Winter.
° Red Sox--The team would probably be more interested in locking up Beckett, whose deal expires at the end of 2010, and has $100M invested in Dice-K. The team locked up Lester a few days ago and I suspect sees him as the #2. Assuming Beckett is healthy in 2009, I don't think Lackey has much of a chance here. Boston also may place a higher priority on buying out Papelbon's remaining arbitration years and his first few years of free agency.
Besides, Fenway has more than a few ghosts for him to deal with, and, like the Yankees, a lot of fan pressure to succeed, something he hasn't dealt with in Anaheim.
° Dodgers--As if. Maybe if Lackey wishes to be paid in 2020 for the next six seasons.
° That leaves THE METS. They already have Johan Santana earning $20M+ through 2013, Perez making $12M a year on a new deal, and a need to re-sign Mike Pelfrey. Lackey could conceivably come in as #2, but he'd have to learn a new league and new hitters. And he'd have to deal with the hostility of New York fans if he's less than perfect.
Note also that each of these teams lacks one thing the Angels possess: An evening marine layer which tends to turn some home runs into long fly balls, which in turn can keep a pitcher's stats looking better and keep him in games longer.
So, really... which teams are apt to sign Lackey? Or is this shaping up to be like the Dodgers and Manny?
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
107 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
He will come back with us or else...
He needs the large contract to have face and mole removing surgery
Vlad cheated me. I thought he was 12.
by vlad IS my man on Mar 21, 2009 10:09 PM PDT reply actions
Face removing surgery?
Warm beer is infinitely colder than no beer.
come on now
we all know his grill is his intimidating factor…. sort of like the big units mullet circa the 1990’s
There is an "Angel in the outfield" and his name is GA! ps. he is lazy but not a bum GO HALOS!
Im holding out hope that a deal will get done.
A person who performs good Karma (deeds) is always held in high esteem
12/19/08 - Thank you KLJ for coming into my life.
by norcaliangelsfan on Mar 21, 2009 10:23 PM PDT reply actions
more options than you think
Rangers, M’s, O’s, Met’s, LAD, Cards, Astros, just to name a few.
5 years is too much though, imo. I’m abivolent with a reigning if it means 4-5 years at $15M+.
Go Angels!
I think Texas is most likely
They’ll want a gritty Texan stud to head the group of talented rookies they’re going to trot out in 2010 and beyond. Padilla’s deal is up after ‘09, and Millwood’s after ‘10, so they’ll have the spot and the money to do a big deal. They’ve gone cheap for a few years now, but they’re just a year or two away from contention and will want to invest.
Texas
You’re correct that Texas might be attractive to a boy from Abilene.
However, Tom Hicks might be reluctant to do a contract that big, long and guaranteed after being burned on his disastrous deals for A-Rod and Park, and his merely disappointing ones for Millwood, Young and Padilla.
Furthermore, it can’t be lost on Lackey has he has not pitched well in the Ballpark, either over the last three seasons as he’s emerged at a leading starter, nor over his career in general.
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 8:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I thought he was from Katy...
someone our team is from Katy I thought.
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Mar 22, 2009 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
Options
Phillies—Good thought, one I hadn’t considered, though I do wonder if the Phillies aren’t topping out on payroll right about now. The team has bought out Hamels’ arbitration years, but bottom of the staff is full of spackle (Chan Ho Park, for example). I don’t think Lackey is keen on the idea of (A) hitting (which he has said he hates), and (B) learning the hitters in a new league. If he has the luxury of choice, he may also consider that Citizen’s Park is known as one of the top “hitters’ parks” in the game, something which is bad for his personal stats. Finally, the Phillie fans are known as the crew who would boo Santa Claus—Lackey has had it pretty easy playing in front of supportive and laid-back fans in Anaheim.
Cubs—I already addressed them. With credit difficult to come by, Sam Zell is having a very hard time finding a buyer who can pay him what he needs to get any decent ROI on his overall purchase of the Tribune Co. It is always possible that a new owner might want to make a splash with a high-profile signing, but the Cubs already have $42M allocated for Zambrano, Lilly and Dempster in 2010 alone.
Mariners—Rebuilding. I don’t think Lackey wants anything to do with a rebuilding club, he wants to be on a team with a legit shot to win immediately. Furthermore, the Mariners are crippled financially by bad contracts for Jojima and Silva, and an expensive one for Ichiro. Any free cash laying around will be devoted to re-signing King Felix.
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 7:36 AM PDT up reply actions
i think seattle could appear as a somewhat decent option by the end of the season
especially since they presumably have a good GM now who might sell john on a quick turnaround.
theyll have bedard and beltre’s contracts coming off, ichiro’s is deferred over 25 years or something and they could have made some progress if some of their young guys break out.
not the most likely, but not impossible. they’ll have money
by ihearhowie2.0 on Mar 22, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions
Mariners
Ichiro’s deal defers $5M/season with 5% interest to be paid after he retires. However, he’s still going to draw $12M/yr through 2012, and the remaining $5M/yr needs to be set aside, so it isn’t as if Ichiro is taking a pay cut. The Ms will lose several contracts after this year, including Griffey, Washburn and Batista. The result is that a lot of kids will be rising through the ranks, which means growing pains. While it is true Beltre’s deal ends this year, there is no player in the pipeline for the Ms who is capable of filling Beltre’s role with the leather, wood or within the clubhouse. Losing Beltre in some ways creates more problems for the Ms than it solves.
You’re correct that the Mariners might be able to afford a deal for the expected $90M/5 yrs, but that doesn’t mean the team is going to be playoff-bound before 2012 or 2013. I seriously doubt Lackey would take a deal solely on the money, since I think he has more fire in the belly to win another ring than, say, Barry Zito.
Part and parcel of a contract would have to be a team capable of making the playoffs in 2010. The Mariners don’t fit that profile in any conceivable analysis, nor in 2011 or possibly 2012, without wholesale changes to the other teams in the AL West specifically and the AL in general.
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Lackey is no Manny
Lackey is in the peak of his career, pitches, and has never been known as a club house cancer.
Teams find money for Ace quality pitchers, because pitching wins.
On the other hand, teams aren’t all going to go after a aged left fielder with no defensive presence, who is also one of the most highly paid athletes in the game and is also known for knocking down staff members when he feels like it.
Lackey is one of the most underrated starters in baseball. He gets absolutely no love because he not only plays on the west coast, but also for the wrong Los Angeles team.
And to say that the Yankees wouldnt throw MORE money at high quality pitching, you are insane. If anything they have proved to spend anything they need to to land what they want. If either Burnett or Sabathia go down next year, Joba continues to not fit into a starter role or Wang gets whiskey dick you can bet you ass the Yankees will throw 5/95 at Lackey because they can.
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
Yankees
You’re assuming facts not in evidence—obviously, if Sabathia was hit by a meteor, the Yankees would be in the market for another top of the rotation pitcher. That isn’t what is being discussed here. The Yankees are still a business, knowing the team can sign Wang (a pitcher they know and one popular with the fans) for far less than Lackey, and get a two years younger arm in the process. 2010 represents his last arbitration year, and the Yankees would figure to be more inclined to lock him up first.
As to Manny, the problem was less to do with his age and demeanor, and everything to do with the financial expectations he had for a contract. If he was willing to play for $10M, the line of teams to sign him would have been about 25 GM long. That is the point here: Lackey’s contract expectations could well place him out of reach of most of the teams in baseball.
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Can someone tell me how long a player in arbitration eligible ? What service is required to become a free agent ?
6 years total
While there are some special way to calculate some players’ eligibility which I don’t understand and thus won’t go into here, the basic formula means the player is under team control for the first three seasons (they can renew a contract without the player’s consent), then is eligible for arbitration in years 4-6. Beginning in year 7, the player is a free agent.
The Angels signed Lackey to a deal the first year he was arbitration eligible. He had signed a one-year contract to avoid arbitration in Jan 06, but the team tore that up a few months later with a three years-plus-option deal which bought out his arbitration years, plus provided a team option for 2009 (his 7th year), which would otherwise have been his first year of free agency.
It is for that reason that Lackey is wearing red this season, instead of having gone into last Winter’s free agent market. His option pays him $10M for this year ($9M, plus $1M for an escalator clause related to his Cy vote).
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Yankees
Money means nothing to them. They could easily afford to give Lackey $100+ million, AND take care of their other issues. Money will never, ever be an issue to the Yankees.
Doubtful.
Money still means something to them, otherwise they’d just have signed Beltran when Damon became a disappointment, gotten Johan Santana and Daisuke when they had the chance.
Next year they lose their entire outfield, and Jason Bay, Matt Holliday, and possibly Vladimir Guerrero will be on the market. They’ll likely spend their mega-bucks wrapping up at least two of those guys.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Well,
actually the Santana thing isn’t fair. They didn’t get the chance to offer him a gazillion dollars because the Mets traded for him and got a contract signed without him going to free agency.
Another correction, the Yanks didn’t sign Damon until after Beltran was off the Market (he signed in the 2004 offseason). They were still using Bernie Williams in centerfield during 2004-2005 (where he sucked). The point stands in the case of Beltran though—They didn’t sign him because they had a guy already for that spot, and they’d already spent their money getting other people.
~Till the Halo burns out...
so then your point is...
there is no reason they WOULDN’T sign Lackey. I think Holliday is probably already getting his pinstripes fitted and I’m sure they’ll grab a centerfielder somewhere, but they’ll want at least one starting pitcher. Pettite is probably gone after this year, and who knows what will come of their young trio of starters. If Lackey doesn’t sign the extension soon and has a healthy season, you can book him for the Bronx.
My point is there's plenty of reason they wouldn't.
They have CC, AJ, Wang, Joba, and possibly either Hughes or Kennedy. They will rather spend money on Holliday and another outfielder.
IF they need pitching help, they’ll probably go with one of the numerous “risky ace” types who will be on the market next season, including: Rich Harden, Kelvim Escobar, Jason Schmidt, Justin Duchscherer, Brad Penny, or Erik Bedard. All of whom will be had for a much lower price than 5 years $90 million.
~Till the Halo burns out...
dead wrong
You think the Yankees will spend more money like that? You’re insane. The Yankees have repeatedly said they simply cannot spend any more money. Contracts are going to get even bigger next year and they will have even less to spend. Especially on pitching. They have Joba (who frankly is showing no signs of not being able to compete) and Hughes who they prize. If Burnett fails, why would they spend big money on someone who is supposed to be his closest comparison? Even Lackey says he basically Burnett. Even their career numbers are the same. The Yankees are done spending (at least on 18 million dollar contracts). The Yankees will not throw 5/95 at Lackey because they cannot.
by TheAngelsAngels on Mar 22, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Sigh...
The Yankees have quite a bit of money coming off the books next year. They stated they have no more money to spend THIS offseason, I assure you they didn’t mean that statement as a “from now on, for every offseason forever, we have no money”
Secondly, you dont know if the contracts are going to “get bigger”. The economy could take an even bigger nosedive and you could see an even worse FA market next year.
Third, Burnett is Lackey’s closest comparison IN NUMBERS. Not health, not attitude, just numbers when AJ isn’t on the DL for a sprained ego.
Come on man.
I brought sexy back, but they only gave me store credit....
oh come one man
Yet he is looking the same contract, so I guess he is pretty close in a comparison. come one man.
I never said from now on, forever. cash never said that. only you did. But they have said htey are putting on the brakes for the time being. plus they have new legal troubles that maybe cost them more money. plus they have way more glaring areas now the SP. The point is, is this is the least likely time for NYY to pay 20 million for lackey. They also have to resign Jeter. and they need a catcher. and they need bullpen help. a center fielder. maybe a second baseman. maybe a closer in the near future. A staring pitcher is the least likely place for the money to go. come on man.
the contracts ill get bigger next year. i said it here now. I believe in a rebound of our economy. I say things are better this time next year. come one man.
by TheAngelsAngels on Mar 22, 2009 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions
"Sigh..." indeed
Yes, the Yankees have money coming off the books after 2009 season.
They also have pitchers like Joba and Hughes entering their arbitration years, and salaries which had been renewed at MLB minimum will become measured in the millions.
They have position players like Cabrera in arbitration years.
They have days of reckoning with Jeter and Rivera, both of whom have contracts expiring at the end of 2010; those matters require budgeting.
If the team decides to retain Nady, that will require a FA contract signed (with Scott Boras sitting across the table).
As I stated elsewhere, the 2010 Yankees will have over $90M invested in just A-Rod, Teixeira, Sabathia and Burnett. The team will desperately need offense, a starting catcher (unless Posada finds the Fountain of Youth) and some starting OF (beyond Nady). It is supposed the Yankees will make a run at Holliday, and that could easily be $17M to $22M per season.
Yes, the team will pour some water from the pitcher at the end of 2009, but circumstances will fill it back up before Lackey enters the picture.
by George Kaplan on Mar 23, 2009 4:09 AM PDT up reply actions
Actually they won't have Nady.
The only outfielder still under contract for the Yanks would be Swisher. They’ll need at least two more if they don’t want Cabrera to have to play full time. They only lose something like $30 million from Damon, Matsui, and Nady. Holliday is a guy people will likely go after in the $20 million a year category as long as he doesn’t flop in Oakland, and the Yankees will make him priority one. They won’t have enough money after that.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Nady
That’s where I was going with that—he’s a free agent after this season, with Boras as his agent. While Boras loves all his clients equally (I’m sure), I also imagine he sees more upside potential getting his client Holliday in pinstripes rather than Nady.
by George Kaplan on Mar 23, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Crazy
the Yankees aren’t even spending any more this year than they spent LAST year, and they have another ton of money coming off the books. They could give Lackey $20M/year and still have a lower payroll! The Steinbrenners will not put their franchise in the hands of untested youngsters such as Chamberlain & Hughes when they can sign a proven guy like Lackey.
yes they will
its why they wont trade them and have said they are untouchable. spending spree is done. ESPECIALLY if they make the playoffs (which they probably will).
by TheAngelsAngels on Mar 22, 2009 11:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Only if they want an outfield of Swisher, Melky Cabrera, Endy Chavez
I seriously doubt they’re going to do that.
~Till the Halo burns out...
right
meant on pitching. they do have gardener though who they seem to want to at least give a chance…
by TheAngelsAngels on Mar 23, 2009 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
Wow. This morning I woke up on some planet other than Earth.
Can somebody please provide me with directions back to my native planet, the one where league-leading ace pitchers with little history of injuries dominate the FA market and #1 money like nobody other than future-HOF position players?
Where I come from, all this conjecture would be dismissed as silly nonsense occupying the minds of those few sports fans currently idled by their distaste for college basketball.
Agreed. Lackey wants and will likely get CC / AJ Burnett $$$$
Whether its from us or someone else.
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Mar 22, 2009 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Based on what?
The only people handing out contracts like that were the Yankees, and only because they dropped $70 million off their payroll. That doesn’t happen every year. Next year it just so happens that most big money teams have already spent a lot of their pitching money.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Right, because we do so much on this blog
which COULDN’T be dismissed as silly nonsense.
As far as Lackey’s status—in what, precisely, is Lackey leading the league? Lackey is no doubt an ace pitcher, but he is not a 28 year old yearly Cy contender, nor a strikeout artist. He puts up solid numbers year after year, but the question is WHO is going to pay him $90 million?
This was the same question we were asking about K-Rod last season. Most big money-teams either had cheaper options or already had a big money closer locked up. As it turned out, K-Rod got a lesser deal not just because of the bad economy, but because no one was really competing for him. It was mostly us and the Mets. For that matter, the Mets were only looking at him because Wagner blew up.
Market is always a consideration. When I look ahead to next season, I don’t see anyone going out to spend 5 years $18 million per year on Lackey.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Nationals
They were willing to choke up the big bucks for some offense (see: Texeira). However, they have a plethora of young guys with bat potential and despite not getting Tex were still able to add some offense this off-season.
So what do the Nats need really, really bad? Pitching. Their pitching is atrocious. I think they would be willing to overpay for an ace to build a staff around.
Problem? Lackey wants another ring. He’s a huge competitor and we all remember the quote right after we got knocked out of the playoffs about how he is going to pay attention closely to what we do in the off-season.
If he wants the money, I think Nats might be willing to throw up the cash. If he wants a competitor then of course, he will go elsewhere.
On the other hand, I am a total novice when it comes to FA market and so what do I know.
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Mar 22, 2009 11:44 AM PDT reply actions
don't kid yourself.
Its all about the money/contract length. Otherwise he’d be signed already. That’s no knock on Big John, either. Hes earned his chance to cash in, and should take full advantage.
The Nats spent $54 million, TOTAL, in 2008
Adam Dunn’s $10 million per year is the largest contract they have. If they spent the money to get Lackey, he’d make up a quarter of their payroll all by himself. What makes you think the Nats are actually willing to do something like that?
~Till the Halo burns out...
The 160 + mil they offered Texeira
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Mar 22, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Mark Teixeira is a possibly Hall of Fame bound 29-year old superstar
with name recognition and the ability to put butts in the seats every game, as well as instant credibility as far as attempting to compete. Much the same way that Vlad was in 2004.
John Lackey is a very good frontline starter who plays once every five days. I don’t think the two are really in the same class.
Also, you’ll note that all they actually ended up DOING was giving Dunn $10 million per year. It’s easy to make a play at a guy you know other teams with larger pockets are going after and come back to your fans saying, “Well, I tried.”
~Till the Halo burns out...
Noted but...
they need pitching and have the money. He wont get Teix’s salary and he wont get CC or AJ but I bet he gets a big contract and the Nats proved they have the money and might willing to shell it out for the right player.
Your point is taken ZU but I dont think my speculations are any less credible than yours. Wait, do you have speculations?
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Mar 22, 2009 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Zu nice points
but, I agree tha Nationals could be at least a fringe player. They do have a huge market and they have been stepping up their efforts to improve. You have to start somewhere and a frontline gamer who has been around and done a lot is an asset. Especially when Strasburg (maybe) and Zimmerman start rolling in. Lackey would be a nice mentor while still putting up results.
That being said, Tex’s appeal was also the hometownish aspect. Lackey does not have that factor.
by TheAngelsAngels on Mar 22, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Nationals
The Nationals are so far from contention for the playoffs that it is silly to imagine Lackey would toil in DC and play for a sub-.500 team, especially since he was spoiled with the Angels’ finishes in 2004-2009 (keeping it optimistic).
There may be a time in his career when he becomes a late 30s guy like Maddox and signs one-year deals, acting as a mentor to raw talent. That time clearly isn’t now for him. He wants to win, whether in Anaheim or somewhere else, and he isn’t the sort of guy who would sign a deal with a .500 club.
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree...
and made that point in my original post about the Nats.
However, I operate with the assumption that all players choose money or anything else now.
by BryanHarvey'sMoustache on Mar 22, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
it is
i agree. Doesnt mean the nationals wont make a run at him still…
by TheAngelsAngels on Mar 22, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
In another topic I speculated the point Kaplan is making
that in fact, there isn’t ANYBODY with the money and cajones to pony up $90 million for 5 years for Lackey in this economy. I wondered if our front office has come to same conclusion and that’s why they’re dragging their feet with these negotiations.
~Till the Halo burns out...
3 choices...
Mets, Rangers or Astros… see any connection there? I’d say the Astros only if he wants to go there for less money.
Rangers won't be able to pay what he's asking either.
The Mets are paying Santana and Perez right now. Plus they’ll probably be looking to either resign or replace Carlos Delgado at first.
~Till the Halo burns out...
The Rangers can pay
Their payroll has shrunk considerably over the past few years – once they have a legitimate shot at contending, they’ll spend what’s necessary for the pieces that’ll get them over the top.
They shrunk their payroll because they were losing money on the A-Rod fiasco.
Hicks discovered that spending that much of your salary, even on an everyday guy like A-Rod, wasn’t a good idea, and that fans tend to show up when you WIN. You’re telling me for the past 5 years they’ve just been waiting to make a move? If that were the case, you’d think they’d have done something in 2004, back when they were coming off 89 wins and had Teixeira for another few seasons.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Exactly right
The Rangers owe A-Rod $40M with interest as part of the deal to get him out of Arlington. If their payroll seems low, it is because they have spent parts of the last few seasons paying players who were no longer in a Rangers uni.
Think of it: If the team was that close to contending, why didn’t it go the extra mile to preemptively extend Teixeira’s deal in 2007? If the team truly is that flush with cash, then it could have sweetened its offer and locked Teixeira down with a blow-me-away offer sheet. He was already a fan favorite, a homegrown star and would have been the face of the franchise for years to come.
As for pitching, those big spenders were close to signing Ben Sheets for a guaranteed $10M over 2 years before the elbow problem was discovered. That deal wouldn’t put them in Lackey’s ZIP code.
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I don't think the Rangers owe A-Rod anything.
I may be wrong, but I thought when Rodriquez opted out of his contract last year, all ties the Rangers had with it were over.
I was uncool before uncool was cool.
That might be
I’m not certain if the opting out killed the deferred money or just the subsidy on the salary owed to A-Rod. If so, my bad.
One thing you might want to keep in mind, though, has to do with turnstiles. The Rangers’ attendance, which was once just under 3M in 1997 and 1998 (when the team was a contender), last season was just under 2M (and this was the team with Josh Hamilton, Milton Bradley and the rest—it was a team with a pretty exciting offense).
An exceptional player puts butts in seats—Manny, Bonds, Ryan. We might love Lackey, but he clearly isn’t that guy. For that reason alone, a deal for $18M a year for a guy who plays every 5th day doesn’t pencil out, so long as the attendance for the Rangers continues on a long, slow decline.
by George Kaplan on Mar 23, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Connections?
No. Only one of those teams (the Mets) has a shot at the playoffs in 2010. The other two are good for ending the season on Sep 30. I seriously doubt Lackey wants anything to do with a team which isn’t wired for the playoffs immediately.
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Yankees Season Tix behind Home plate
and other select dugout-adjacent locations are going for $250,000 a set of 4.
They can afford Mr. Abilene.
by SocalAngelFaninOC on Mar 22, 2009 1:44 PM PDT reply actions
Again, if the Yankees really had an unlimited budget, there are other guys they'd have picked up by now.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Yankees ticket
The Yankees have hired a real estate broker to market the luxury suites in the new Yankee Stadium because they haven’t been selling out as anticipated.
Make no mistake: While the Yankees aren’t going to be applying for TARP money, the team is dealing with reduced revenue just the same as any other franchise, just on a different scale. The primary source of Yankee money is the YES Network, and ad revenues are down, just as with any other broadcast outlet. The Yankees have limits, and while they make more money than other teams, they spend more money as well. The team payroll in 2008 was over $200M (compare that to $120M for the Angels, $140M for the Mets, $68M for the Rangers, and, of course, $22M for the Marlins).
In 2010, Sabathia and Burnett alone will cost the team $40M, and as Zu already pointed out, the team will need offense more than more pitching by then. A-Rod and Teixeira will cost another $52M between the two of them—that means four players in 2010 will cost the Yankees $92M, and there are another 21 players to place on that payroll. It simply is not a foregone conclusion that the Yankees would pay Lackey $18M guaranteed a year for 5 years.
Maybe it is Lackey’s bad luck, but he may well be entering the free agent market at one of the worst times historically. It wouldn’t surprise me if he ultimately took less money in a 5 year deal, but demanded an opt-out clause after Year 3 (2012) in case the economy improved and he had a shot at a new deal for more per-year money. It wouldn’t happen sooner because the labor agreement expires in Dec after the 2011 season.
by George Kaplan on Mar 22, 2009 7:24 PM PDT up reply actions
There can be only 1
There only has to be one other team to pony up.
Bottom line is even Lackey has to prove it. The contract will be for more after a successful 2009, than it is now just assuming a good 2009.
The Angels should pay
They should give him like a three year, 18 to 19 million dollar contract. He is a fan favorite and a key figure in the Angels machine. The Angels need to eventually sign someone. They have been losing out on big name players for far to long to lose someone who is already “such an Angel”. They were willing to put 140 million for Tex, they should definitely use some of that money to wrap up Lackey. I thought that was one of the original arguments for not resigning Tex…
by TheAngelsAngels on Mar 22, 2009 6:45 PM PDT reply actions
Lackey wouldn't take 3 years
settling for just $51 mil when the likelihood of encountering the injury bug in the next 3 years is so great just doesn’t make sense for him. This contract is going to take 5 years, and I’m not sold on it being worth it.
if its five years
he’s gone. angels wont do it.
by TheAngelsAngels on Mar 23, 2009 2:22 AM PDT up reply actions
An intriguing thought.
They could spend the money if they really wanted to, and they need help for Guthrie. Angelos has been shying away from big contracts though. Do you really think they’d go for it? They were unwilling to sign Bedard to an extension in 2007 and traded him after all. Lackey by himself wouldn’t be enough to make them competitive though. They’d need more to actually do something. Especially with the way the AL East looks right now, I wonder if Angelos hasn’t decided to go the Rays route and collect some high-end draft picks for a few years.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Angelos has said as much
Orioles owner Peter Angelos confirmed the Orioles are planning to make a significant free-agent push when the team gets within range of contending for a playoff berth next winter or in advance of the 2011 season.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.osnotes23mar23,0,5509899.story?track=rss
Signing Bedard did not really make sense considering some of the pieces they are planning on building around were obtained by trading him.
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
If they're going to wait until they get within range of competing BEFORE he goes after a free agent
It aint gonna happen next winter.
My guess based on what he said is that they try to sign one of the lesser pitchers next year to a shorter term contract in hopes of getting within striking distance and look for someone big in the 2010 offseason.
~Till the Halo burns out...
But they traded Bedard
…because the team didn’t want to face the arbitration numbers they figured Bedard would draw in 2008 and 2009.
As it turns out, this was a decent deal for them, though Adam Jones is coming along a little slowly for a can’t-miss kid. On the other hand, Bedard has been a huge, expensive disappointment for the Mariners.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer team.
by George Kaplan on Mar 23, 2009 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions
I am pretty sure they traded for pieces to help the rebuilding process
They traded him and Tejada.
Keeping him made absolutely no sense. He is injury prone, malcontnent, and has a sore ass. He value would has never been higher.
Play Wood already. Willits sucks.
...and now he is a pain in the ass for the Mariners.
Fitting end to this “end” story.
by Downing Rules on Mar 23, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Angelos has shown himself to be a cheap bastard
He is single-handedly ruining what was once a powerhouse franchise in the AL East. He’s making money on the broadcast rights to the Nationals games as well as the Orioles games, but he is investing next to nothing in personnel costs. The fans sense that, and the air has been let out of Camden Yards over the past several seasons. He drew 3.7M in 1997 and even 2.7M as recently as 2004, when he was milking Cal Ripken for whatever he could get in hyped attendence.
Last season, the team failed to draw 2M, part of a trend straight down. And that is hardly a dump of a stadium, it is beautiful with great sightlines and great food (Boog Powell’s BBQ cart is legendary).
Recall when he was offered Santana and Aybar for Tejada, and he stalled, then killed the deal by demanding Adenhart as well.
That certainly worked out well for him.
Nationals or the Orioles
Baltimore ha been pointing to 2010 for a long time as the year they will make a charge. Angelos is cheap, but the place is near empty and Lackey might be a good fit.
The Nationals have shown a willingness to spend and if they get the first draft choice and wind up with the kid from SDSU and Lackey, they could have a good 1-2 and on the road to respectability.
GA GA he's the man, if he can't do it, no one can
Again, think "playoffs"
Well ahead of the Orioles in the AL East are Boston and New York, and more moderately ahead are the Rays and Blue Jays. This isn’t about rising in a weak division, it is about crushing powerful rivals.
The Orioles might improve their W-L in 2010 or 2011, but they aren’t playoff-bound, and you have to imagine that is high on Lackey’s wish list.
by George Kaplan on Mar 24, 2009 4:42 AM PDT up reply actions
one would think
but Andy McPhail has repeatedly said that the O’s would be competitive in 2010. I interpret that as a run at the ring.
GA GA he's the man, if he can't do it, no one can
"Competitive"
I think in the AL East this means, “not in last place”. The Orioles have a lot of teams to climb over just to become the Wild Card, which would involve finishing at least 2nd in their division. The odds are not in their favor, even if their record improves.
by George Kaplan on Mar 26, 2009 5:10 AM PDT up reply actions
looks like texas is out because hicks just said...
he wants to trim payroll by $20 mill for 2010 to keep the overall payroll around $50 mill. w/almost $40 committed to young, millwood, kinsler and the hamilton extension there’s isn’t a lot of room for big john.
I was just about to add this link...
Looks like George and Zu were right – jeez, it would suck to be a Rangers fan. Winning puts butts in seats, and the young talent alone may not be able to do enough of that if the rotation has no veteran horses. Tampa had Kazmir and Shields during its run, but Texas won’t have anyone with that kind of experience as they approach contention. Hicks has the money! It makes so much sense for them to grab a star pitcher next year because of how up in the air the AL West will be, but I guess they’ll stay cheap.
It’s good for us.
You really think the AL West will be up in the air next year?
Heh. Somehow… I think not.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Could be.
As soon as Hicks figures out that he needs a few arms to compliment that overwhelming offense they have built, both the A’s and Angels will be in real trouble.
If that happens next year then, yes, the AL West will be up in the air.
Don't expect Hicks to be spending any time soon...
Hicks (and George Gillett) have a rather pressing appointment with the bank manager on this side of the pond in July. Their loan (£350m-ish) on Liverpool FC expires then and, since both banks involved have been partially re-nationalised, the perceived wisdom is that they have no real prospect of the loan being re-structured. They either find the money or the bank will foreclose on the loan and they lose their football club. Potential buyers for Liverpool know this and are not getting involved until this plays out.
Both of them are currently reviewing all of their sporting assetts and with a view to selling shares in them (inc Montreal Canadiens, Texas Rangers, Dallas Stars, some NASCAR team or other) so that they don’t have to take a $500m hit in the UK.
Until Hicks either sells his stake in Liverpool or bundles off some of his US assets, he has a major cash flow issue.
I see red people
hey Limey
i had a question about EPL. how much do you think Liverpool FC will sell for on the open market if goes for auction? why does Everton FC struggle? are they a small club?
The current asking price...
…if you read the UK press is £500m, which at today’s exchange rate is $725m. To be honest, that’s an over-evaluation on behalf of Hicks and Gillett. I would say £400m / $580 would be closer to fair. But with today’s market volatility, who knows?
As far as Everton is concerned, the reason they struggle is because 1. They don’t get the income from the UEFA champions league, which is vast – an extra $75-100m a year, and 2. Their stadium is old and not sufficiently large to let them compete.3. They’re not Liverpool FC. It’s kind of like the Mets and Yankees (not that I wish to liken LFC to the Yankees, it hurts me just to type it, but the analogy is not a million miles away). Don’t get me wrong, Everton do very well with their level of income and their manager is one of the best in the business, but they are financially handicapped compared to the big four of LFC, Man U, Chelsea and Arsenal. They’re not a small club, they just aren’t quite big enough.
I see red people
2010 is what I meant by next year.
Though I think this year will be far closer than last year (how could it not be?). 2010 comes with many unknowns for us, and both Oakland and Texas stand to harvest a lot of young talent right around then.
I knew what you ment.
Again… I suspect they’ll need all the young talent they’ve got just to keep pace.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Agreed (tentatively).
But a couple of well chosen free agents could easily put either Tex or Oak over the top. Hence my utter confusion about Texas going cheap.
texas is where pitchers go to die...
that team/ballpark kills more pitchers (established and prospects) than maybe anywhere else w/the exception of colorado.
That's what made Nolan Ryan so incredible
He was 41-25 in his first three seasons in Arlington, averaging 200 IP over those years, maintaining K:BB ratios of 3:1—and he was in his early 40s, pitching seasons 23-25 of his career.
by George Kaplan on Mar 24, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
WWBJLOOAHSIATD?
(what would big john lackey out of abilene high school in abilene, texas do? It’s the Steve Physioc version)
Wow. Just, WOW.
I finally got caught up on this thread, and obviously the image I’ve always had of Big John Lackey is far different from most of the fans here.
The argument here seems to be that John Lackey is not much of a team player. That he “prides himself on being the go to guy, that’ he’s the one who pitches the must win game, etc.”, and that as a result of that John Lackey won’t consider going to Boston, or New York, or any other place where an ace is already firmly secured.
In other words, John Lackey is a me first guy who doesn’t take an interest in putting the team before himself.
That is the last thing i think of when I think of John Lackey.
I see a total team player, a great teammate. Someone who DOES put the team first. And to think that he wouldn’t be willing to be the number 2 starter anyplace else, including Boston, New York, or ANYWHERE else, seems completely and utterly misplaced.
If ANY team is willing to offer up the most money, AND Lackey sincerely believes that that franchise is trying to compete for a world title year in, year out, then I believe that Lackey would be willing to go to that team and fill his role, what that may be, whether it’s the ace or starter number 2 or three or whatever.
It will be up to the Angels to make the decision simple for Lackey, and offer him the most money, preferably by offering him a deal NOW that is slightly better than the most recent comparable contracts that have been made with pitchers of his caliber. Burnett is not as quality a pitcher as Lackey; his contract however, will probably be used by Lackey’s agent in the same way that Boras used Torii Hunter’s contract as an indicator of what Tex should be making (if Hunter is worth 18-19 million a year then Tex is CLEARLY worth more than that; so if Burnett is worth 82 million dollars at 16 million plus per year then Big John is CLEARLY worth more than that).
It’s now been a couple of weeks since we heard anything significant in the ongoing talks between the Angels and Lackey. I really hope the Angels are not going with this strategy of sitting and waiting on a declining market, of letting the opportunity to lock Lackey up drift away, because, unlike Manny Ramirez, John Lackey has demonstrated zero characteristics of not being a team player, not being a warrior, not wanting to win as much or more as anyone on the roster of which he’s playing for.
Are the Angels really willing to take the chance that a team that APPEARS to be capped out on salary won’t make adjustments and make the big offer to John? Are the Angels really going to play a game of chicken with their Franchise Player? Is that how Lackey deserves to be treated at this point? I know: it’s a business. But folks, business is a two way street. I’ve read endlessly here about why the Angels shouldn’t have signed Manny, and it was all about character. John Lackey is a character guy. And a proven winner. And in his prime.
I’m hoping the Angels feel the same way I do about Lackey. Either way, time sure does fly, and we’ll all know one way or the other soon enough…
I'm going to tackle the parts of this post that seem relevant to points I've made.
As far as I know, I’ve cast no aspersions on John’s character, so I’ll leave those sections alone. For the record, I agree that everything I’ve seen tell me Lackey is a gamer and a good teammate.
Are the Angels really willing to take the chance that a team that APPEARS to be capped out on salary won’t make adjustments and make the big offer to John? Are the Angels really going to play a game of chicken with their Franchise Player? Is that how Lackey deserves to be treated at this point? I know: it’s a business. But folks, business is a two way street. I’ve read endlessly here about why the Angels shouldn’t have signed Manny, and it was all about character. John Lackey is a character guy. And a proven winner. And in his prime.
I can’t speak for the front office, but at the moment it seems that they are simply not prepared to pay him that $90 million he’s asking for, whether they think other teams will or not. That this is because they don’t believe ANYONE will offer him $90 million on the free agent market is speculation based partly on the known financial state/mindset of the other teams, and partly on the hope that the Angels front office still intends to make some type of play for him.
I’ll note that many of the points you make could have been applied to K-Rod last year as well as Lackey this year. K-Rod was still allowed to leave over the money difference, though he eventually ended up with a contract very similar to what we offered him earlier in 2008. The front office appears to have a very clear idea of the value they assign to certain players, and are willing to offer so much and no more for their services. If the player costs more than that, they are let go.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on Mar 26, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I wonder WHY Frankie couldn't have come back to the Halos
and say: “Hey I have 3yr-$37M on the table… you offered 3yr-$34M, could you give me $1M more and I’ll stay.” Makes me frustrated to know that he only ended up with $3M additional when the market turned south this off-season. Look, the Halos were not in the running for Abreu until “the market came back to them” (as I heard Reagins put it).
Why couldn’t the market have come back to them on Frankie?
Blogging is FUN!
by Downing Rules on Mar 26, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Pride is a big deal to a pro athlete.
Pride is the kind of thing that would allow a Lackey to absolve himself for taking less than he had planned from another team rather than take same or less from his current team.
Not all of us believe that the market will be dry for top of the rotation pitchers (who led the league in ERA just last season). Not all of us believe that a Frankie in 2008 is a good bell-weather for a Lackey in 2009.
RE: Not all of us believe that the market will be dry for top of the rotation pitchers
And that is why his agent is instructing him to test the free agency waters. Just going to be a bitch for John and his Newport Beach lifestyle if the market turns like it did this past winter.
Blogging is FUN!
by Downing Rules on Mar 26, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions
I personally believe that ace pitchers are the kind of talent that defies market reality.
Whether it is the FA market, or the real word economic markets. Lackey’s agent needs to be putting some faith in the hope that the other class pitchers up for FA next year are locked up before then. Here is the list from Cot’s :
(* = club owns option for 2010)
Brandon Backe HOU
Miguel Batista SEA
Josh Beckett * BOS
Erik Bedard SEA
Jose Contreras CWS
Doug Davis ARZ
Justin Duchscherer OAK
Adam Eaton * PHI
Kelvim Escobar LAA
Rich Harden CHC
Tim Hudson * ATL
John Lackey LAA
Cliff Lee * CLE
Braden Looper * MIL
Jason Marquis CHC
Brett Myers PHI
Vicente Padilla * TEX
Brad Penny BOS
Joel Pineiro STL
Jason Schmidt LAD
Jarrod Washburn SEA
Brandon Webb * ARZ
Todd Wellemeyer STL
Like I pointed out in TheOptimist's Lackey topic
This is Lackey’s biggest hurdle: not only are teams likely to be wary economically, but they have a number of short-term options with near-Lackey upside.
There are at least 6 up for grabs next season: Kelvim Escobar, Jason Schmidt, Brad Penny, Erik Bedard, Justin Duchscherer, and Rich Harden.
Teams could sign any of these six guys (not to mention trade for any number of guys in the last year of their contract) and have a reasonable expectation of a good return in 2010. How popular they are will of course depend on the kind of season they have this year. That lowers potential buyers for Lackey, since while all of those guys are riskier from a year-to-year angle, a high-end five-year contract for a 31 year-old pitcher carries a great deal of risk in and of itself.
As far as how comparable the situation is to K-Rod, everyone has their own opinion I’m sure, but I see a lot of similarity. Few, if any, big-spender teams with an immediate need at the position (team ace), plenty of cheaper options that are almost as good, a bad economy (likely)… seems like the same kind of mix I pointed out last year for K-Rod.
~Till the Halo burns out...
Aces
The problem for Lackey is that very few contending teams can afford to commit to $90M/5 yrs, and the ones which can already locked up their ace to a very expensive deal. Cubs have Zambrano, the Mets have Santana, the Yankees have Sabathia, and so forth.
Lackey wants to be on a winner, and I suspect he wants to be the guy who gets the ball to start in Game 1 of whatever series his team is in. Which team has the financial resources to commit to the kind of money he expects, AND would be making him their go-to guy?
Aside from the Angels, of course…
by George Kaplan on Mar 28, 2009 6:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Halos Heaven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
