Lackey Contract

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

    Re: Lackey Contract

    In response to LagunaJose's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Correct me if I'm wrong here but an owner can't give a player a bonus unless such a bonus or incentive is written into the contract. For instance if John Hennry wanted to give Uehara an extra $ mil. for his great efforts this past season he wouldn't be allowed to by the collective bargaining rules. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Maybe so, but an owner could just offer a new contract worth more than the old one; they can agree to void the old one, and go with the new.

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

    Re: Lackey Contract

    I don't get some of you here... what is all this talk about extensions or re-negotiating? What is wrong with you? 

    Ever thought it was in the teams best intrest to let Lackey pitch at that rate, and in a contract year? Is there a real reason the team needs to surrender that scenerio? 

    No wonder players are spolied, the average fan is clamoring for the team to pay him more than he is signed for. Guy has one good year since he arrived, still has 2014 in front of him.

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Lackey Contract

    It is okay, I wasn't responding to you directly, that is why I didn't quote you. No worries.

    It seems automatic across baseball that players can be injured or under-perform and then they finally do what they are paid to do and people start asking "shouldn't the team pay him more?"

    I wonder just how marketable his $500k salary will be as trade bait.

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

    Re: Lackey Contract

    In response to pumpsie-green's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Bigpapa1977's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    [/QUOTE]

    Why should the Red Sox rip it up? Lackey got $82.5M and was damaged good for two year, with one of those years, being on the DL for the entire season. He signed the contract knowing that if he was out, he'd have to play for $500K in 2015. 

    The Red Sox have him for a steal in 2015, but rightfully so. Lackey made out in 2012, making $16M and not throwing one pitch.

    The guy to trade would be Dempster. Eat 20-40% of his contract and trade him. 

    [/QUOTE]


    The Red Sox (or some new team) will rip it up, as they know that he will not play for 500,000.  Rookie scrubs make 500,000.  John Lackey just came off of a season in which he started the clinching game of the World Series and was one of two dependable starters all season.  The Red Sox insured the contract and I am sure were reimbursed for Lackey's lost year.

    I am not saying that Lackey earned the 82,500,000, but that doesn't really matter.  If he holds out, then he will get paid.  Likely, the issue is addressed before the end of the 2014 season.

    [/QUOTE]

    Why should the Red Sox pay him for not pitching at all for a whole year? John Lackey agreed to that contract and unless its restructured in some way WILL play for $500K. I am pretty sure that just opting out of it is simply not an option available to him

    [/QUOTE]

    I think Bigpapi is just busting chops, or else he knows nothing about the RS, or BB, or Lackey.  I have no doubt Lackey will keep his word.

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

    Re: Lackey Contract

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Duffie33's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    If this has been covered then sorry...

    Lackey's trade value is at all time hight true but don't we get him for 2014 & 2015 

    2014 $15M

    2015 $500K?  was there a option in his contract that if he missed a certain about of time the Red Sox could get him for $500K in 2015 .... and if that is true why would we want to trade him? (yes for a great younger player i get)

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Other teams see a pitcher of Lackey's ability and a cost of an average $8M for 2 years and are frothing at the mouth.

    Not many teams have 6 starters plus Morales, Workman, Britton, Webster, de la Rosa, Ranaudo, Barnes and Owens of their depth chart, and many of those teams thinking they are one top pictehr away from competing for a ring may greatly overpay for a guy like Lackey.

    I do not want to trade Lackey, but to me, I'll trade anyone, if the return is greater than what we lose.

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree 100%.  We have 6 SPs, plus Workman, plus prospects.  It is in our best interest to trade whoever gets us the best return on their value.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from one-for-the-road. Show one-for-the-road's posts

    Re: Lackey Contract

    DONT trade him, unless some team takes Dempster with him, and sign Hudson and get some hot young prospects in return

     

    then they´d have, a set rotation, some money and prospects to show for, let the other team worry about restructuration

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

    Re: Lackey Contract

    I think we trade Dempster and maybe pay $3M.

    That saves us $10M.  With $42M to spend instead of $32M, we can do much more.

     

Share