Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Alibiike. Show Alibiike's posts

    Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    How could you not land a 28 year old innings eater with nothing but an upside to look forward to? A 5-6M offer is just plain ludicrous for Jackson, who would finish off the starting rotation in a big way for the RS.
    If Ben let's this guy go to another team, he's an idiot!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from LadyLake. Show LadyLake's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    If you go over the cap by a dollar then the repercussions could be to the tune of $20-40 mil in the following years. Your hands will be tied down the road. It is a shame that you didn't bother to read the indepth explanations about new luxury tax and revenue sharing rules.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Skadude22. Show Skadude22's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]If you go over the cap by a dollar then the repercussions could be to the tune of $20-40 mil in the following years. Your hands will be tied down the road. It is a shame that you didn't bother to read the indepth explanations about new luxury tax and revenue sharing rules.
    Posted by LadyLake[/QUOTE]

    That's true, but I think this has been overstated.  First off, the cap limit goes up to $189 million in 2 years.  So that's an extra $11 million in budget space.  The Red Sox could be experiencing a lot of turnover as prospects like Iglesias, Middlebrooks, Kalish, Lavarnway, Ranaudo, etc challenge for roster spots that are currently occupied by more expensive players.  So that would provide more space as those players leave.  One year under the threshold, and it resets, so from 30-40% to 20-25%.  The Red Sox paid $1.5 million last year in penalties, so unless they spend a lot more, it's not that significant a penalty in terms of how much they are spending on payroll already. 

    Regardless, if they jump the gun and offer Jackson $10 million and Oswalt ends up signing for the $5 million that they offered, it's going to look bad.  They have 2 offers out there, and not too many of the contending teams are still actively looking for starters, so if one signs, that $5-6 million dollar offer might look pretty good compared to nothing.  They are waiting, and I think they are genuinely content with seeing how things go in spring training if these two guys go elsewhere for more money.  There are still trades out there, and if it gets to March and no one has stepped up as a #4/#5 starter, maybe they make a move then.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    It appears that everyone is out of the picture according to Gentle Ben.  Here's what he had to say about the Sox adding anyone before ST:

    http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120201&content_id=26546064&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]How could you not land a 28 year old innings eater with nothing but an upside to look forward to? A 5-6M offer is just plain ludicrous for Jackson, who would finish off the starting rotation in a big way for the RS. If Ben let's this guy go to another team, he's an idiot!
    Posted by Alibiike[/QUOTE]
    We are talking about a guy who has a career .500 record w/ a 4.5 era and a whip about 1.50. You must be drinking that Scott Boras Kool Aid? This is why teams dread looking for pitching in the FA market- not cost effective or lets go get a former good pitcher w/ a bad back @ 34 and pay him way too much. Ben is right where he should be w/ these guys price wise, if someone willing to overpay [Dan Duquette anyone?] let them. There will be guys available during the season that will cost much less, thats how Cards got Jackson in the 1st place.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    Amazing.

    Lackey is somehow worth 5 years, 17 per....and this is all they extend to Jackson?

    2 years ago, last year, this year, next year and FOREVER I have thought Jackson a better pitcher than Lackey.

    Total morons. I'm beginning to wonder how Henry and Co got rich? Are we looking at Madoff #2? No, Madoff, though a crook, was actually intelligent.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]If you go over the cap by a dollar then the repercussions could be to the tune of $20-40 mil in the following years. Your hands will be tied down the road. It is a shame that you didn't bother to read the indepth explanations about new luxury tax and revenue sharing rules.
    Posted by LadyLake[/QUOTE]

    Who thought 20 per for Crawford was a good idea?

    How about the 17 per for Lackey?

    Bad contract after bad contract after bad contract is now finally effecting the team ON the field because they no longer want to spend the money. They created this problem, to let the team suffer because of it, and still charge fans top dollar for it is a joke. To support it is even more laughable.

    It's not that people don't understand the luxury tax rules, other people can actually figure things out also, it's just that some don't want to hear the people who created the problem complaining about it.

    I think it's getting close to "Fire Sale" time! They've cashed in everywhere they can, I won't be surprised, or saddened, when this ownership group minimizes payroll and skates out of town with their convoy of Brinks trucks following close behind.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    Who thought 20 per for Crawford was a good idea?

    While the majority of posters here thought $21M/yr was too high, the majority also "liked the deal" enough to not criticize it. We heard lots of "that's what it takes to sign a great FA these days" and "we ddin't have to give up any prospects"...

    ___________________________________

    It appears that everyone is out of the picture according to Gentle Ben....

    Ben could just be posturing to keep the salary offer competition low. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]Who thought 20 per for Crawford was a good idea? While the majority of posters here thought $21M/yr was too high, the majority also "liked the deal" enough to not criticize it. We heard lots of "that's what it takes to sign a great FA these days" and "we ddin't have to give up any prospects"... ___________________________________ It appears that everyone is out of the picture according to Gentle Ben.... Ben could just be posturing to keep the salary offer competition low.  
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    As per usual, you are correct. Also as per usual, I was in the minority then, and still am now.

    Before signing Crawford, I started a thread about NOT signing either Werth OR Crawford because of the money AND years they were both going to be overpaid with. In fact, I think that's where I started complaining about people saying "that's just the way it is". I HATE that copout.

    I haven't been happy with the "majority" opinions on many things for at least a decade so, in that respect, thanks for the compliment!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from LadyLake. Show LadyLake's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS? : Who thought 20 per for Crawford was a good idea? How about the 17 per for Lackey? Bad contract after bad contract after bad contract is now finally effecting the team ON the field because they no longer want to spend the money. They created this problem, to let the team suffer because of it, and still charge fans top dollar for it is a joke. To support it is even more laughable. It's not that people don't understand the luxury tax rules, other people can actually figure things out also, it's just that some don't want to hear the people who created the problem complaining about it. I think it's getting close to "Fire Sale" time! They've cashed in everywhere they can, I won't be surprised, or saddened, when this ownership group minimizes payroll and skates out of town with their convoy of Brinks trucks following close behind.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    Have you heard the Red Sox FO complaining about the luxury tax and their budget ceiling? I haven't. Stating the dilemna and their situation is not the same as complaining about it. Behind closed doors they may very well be second guessing some recent signings but they have not stated as much publicly.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]Amazing. Lackey is somehow worth 5 years, 17 per....and this is all they extend to Jackson? 2 years ago, last year, this year, next year and FOREVER I have thought Jackson a better pitcher than Lackey. Total morons. I'm beginning to wonder how Henry and Co got rich? Are we looking at Madoff #2? No, Madoff, though a crook, was actually intelligent.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    You have always thought Jackson better than Lackey?  The first 8 years of Lackey's career was notable for consistency, health, and good to great (2007) seasons.  His ERA+ was around 115, WHIP around 125.  The past two seasons were both probably injured, certainly his 2011 meltdown, dragging his career avg to ERA+ 108 and WHIP 1.345.

    Jackson? - A model of inconsistency, no highs near Lackey's, and career ERA+ of 97 and WHIP of 1.476.  Let's not forget the 6 teams that have given up on him and his inability thus far to find a job this winter.

    To be clear, my point is Lackey's career has clearly exceeded Jackson's and for you to claim "and FOREVER I have thought Jackson a better pitcher than Lackey" rather undermines your judgement in my opinion.



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS? : You have always thought Jackson better than Lackey?  The first 8 years of Lackey's career was notable for consistency, health, and good to great (2007) seasons.  His ERA+ was around 115, WHIP around 125.  The past two seasons were both probably injured, certainly his 2011 meltdown, dragging his career avg to ERA+ 108 and WHIP 1.345. Jackson? - A model of inconsistency, no highs near Lackey's, and career ERA+ of 97 and WHIP of 1.476.  Let's not forget the 6 teams that have given up on him and his inability thus far to find a job this winter. To be clear, my point is Lackey's career has clearly exceeded Jackson's and for you to claim "and FOREVER I have thought Jackson a better pitcher than Lackey" rather undermines your judgement in my opinion.
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]

    Jackson proved he could compete against Boston and NY while in TB.

    He proved he's capable of winning a lot of games in DET.

    He continued to do pretty well in AZ.

    Lackey always pitched better at home, was always HORRIBLE in Fenway, and pretty bad against the AL East in general.

    And given that Jackson was having that success in his early to mid 20s...yes, I've ALWAYS like Jackson better.

    Lackey 'consistently' put up very pedestrian numbers for a good LAA team against weaker competition, and they (Sox) paid him ace money.

    And as far as 'complaining' about the luxury tax, ok, fine, so you nitpicked one word correctly. They don't 'complain' about it, they will just say they WON'T pay into it, even if it means puting a lesser team on the field because of numerous past horrible contracts THEY chose to give. That's my issue. They squeeze every last penny out of every inch of Fenway, deal with Ace Ticket for more profit, sell overpriced coffee table books, and generally gouge fans at every turn, then say, "well, we're not going to pay that tax." Laughable. They created this mess, if puting the best team they reasonable can on the field means paying a tax because of their mistakes, well pay the tax. If you really are ok with how they are doing it, you certainly better not be complaining about 88 win seasons. The Sox have sold their soul for a few dollars and maybe a trophy. For me, it hasn't been worth it.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from traven. Show traven's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]Who thought 20 per for Crawford was a good idea? While the majority of posters here thought $21M/yr was too high, the majority also "liked the deal" enough to not criticize it. We heard lots of "that's what it takes to sign a great FA these days" and "we ddin't have to give up any prospects"... ___________________________________ It appears that everyone is out of the picture according to Gentle Ben.... Ben could just be posturing to keep the salary offer competition low.  
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I agree he could just be putting that out there as a ploy...after all ST is just a week+ away and I still refuse to believe the Sox won't bring in another starter before the season.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS? : Jackson proved he could compete against Boston and NY while in TB. He proved he's capable of winning a lot of games in DET. He continued to do pretty well in AZ. Lackey always pitched better at home, was always HORRIBLE in Fenway, and pretty bad against the AL East in general. And given that Jackson was having that success in his early to mid 20s...yes, I've ALWAYS like Jackson better. Lackey 'consistently' put up very pedestrian numbers for a good LAA team against weaker competition, and they (Sox) paid him ace money.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    Simply not true.

    Lackey's last 3 starts at Fenway before they signed him:

    July 29/08 9 IP 2 ER
    Oct 6/08 7 IP 2 ER
    Sept 15/09 7.2 IP 2 ER

    Lackey has a 3.12 ERA in 78 postseason IP, and 53.2 of those IP were against the Yankees and the Red Sox.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS? : As per usual, you are correct. Also as per usual, I was in the minority then, and still am now. Before signing Crawford, I started a thread about NOT signing either Werth OR Crawford because of the money AND years they were both going to be overpaid with. In fact, I think that's where I started complaining about people saying "that's just the way it is". I HATE that copout. I haven't been happy with the "majority" opinions on many things for at least a decade so, in that respect, thanks for the compliment!
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    I didn't really talk about CC or Werth much, because I didn'tt hink we'd go for either of them. I remember saying I wouldn't offer CC any more than $80M/6, and that even that was too high. Had i known how poorly he was fielding, I'd have lowered that amount. (He always seemed to field well ve us.)

    After we signed him, I said he was overpaid by about $50M and that his contract would "cripple us for 7 years". Most posters bashed me and said we had plenty of money coming off the books to be able to continue spending to fill gaps. Well, we spent big on AGon and have nothing left and plenty of gaps.

    I'm not trying to bash CC, but as I said last spring, "he's nothing but a glorified platoon player". I do think CC will bounce back to near career norms, but I also think we could use that $50M right now.



     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    n Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    Who thought 20 per for Crawford was a good idea? While the majority of posters here thought $21M/yr was too high, the majority also "liked the deal" enough to not criticize it. We heard lots of "that's what it takes to sign a great FA these days" and "we ddin't have to give up any prospects"... ___________________________________ It appears that everyone is out of the picture according to Gentle Ben.... Ben could just be posturing to keep the salary offer competition low.  
    Posted by moonslav59


    I agree he could just be putting that out there as a ploy...after all ST is just a week+ away and I still refuse to believe the Sox won't bring in another starter before the season.

    I certainly hope it's a ploy, because I think we really need a solid, innings eater 4th starter.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS? : Jackson proved he could compete against Boston and NY while in TB. He proved he's capable of winning a lot of games in DET. He continued to do pretty well in AZ. Lackey always pitched better at home, was always HORRIBLE in Fenway, and pretty bad against the AL East in general. And given that Jackson was having that success in his early to mid 20s...yes, I've ALWAYS like Jackson better. Lackey 'consistently' put up very pedestrian numbers for a good LAA team against weaker competition, and they (Sox) paid him ace money. And as far as 'complaining' about the luxury tax, ok, fine, so you nitpicked one word correctly. They don't 'complain' about it, they will just say they WON'T pay into it, even if it means puting a lesser team on the field because of numerous past horrible contracts THEY chose to give. That's my issue. They squeeze every last penny out of every inch of Fenway, deal with Ace Ticket for more profit, sell overpriced coffee table books, and generally gouge fans at every turn, then say, "well, we're not going to pay that tax." Laughable. They created this mess, if puting the best team they reasonable can on the field means paying a tax because of their mistakes, well pay the tax. If you really are ok with how they are doing it, you certainly better not be complaining about 88 win seasons. The Sox have sold their soul for a few dollars and maybe a trophy. For me, it hasn't been worth it.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    You write "I've ALWAYS like Jackson better" here - which is fine, I won't dispute that, but you wrote "and FOREVER I have thought Jackson a better pitcher than Lackey" in your original post and I think there is no evidence for that, nor in all likelihood did any of his 6 previous teams.

    You're entitled to like Jackson, and to dislike Lackey, but it seems you are letting your personal likes and dislikes colour your judgement.

    You mention Jackson's good year in Detroit.  He was 13-9, 3.62, ERA+ 126, WHIP 1.262 in what was by far his best season.  Lackey's career 162-game average including his last two, injury-riddled seasons:  16-11, 4.10, 108, 1.345.
    Or we could use Lackey's best season to compare:  19-9, 3.01, 150, 1.21.

    Of course comparing each of their best seasons tells us little; comparing their entire careers tells us that Lackey has been by far the superior pitcher.  It's insulting to Lackey to even compare them, to be fair.
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ma6dragon9. Show ma6dragon9's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    Maybe not 'simply' true soxnut, but just as true as the limited selection you offered.

    Postseason stats, I'll admit, better than I expected.

    However, here are some career total:

    against NYY: 8-9, 4.68 ERA, 1.49 WHIP
    against BOS: 3-7, 5.25 ERA, 1.64 WHIP
    neither good, nor worthy of the contract given to him.

    I'll add in LAA, TEX, and TB as other regular contenders of the Sox:

    against LAA: 4-1, 4.32 ERA, 1.36 WHIP
    against TB: 12-6, 4.09 ERA, 1.35 WHIP
    both solid, not worthy of the contract, but solid.

    against TEX: 12-14, 6.16 ERA, 1.60 WHIP

    It's hard for me to decipher, without going year-by-year how he really did at home with the LAA as opposed to on the road. His career, as a whole, I admit, the numbers home and away are almost identical.

    His best career numbers are against BALT, OAK, SEA and TB. 3 perennial bottom-feeders and one legit team.

    His worst are against TEX, BOS, NYY, CLE and TOR. 3 regular contenders, 2 curious additions.

    I'd expect any pitcher to beat up on bad teams, and struggle more against good...but the divide in the numbers are chasm-like. You're talking 5+ ERAs against the good, and <4 for the bad.

    Maybe I went somewhat extreme, but I still stand behind my contention that I, personally, have been more impressed with jackson's career at any point, than lackey's.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thomasmtom. Show Thomasmtom's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    The Fact is CC was and is a bad fit for the RS. His signing didn’t make sense on a number of levels. Even though he was grossly overpaid CC may come to regret signing with the Sox, as he was a much better fit with other teams (LAA for example). The fact remains the RS have made so many bad deals with high priced FA that they’ve damaged the product on the field and left themselves financially unable to compete for FA players they really do need.  I’m not in favor of throwing money at every FA that’s available, but lacking a true # 4 starting pitcher is a deficiency they need to address now, not in July.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from OnDeckCircle. Show OnDeckCircle's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    John Henry has become gun shy.     He listened to Theo and now it's all about $,$$$,$$$ .
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bisson1. Show Bisson1's posts

    Re: Jackson "Out of Picture" for RS?

    Jackson just signed with the Nats pending a physical :/
     

Share