Lackey Extends Deadline for an Extension

by hauldog on Apr 7, 2009 9:14 AM PDT

John Lackey has changed his tune evidently. He now says that opening day was not the deadline for the Angels to reach an extension with him. That is good news. I am very curious what his contracts demands are. If he is looking for Carlos Zambrano or Burnett money that is reasonable, but CC money is not.

Personally I would like to see to the Angels resign him, but that is probably based on emotion and not logic. He has been an integral part of the franchise.

Here is the link

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

Tweet Comment 21 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Guy is losing leverage fast!

I don’t expect the Angels to do anything until he proves he can pitch and stay healthy for an extended period of time. You have to earn these big deals based on future projections and not past heroics.

by Wytelitning on Apr 7, 2009 9:24 AM PDT reply actions

Agreed

Thinking with my heart.

Play Wood already. Willits sucks.

by hauldog on Apr 7, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Lackey

A statement was made on the game last night that the Angels offer had dropped in the most recent exchanges between sides. It doesn’t appear the team feels that there will be a booming market for Lackey specifically or FA pitching in general.

None of us knows what will happen to the economy nor what things will look like by Nov-Dec of this year, but I think the smart bet is that (1) a lot of second- and third-tier teams will be experiencing financial shortfalls and dealing higher-priced contracts for the cost of AA players even before the trade deadline, and (2) this will directly impact the market for Lackey or any other high-priced FA.

I suspect Lackey’s agent reads those same tea leaves and might feel he’s doing his client a better service to get him signed before complete firesales at some franchises take place, and the few teams with money to allocate are able to get good pitching already locked up for the next few seasons with little given up in exchange.

by George Kaplan on Apr 7, 2009 9:56 AM PDT reply actions

I will say that at the game lastnight

Hardly anyone was buying food as compared to even last year. 15 minutes before the game I got some food at Rubys and the line was 1 person. Last year the wait would have been 15 minutes. I think the recession is to blame for sure.

by MH252525 on Apr 7, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions

Its not the food...

But did you see all the people boozing it up. I was right next to the Budweiser Patio and that place was packed. And the Bros were pounding and smoking. The bro-hoes were following suit.

Maybe food is on the decline, but apparently cigarettes and Booze are recession proof. And although it was opening day… attendance seemed pretty good.

I make money on Survey Savvy

by Jay Cal on Apr 7, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Alcohol and Smokes

are quite recession proof. Alcohol sales have actually increased in prior recessions.

Play Wood already. Willits sucks.

by hauldog on Apr 7, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions

I can vouch for that...

My family ownes a bar. And we actually still allow smoking in bars here.

by NoDakHalo on Apr 7, 2009 11:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I should move to where you live then

You guys evidently still have freedom. Not like the Health Fascists out here.

Sean Rodriguez...the Rodriguez for a new Millennium

by HaloDutch on Apr 8, 2009 6:09 AM PDT up reply actions

Damn right.

California bars – no smoking. Soon no drinking, no talking, and no fun.

by NoDakHalo on Apr 8, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions

whats the big deal about just smoking outside?

youre not being banned from ever smoking.

by linkbruin on Apr 8, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions

Um

Because smokers realize that this is just a first step in what, in many cities, has already become a comprehensive public smoking ban. In Berekely, CA, you can’t even smoke in your own condo or apartment. In Calabasas, it is illegal to smoke anywhere in public (including, IIRC, even in your own car if you are on a city road). The list goes on and on and on.

The day is not far away that parents who smoke will be arrested for child abuse and have their kids taken away. This picking away at an individual’s right is snowballing out of control. To say “What’s the big deal about going outside?” is very short-sighted.

by Higz on Apr 8, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions

bummer it has gone that far. However, I sure remember how different I felt waking up the next day hung over and stenchy from cigarette smoke after going to a bar that allowed cigarettes. When I went to a bar that did not allow smokes, I woke up hung over, yet still fresh smelling.

Blogging is FUN!

by Downing Rules on Apr 8, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions

No argument here about that

But you also had the choice to patronize a different establishment. You can thank the Nanny State for your April freshness, DR!

by Higz on Apr 8, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions

No argument from me either

I do think a bar should be allowed to be a smoking establishment though. The employees and customers would be going there under their own volition

Play Wood already. Willits sucks.

by hauldog on Apr 8, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions

I think thats kind of overstating things

I really see being able to smoke indoors akin to not being able to drink outside in public. In Vegas, they’re both legal but thats Vegas. If there is a comprehensive public smoking ban, then yes I say you have a case. Smoking is regulated just like the so other “vices” of society. I dont really see the problem especially with the fairly well documented effects of secondhand smoke. Plus its nice to go to a bar and not come out smelling like smoke.

There is a very vocal minority that wants to ban smoking altogether, but its the same as the point you made earlier with idiot fans at games. Berkeley is like that idiot fan at the game.

by linkbruin on Apr 8, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions

Funny analogy

Anyway, since you bring up alcohol, let’s not forget a little era called Prohibition. This was basically achieved via a small vocal minority. Forgive me for seeming paranoid or at least overly pessimistic, but outright bans on the “vices” of society can, and have, happened. And I don’t see any anti-smoking laws getting repealed or becoming less draconian.

by Higz on Apr 8, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions

I still believe

that the Yankees will spend whatever it takes, especially after they miss the playoffs again this year. I would have thought that the Rangers would be interested in Lackey, but it’s sounding like Hicks is having money issues of his own. So, that leaves the Dodgers, Angels and maybe the Mets. His recurring arm issues certainly haven’t upped his price any. But the possible availability of Halliday or (especially) Peavy offer some alternatives. I’d still like to see the Halos extend a healthy Lackey. Five years, $82 million.

by jjackflash on Apr 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions

my heart wants lackey around forever, my head is leaning towards letting him go

i just dont know how well this guy is going to age and the prices hes talking could be realllllly crippling in a few years if baseball economics continue to drop

by ihearhowie2.0 on Apr 7, 2009 1:35 PM PDT reply actions

I am also leaning

toward letting him go. If by any chnce we make a deal for Halladay or Peavy we can afford to let him go. I love his attitude and determination, but he looks like he wering and tearing down. I think we let him go before he ends up with a career ending injury.

Give the young guns a chance...if they suck wellll...

by angelskid2210 on Apr 7, 2009 2:45 PM PDT reply actions

i would only use him for a strong #2 starter (if he opts for decent money, not great money)

and push hard for Roy “the man” Halladay. Now that’s a guy who dominates the Red Sux

Rotation would be:

Halladay
Lackey
Escobar
Santana
Saunders/Weaver *or trade one of them for a big bopper

If I hear the word "red sox"...POW!!! RIGHT IN THE KISSER!!!

by Halofanatic on Apr 8, 2009 9:26 AM PDT reply actions

Halliday

The guy is talented; there is no debate about that.

He also turns 32 before the All Star Break. He has averaged 210 IP/yr for the past seven seasons, despite the fact he was on the DL for July and Aug of 2004 and missed the entire second half of 2005.

He is what would be termed “high mileage” and is approaching what is, for most players, the downward phase of his career.

Lackey is a full two years younger than Halliday and in that sense is more deserving the sort of deal (both dollars and years) that either man will be expecting. The Angels of past years excelled at giving premium dollar deals to players (pitchers especially) who had their glory years in some other uniform.

Halliday may turn out to be incredibly durable, but I would expect the wheels will begin to come off him in the next two seasons. Nothing dramatic, just a general erosion of skills which will begin a downward trajectory even as his per-season salary escalates each season.

Any pitcher is a risk; I know that Peavy causes a lot of concern for the health of his elbow, but he doesn’t turn 28 until around Memorial Day and the fewer years at least might portend longer health overall.

I think Roy Halliday will enter the HoF, but when he does it will be as a Blue Jay and it will be rightfully so, since his best games will have been pitched in that uni. Whatever he does next year and beyond will be more of a footnote to a great career.

Finally, Lackey will take what he can get, but I suspect his ego doesn’t want him to be playing Robin to the Batman of Halliday or anyone else.

by George Kaplan on Apr 8, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions