Lackey now over.500

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

    Lackey now over.500

    His record is now 8-8. With a bad elbow in May, limiting him to two starts, and what he's dealing with off-the-field, including the wrath of many on this board, he may very well duplicate his 14-11 2010 season.

    Of note: His two May starts resulted in a cortisone shot and a DL stay.
    Excluding this, he's 8-6  5.44 ERA. Not great, but not horrid.
    In three of his losses the team scored a total of 1 run.

    4/19: 5-0 loss. Line: 6 IP     4 H  1 ER
    4/30: 2-0 loss. Line: 6 IP     7 H  2 ER
    6/29: 2-1 loss. Line: 7.6 IP  8 H  2 ER
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    He's been really chucking that rock the last month or so.  Only one bad start, if memory seerves.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    Good evening S.Y. Lackey is 6-3 since his DL stay.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    A lot of posters here are not going to want to read this, or acknowledge it at all.  Lackey is the JD Drew of the pitching staff; hated for the big contract he earned by being the best available in a year the Sox had a need.  Therefore he is overpaid a bit for the talent and production he brings to the team. 

    As a result, to many here Lackey is a complete bum and no amount of statistics will change their minds.

    I, on the other hand, always thought the Sox were counting on getting a #3 or #4 starter who could win 14 - 16 games a season for most of his contract (not a 20-game winning ace).  They knew they were overpaying a bit for the only pitcher that was available who could add that kind of value to their starting rotation. 

    I suspect that like Drew, Lackey's production will be what the Sox FO knew they were getting when they offered the contract.  And, like Drew, there will be those here who will never cut him any slack, will constantly remind us all of how ridiculous his salary is, and will ignore any stats and reasoning to the contrary.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]Good evening S.Y. Lackey is 6-3 since his DL stay.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    Now that really sux.  


    ;o)

    G'day!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]A lot of posters here are not going to want to read this, or acknowledge it at all.  Lackey is the JD Drew of the pitching staff; hated for the big contract he earned by being the best available in a year the Sox had a need.  Therefore he is overpaid a bit for the talent and production he brings to the team.  As a result, to many here Lackey is a complete bum and no amount of statistics will change their minds. I, on the other hand, always thought the Sox were counting on getting a #3 or #4 starter who could win 14 - 16 games a season for most of his contract (not a 20-game winning ace).  They knew they were overpaying a bit for the only pitcher that was available who could add that kind of value to their starting rotation.  I suspect that like Drew, Lackey's production will be what the Sox FO knew they were getting when they offered the contract.  And, like Drew, there will be those here who will never cut him any slack, will constantly remind us all of how ridiculous his salary is, and will ignore any stats and reasoning to the contrary.
    Posted by parhunter1[/QUOTE]


    Interesting analogy.
    Lackey has averaged 14-15 wins a year in his career. What makes people think that's gonna change? They signed him as pitching depth.
    What do fans think 17 mil a year will bring for a starting pitcher on the FA market?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]A lot of posters here are not going to want to read this, or acknowledge it at all.  Lackey is the JD Drew of the pitching staff; hated for the big contract he earned by being the best available in a year the Sox had a need.  Therefore he is overpaid a bit for the talent and production he brings to the team.  As a result, to many here Lackey is a complete bum and no amount of statistics will change their minds. I, on the other hand, always thought the Sox were counting on getting a #3 or #4 starter who could win 14 - 16 games a season for most of his contract (not a 20-game winning ace).  They knew they were overpaying a bit for the only pitcher that hat he was LAAswas available who could add that kind of value to their starting rotation.  I suspect that like Drew, Lackey's production will be what the Sox FO knew they were getting when they offered the contract.  And, like Drew, there will be those here who will never cut him any slack, will constantly remind us all of how ridiculous his salary is, and will ignore any stats and reasoning to the contrary.
    Posted by parhunter1[/QUOTE]

    I couldn't agree more, Par.

    The fact that he was LAAs ace for a while impressed many, but if we look at his record he's never been CY Young or 20 win material.  Maybe with the Sox hitting he would ...but many forget he MOVED froma weak division to one of the hardest divisions around.   It's a bit akin to moving to the AL from the NL ...

    He added just what Tito continues to say is real.  

      
    200 innings, strong but not fantastic pitching...


    BUT sometimes the fantastic IS there   like tonight...
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    What do fans think 17 mil a year will bring for a starting pitcher on the FA market? 

    Well they weren't satisfied with Dice-K winning 15 and then 18 games, even though he was only earning 10 million a year, so who knows?  Obviously some here have unrealistic expectations.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : I couldn't agree more, Par. The fact that he was LAAs ace for a while impressed many, but if we look at his record he's never been CY Young or 20 win material.  Maybe with the Sox hitting he would ...but many forget he MOVED froma weak divisionto one of the hardest divisions around.   It's a bit akin to moving to the AL from the NL ... He added just what Tito continues to say is real.      200 innings, strong but not fantastic pitching... BUT sometimes the fantastic IS there   like tonight...
    Posted by SinceYaz[/QUOTE]

    I'm sure Hill will debate this, but what's also important is that Lackey is gonna give up more runs at Fenway, so that's the great equalizer.

    If he averages the same 14-15 wins a year throughout his Boston tenure, will he be considered a bust?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500



    I do not care what Lackey's win/loss record is.  His ERA is three times higher than Beckett's. 

    The Red Sox need Lackey to be consistent as they head deep into the playoffs. 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    Not in my book (in answer to Harness's question).  Just a bit over paid.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]What do fans think 17 mil a year will bring for a starting pitcher on the FA market?   Well they weren't satisfied with Dice-K winning 15 and then 18 games, even though he was only earning 10 million a year, so who knows?  Obviously some here have unrealistic expectations.
    Posted by parhunter1[/QUOTE]

    With Dice, I can't separate the player from the posting fee. Nor can Henry.
    Dice will end up averaging 10-11 wins a year - at a total cost of 100 million dollars, or 16+ mil a year.

    A. J. Burnett signed a similar deal to Lackey's. He averaged 13 wins a year before NY signed him. That figure may be less by the end of his deal - and he's been healthy, which surprises.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    I came here neither to praise nor condemn John Lackey.  I'm just happy that he seems to be on the right track. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter1. Show parhunter1's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    And I understand that, though I disagree. 

    I separate the two, in part because Dice-K had nothing to do with the posting fee.  He receives an average of $10 million a year on the contract he signed.  The other reason I see the two separately is that the posting fee was, in all likelihood, recovered in increased sales of the Red Sox brand. 

    The posting fee was a business decision that opened up the Japanese market to Red Sox licensed products.  If that money was not fully recovered by this point, then it was a bad business decision on Henry's and Werner's part.  Even at that, it allowed the Sox to close a deal, which resulted in a reasonable contract for what they ended up getting.  They then should have let Matsuzaka do things his way.  That is, after all, how he developed into the pitcher that prompted them to post a rather huge fee to win negotiating rights.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    I read that Lackey couldn't take the heat.
    Felix provides plenty of that. He was 3-0 with a 1.49 ERA in Fenway before tonight's game.

    Neither that nor 96 degrees stopped Lackey.
    I'd say that deserves some praise.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]And I understand that, though I disagree.  I separate the two, in part because Dice-K had nothing to do with the posting fee.  He receives an average of $10 million a year on the contract he signed.  The other reason I see the two separately is that the posting fee was, in all likelihood, recovered in increased sales of the Red Sox brand.  The posting fee was a business decision that opened up the Japanese market to Red Sox licensed products.  If that money was not fully recovered by this point, then it was a bad business decision on Henry's and Werner's part.  Even at that, it allowed the Sox to close a deal, which resulted in a reasonable contract for what they ended up getting.  They then should have let Matsuzaka do things his way.  That is, after all, how he developed into the pitcher that prompted them to post a rather huge fee to win negotiating rights.
    Posted by parhunter1[/QUOTE]

    I don't agree, Par.
    I see it as a Boston expenditure. 51 mil for good will is a damn poor investment from one who is a brilliant business man.

    As for Dice doing things the way he did in Japan, that's how it started out. But it didn't transfer well to the majors because M.L. hitters weren't biting on his off-the-plate slop. He never really made the necessary adjustments to M.L. pitching approach or the team's training methods (shoulder strengthening), which can easily be linked to his rotary cuff tear.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]I read that Lackey couldn't take the heat. Felix provides plenty of that. He was 3-0 with a 1.49 ERA in Fenway before tonight's game. Neither that nor 96 degrees stopped Lackey. I'd say that deserves some praise.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I've always felt that Lackey was a grinder. Not a pretty pitcher who was going to have dominating stretches like Beckett, Lester and even Buchholz can have, but a pitcher who will take the ball every fifth game and just battle and keep you in games. Except for the games this year when he blew up -- for whatever reason, personal or injury -- he's done just that.

    My only problem with him was when he appeared to be getting upset at teammates when they made a bad play or sometimes simply not make a play he thought they should make. But if it's that he's getting mad at himself, then I like it.

    I never had anything against signing him, although I always questioned the length. Who knows? Maybe he'll be better at the end of the contract than at the beginning.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    I agree 100% Roy.

    The length of the deal wasn't popular, but that's what it took to sign him.
    The analogy to Drew might again be relevant. It's not shocking to see either age out in his final year.

    Lackey has a chip on his shoulder, but so does Pedey, and it serves them both when they need it. The difference is, Lackey misplaces his anger.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sheriff-Rojas. Show Sheriff-Rojas's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]I read that Lackey couldn't take the heat. Felix provides plenty of that. He was 3-0 with a 1.49 ERA in Fenway before tonight's game. Neither that nor 96 degrees stopped Lackey. I'd say that deserves some praise.
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    I stubbornly refuse to praise, just as I refrained from jumping aboard the bashing bandwagon.  The Mariners are not exactly Murderer's Row.  A few more quality starts in succession and/or a shutdown game against the Yankees, and I'll gladly hold up the applause sign. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]I do not care what Lackey's win/loss record is.  His ERA is three times higher than Beckett's.  The Red Sox need Lackey to be consistent as they head deep into the playoffs. 
    Posted by Ice-Cream[/QUOTE]

    Ice cream,

      Your prayers are being answered as we speak, bro. 

       May 11, ERA of 8.01    W-L 2-5

       Today  ERA of 6.28     W-L 8-8


       Earned runs last three games, 1, 3, 0

       Of course, 4 games ago he blew up for 7 ...but there were some of those questionable IF hits ...
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from SinceYaz. Show SinceYaz's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : I'm sure Hill will debate this, but what's also important is that Lackey is gonna give up more runs at Fenway, so that's the great equalizer. If he averages the same 14-15 wins a year throughout his Boston tenure, will he be considered a bust?
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]

    ALW isn't always a casper milquetoast ... but few consider it equal to ALE.  Maybe that is just east coast bias.

    You're talking about entire careers for some folks.  5X14.5 almost 73 wins.  If he could up it to 16 each of the last 4 years, it might make some happy.  But then we are talking about a pace that Josh hasn't kept.  Jon Lester may be on that 16 win season average and most would not say anything negative against him.  Heck, James forecast Jon at 14 or 15 wins this year.  He forecast Lackey at 12, if I remember correctly....
     

    WE are a hard crowd to please.  BUT if Lackey throws a couple stellar games in the playoffs this year, most all might be forgiven.  If he throws the Game 4 WS win ... especially in a sweep, he'll gain a measure of respect from the really hard to please.

    oops  break's over ...

      G'nite all.  Nice job, John ....
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey at.500:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lackey at.500 : ALW isn't always a casper milquetoast ... but few consider it equal to ALE.  Maybe that is just east coast bias. You're talking about entire careers for some folks.  5X14.5 almost 73 wins.  If he could up it to 16 each of the last 4 years, it might make some happy.  But then we are talking about a pace that Josh hasn't kept.  Jon Lester may be on that 16 win season average and most would not say anything negative against him.  Heck, James forecast Jon at 14 or 15 wins this year.  He forecast Lackey at 12, if I remember correctly....   WE are a hard crowd to please.  BUT if Lackey throws a couple stellar games in the playoffs this year, most all might be forgiven.  If he throws the Game 4 WS win ... especially in a sweep, he'll gain a measure of respect from the really hard to please. oops  break's over ...   G'nite all.  Nice job, John ....
    Posted by SinceYaz[/QUOTE]

    That alone puts it in perspective.
    Your optimism is unparalleled. Have a good night, my fellow dough nut.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    The thing about Lackey is he's always been a better second half than first half pitcher. I don't have any stats to back that up, but I remember reading it in the Globe last year I think.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from harness. Show harness's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    Lackey career:

    1st Half:   64-50 4.20 ERA  1.322 WHIP
    2nd Half:  59-40 3.83 ERA  1.342 WHIP
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Lackey now at.500

    In Response to Re: Lackey now at.500:
    [QUOTE]Lackey career: 1st Half:   64-50 4.20 ERA  1.322 WHIP 2nd Half:  59-40 3.83 ERA  1.342 WHIP
    Posted by harness[/QUOTE]There goes my theory. I think I'll shut up about Lackey now.
     

Share