Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

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

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    Of course it does, but his stock is high.

    Everyone wants to trade the guys that are doing badly, but the point is, those guys don't bring much back. Last winter, everyone would have traded Lackey for anything useful. Now look.

    Sox4ever

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Of course it does, but his stock is high.

    Everyone wants to trade the guys that are doing badly, but the point is, those guys don't bring much back. Last winter, everyone would have traded Lackey for anything useful. Now look.

    Sox4ever



    I didn't want to trade Lackey last offseason.  I was hopeful he'd be good again after the TJ surgery and I knew if he was, he'd be a relative bargain for 3 years because of that extra year at minimum salary.

     

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

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Of course it does, but his stock is high.

    Everyone wants to trade the guys that are doing badly, but the point is, those guys don't bring much back. Last winter, everyone would have traded Lackey for anything useful. Now look.

    Sox4ever

     



    I didn't want to trade Lackey last offseason.  I was hopeful he'd be good again after the TJ surgery and I knew if he was, he'd be a relative bargain for 3 years because of that extra year at minimum salary.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, if I had said we could have traded Lackey for Wil Myers, would you have said yes?

    That was the question for Lester last winter.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Well, if I had said we could have traded Lackey for Wil Myers, would you have said yes?

    That was the question for Lester last winter.



    If we could have traded Lackey for Myers, I would have said yes.  But of course that was a non-issue. 

    Lester is a much harder one to answer.

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GoUconn13. Show GoUconn13's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Well, if I had said we could have traded Lackey for Wil Myers, would you have said yes?

    That was the question for Lester last winter.

     



    If we could have traded Lackey for Myers, I would have said yes.  But of course that was a non-issue. 

     

    Lester is a much harder one to answer.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If we did, Boston will more likely to find another starting pitcher to keep the five man rotation.  So therefore, that is a bad trade!!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from susan250. Show susan250's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

     

    Dempster?  Possibly

    Lackey?  NO WAY IN HELL!  We own the guy for short money, & he's pitched one UNBELIEVABLE SEASON!!!



    Definitely agree with you.  Lackey has been a very good pitcher this season and hasn't gotten much run support for many of the games that he pitched.  You can't win games if you can't score any runs. 

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

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Well, if I had said we could have traded Lackey for Wil Myers, would you have said yes?

    That was the question for Lester last winter.

     



    If we could have traded Lackey for Myers, I would have said yes.  But of course that was a non-issue. 

     

    Lester is a much harder one to answer.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I understand, but I was trying to make the point about stock high and low. Was Lackey as bad as his stock showed the last 2 winters? No. Is he as good as his stock is now? Probably not.

    I'm not for trading Lackey. I'm rarely for trading good starting pitchers, unless we have a way to upgrade with his replacement. I'm really liking our core four next year: Buch, Peave, Lest and Lackey. Doubront as the number 5 makes a solid 5. This may be the only winter in my memory that I will not be advocating an upgrade in the rotation. I do think we could use an ace, but I do not see this winter as the time. 

    This winter, I think we need to try and acquire that big bat for the middle of the line-up- someone under team control for 3 or more years.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from redsoxdirtdog. Show redsoxdirtdog's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Well, if I had said we could have traded Lackey for Wil Myers, would you have said yes?

    That was the question for Lester last winter.

     

     



    If we could have traded Lackey for Myers, I would have said yes.  But of course that was a non-issue. 

     

     

    Lester is a much harder one to answer.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I understand, but I was trying to make the point about stock high and low. Was Lackey as bad as his stock showed the last 2 winters? No. Is he as good as his stock is now? Probably not.

     

    I'm not for trading Lackey. I'm rarely for trading good starting pitchers, unless we have a way to upgrade with his replacement. I'm really liking our core four next year: Buch, Peave, Lest and Lackey. Doubront as the number 5 makes a solid 5. This may be the only winter in my memory that I will not be advocating an upgrade in the rotation. I do think we could use an ace, but I do not see this winter as the time. 

    This winter, I think we need to try and acquire that big bat for the middle of the line-up- someone under team control for 3 or more years.

    [/QUOTE]


    Sound thinking! 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    I expect a starting pitcher to be traded. However, I don't think Dempster and Lackey are the lone candidates. It depends on what is offered in return. Anybody is tradable.

     

    With that said, Dempster is the odds on favorite. The name I would mention to think about is Ervin Santana. Last year, he had a worse year then Dempster stat wise in every stat except WHIP. Santana pitched in a pitchers park. And I doubt his club house attitude is better. Both had 1 year and 13 million owed. Santana was traded with a million cash for a song and a dance[Brandon Sisk]. We might be able to get another team to eat the entire salary believe it or not. Maybe.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to Bisson1's comment:

    So much MLB ready talent (or close to it) in the Sox farm system. Makes you wonder if a big trade could be coming this winter.



    I'm not sure there is anyone out there that we need, and that is available.  We have 11 guys with 200+ PAs with OPS+ > 100.  The only weak offensive position we have this year is 3B, and that is the last spot we'd look to trade for.

    Even if we really wanted to overpay for a guy like Stanton, as well as Vic has fielded, it wouldn't be a jaw-dropping trade for me.  We probably need a 1B, but I'd feel pretty comfortable getting a RH bat to platoon with Carp.

    The only position that might be nice to target would be a true ace, but they're really hard to come by.  And to be honest, building a team of stars doesn't seem to work out that often.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Of course it does, but his stock is high.

    Everyone wants to trade the guys that are doing badly, but the point is, those guys don't bring much back. Last winter, everyone would have traded Lackey for anything useful. Now look.

    Sox4ever



    I'm not a big believer that the 'sell high' philosophy is a common phenomenon, at least for trade purposes.  I doubt anyone would overpay for Lackey.  I think we'd get closer to market value for Dempster.  With Lackey, we'll be arguing if he is a 3.19 SP or a 4.19 SP.  With Dempster, I think we'd be arguing whether he was more like 4.50 or 4.75.  You split the difference, project a WAR, and chip in $3-4M.  Lackey is far too complicated.

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

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to Bisson1's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    So much MLB ready talent (or close to it) in the Sox farm system. Makes you wonder if a big trade could be coming this winter.

     



    I'm not sure there is anyone out there that we need, and that is available.  We have 11 guys with 200+ PAs with OPS+ > 100.  The only weak offensive position we have this year is 3B, and that is the last spot we'd look to trade for.

     

    Even if we really wanted to overpay for a guy like Stanton, as well as Vic has fielded, it wouldn't be a jaw-dropping trade for me.  We probably need a 1B, but I'd feel pretty comfortable getting a RH bat to platoon with Carp.

    The only position that might be nice to target would be a true ace, but they're really hard to come by.  And to be honest, building a team of stars doesn't seem to work out that often.

    [/QUOTE]

    We have amazing balance this year. Before today's game, we had 10 guys with 200+ PAs and an OPS above .748 (11 counting Iggy). We had 9 guys above .775.

    However, we have a few guys who may bolt via free agency:

    Napoli .786

    Salty   .784

    Ellsb   .776

    Drew  .763

    If Boggy sticks at SS and is not moved to 3B, we have Middy at 3B with a .680 OPS. I see lots of areas that can be improved, but I do see the value of balance.

    Here's a look at other team totals:

    Only players with 200 PAs count

    Boston: 10 above .775/9 above .748

    Detroit: 5 above .775/8 above .748

    Texas:  2 above .775/5 above .748

    Tampa: 4 above .775/7 above .748

    Oakland: 3 above .775/5 above .748

    Atlanta: 4 above .775/6 above .748

    LAD: 3 above .775/5 above .748

    STL: 6 above .775/6 above .748 (5 above .834)

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Got it. I misread the details of his contract. Next year he earns $15.25M, but the year after that he can be paid the league minimum (that will be great for his attitude I am sure).

    I agree he has a great attitude, but I don't see how his contract would help, other than the usual pitching for your next contract incentive.

     



    I was kidding. Being productive and being paid the league minimum cannot help his attitude. I hope he is professional enough to realize thats what he agreed to.

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

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Got it. I misread the details of his contract. Next year he earns $15.25M, but the year after that he can be paid the league minimum (that will be great for his attitude I am sure).

    I agree he has a great attitude, but I don't see how his contract would help, other than the usual pitching for your next contract incentive.

     

     



    I was kidding. Being productive and being paid the league minimum cannot help his attitude. I hope he is professional enough to realize thats what he agreed to.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He should recall being paid big money to not picth at all in 2012, but it's easier to say than do. I think we may try and restructure his deal and maybe add a year, so he does not end up at min wage for 2015, but he makes an average of the 3 years each year.

    For example $15.75M for 2014, .75M for 2015, and $13.5M for 2016 (total $30M over 3 years) could be restructured to $10M each year. Easier for Lackey to stomach, and balances out his pay for the luxury tax limit budget.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    I think Dempster gets traded as we eat $3-5M of his deal.

    I think we may rework Lackey's deal to spread out the salary hit on the luxury limit. We may even add a year to his deal. I can't see him being too happy playing a full season at the league minimum, despite the fact that he got paid over $15M to sit out a year with the injury. It could be a win-win. Keep Lackey happy.  Reduce the 2014 salary hit on the luxury limit. And, maybe get Lackey for an extra year at low cost (relatively).

    Sox4ever




    Lackey should be happy regardless. He made 16M to recover from surgery. I wouldnt give him another year. His value may be at its height if he does well in the post season. Hes going to be 35 in October. That means he will be almost 37 in his last year.

    I see what teams might be willing to part with for Lackey. Dempster is a no brainer to drop salary...Buchholz, Peavy, Lester, Doubront, Workman. You have Morales, Britton, Wright, and Webster who all can be 6-7-8. Im sure they would pick up a couple reclamation projects like always and see what sticks.

    Just something to consider.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    John Lackey and Jarrod Saltalamacchia were mentioned prominently today in this FanGraphs analysis of "Batteries ... Preventing the Running Game":

    http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/2013s-top-batteries-at-preventing-the-running-game/

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to redsoxdirtdog's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Well, if I had said we could have traded Lackey for Wil Myers, would you have said yes?

    That was the question for Lester last winter.

     

     

     



    If we could have traded Lackey for Myers, I would have said yes.  But of course that was a non-issue. 

     

     

     

    Lester is a much harder one to answer.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I understand, but I was trying to make the point about stock high and low. Was Lackey as bad as his stock showed the last 2 winters? No. Is he as good as his stock is now? Probably not.

     

     

    I'm not for trading Lackey. I'm rarely for trading good starting pitchers, unless we have a way to upgrade with his replacement. I'm really liking our core four next year: Buch, Peave, Lest and Lackey. Doubront as the number 5 makes a solid 5. This may be the only winter in my memory that I will not be advocating an upgrade in the rotation. I do think we could use an ace, but I do not see this winter as the time. 

    This winter, I think we need to try and acquire that big bat for the middle of the line-up- someone under team control for 3 or more years.

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Sound thinking! 

    [/QUOTE]

    I never endorse trading quality starting pitching ever because you never seem to have enough! While agree we could use a middle of the order bat, I'd be more inclined to wait and see if someone like Boegarts/ Middlebrooks/ Cecchini might develope into that type of bat, than to trade either Lackey or Dempster(let's face it Dempster not getting big bat anyway). With Lackey back healthy has proven the type of starter than he can be, even Dempster is a proven MLB arm, will give you IP and keep you in games. Dempster could also go to pen and be a good swing man if someone else should falter. If we need to trade for a middle of the order bat (would not trade Owens/Barnes) but a Raunado who has much value after his bounce back night be a prime candidate + position guy might be a good start. Before year started Raunaudo had very little value, so if he could be packaged to get a big bat I would do it.

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

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    I never endorse trading quality starting pitching ever because you never seem to have enough! While agree we could use a middle of the order bat, I'd be more inclined to wait and see if someone like Boegarts/ Middlebrooks/ Cecchini might develope into that type of bat, than to trade either Lackey or Dempster(let's face it Dempster not getting big bat anyway). With Lackey back healthy has proven the type of starter than he can be, even Dempster is a proven MLB arm, will give you IP and keep you in games. Dempster could also go to pen and be a good swing man if someone else should falter. If we need to trade for a middle of the order bat (would not trade Owens/Barnes) but a Raunado who has much value after his bounce back night be a prime candidate + position guy might be a good start. Before year started Raunaudo had very little value, so if he could be packaged to get a big bat I would do it.

    I have to think that one of our young starters can outperform Dempster next year.

    Sox4ever

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to SpeedWorkout's comment:

    In response to southpaw777's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    I think Dempster gets traded as we eat $3-5M of his deal.

    I think we may rework Lackey's deal to spread out the salary hit on the luxury limit. We may even add a year to his deal. I can't see him being too happy playing a full season at the league minimum, despite the fact that he got paid over $15M to sit out a year with the injury. It could be a win-win. Keep Lackey happy.  Reduce the 2014 salary hit on the luxury limit. And, maybe get Lackey for an extra year at low cost (relatively).

    Sox4ever

     

     




    Lackey should be happy regardless. He made 16M to recover from surgery. I wouldnt give him another year. His value may be at its height if he does well in the post season. Hes going to be 35 in October. That means he will be almost 37 in his last year.

     

     

    I see what teams might be willing to part with for Lackey. Dempster is a no brainer to drop salary...Buchholz, Peavy, Lester, Doubront, Workman. You have Morales, Britton, Wright, and Webster who all can be 6-7-8. Im sure they would pick up a couple reclamation projects like always and see what sticks.

    Just something to consider.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    are we supposed to get rid of every player who made money to recover from an injury and over 35?  The sox were able to recup lackey's pay from the insurance policy because he was out the season.  Lackey has been a warrior this year and with no drama.  We saw again this year how easily a pitcher can down and what we had to give up to help the rotation.  Keep Lackey, it is a no brainer especially with what he is going to get paid on his last year.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    If you can get something good in return that makes sense, then I have no issue getting rid of lackey. Im not saying they need to, or that they should 100% trade him. Im saying, IMHO JB, that at least one of them will go this offseason and Im making the case for each of them. Im fine either way if he stays, but my opinion is one of them goes. I think we could get something good back and replace him in the rotation. Dempster is more of a salary dump. That is how I view them. Of course it all depends on how the Sox view them though.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    Neither, what GM wants old Pitchers with Big Contracts. If I was GM , I would move Buchholz. He has potential, but cant last a full season. Hurts Club in too many ways.Could be a great trade, if evaluations are good.



    Why would Buch be great trade bait. Other clubs realize his fragility as well and that brings his trade value down.

    Hetch 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Lackey and/or Dempster WILL be traded this offseason

    In response to Hetchinspete's comment:

    In response to crazyworldoftroybrown's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Neither, what GM wants old Pitchers with Big Contracts. If I was GM , I would move Buchholz. He has potential, but cant last a full season. Hurts Club in too many ways.Could be a great trade, if evaluations are good.

     



    Why would Buch be great trade bait. Other clubs realize his fragility as well and that brings his trade value down.

     

    Hetch 

    [/QUOTE]


    That, and teams that are looking for a short deal from a proven vet would love Lackeys contract and the way hes performing. Dempster can be a good innings eater as well, but with less value than lackey.

     

Share