Yeah - I can't say I was unhappy when the Halos let him walk. He has his uses - for sure - and he will always be revered for his 2002 post-season, but he has seen his walk rates rise, his K rates drop and his jerk-factor jump through the roof the last few years. When he showed-up Scioscia on the mound in the playoffs last year - he basically packed his bags, I think.

Plus, he looks like Mr. Ed a little bit....

The better answer is that John Lackey sucks.

Considering how many Red Sox fans talk about him, I thought he was performing at a level much worse than a 4.60 ERA.

There's what, 10 years and 30 billion dollars left on that contract?

There's what, 10 years and 30 billion dollars left on that contract?

Or roughly the same amount left on Beckett's contract. Those two will be anchors of the rotation for the forseeable future.

Those two will be anchors of the rotation for the forseeable future.

Anchors! I see what you did there. the problem with signing Lackey is I gotta think they're out of the Lee sweepstakes this offseason, right?

the problem with signing Lackey is I gotta think they're out of the Lee sweepstakes this offseason, right?

Probably. I can't see them wanting to spend the $20M or whatever it'll cost per year for Lee, when they already have Lester, Buchholtz, Beckett, Lackey, and Dice-K under contract (with the last three drawing very large paychecks).

Of course, I also didn't think they'd sign Lackey, so there's a decent chance that I'm completely wrong.

I think I would rather have Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth over Cliff Lee anyway. Cheaper, younger, and the Red Sox needs OF help.

I think I would rather have Carl Crawford or Jayson Werth over Cliff Lee anyway. Cheaper, younger, and the Red Sox needs OF help.

I think if they didn't have Lackey they could move for a hitter AND a pitcher. I still think they'll go after Crawford or Werth but having Lackey will keep them from throwing cash at the rotation.

but having Lackey will keep them from throwing cash at the rotation.

but that's at the expense of already having thrown cash at the rotation...to get Lackey!

you make that argument to prevent your front office from signing guys like lackey...not because you signed him =P

you make that argument to prevent your front office from signing guys like lackey...not because you signed him =P

It's too late!

I still think they'll go after Crawford or Werth but having Lackey will keep them from throwing cash at the rotation.

Yeah, having him behind the plate is bad enough.

Jason Bay for John Lackey.

My problem with Lackey is how up-and-down he is.

For example:
In April, he made 5 starts, going 2-1 with an ERA of 4.50. Sounds like a lot of "6 IP, 3 ER" kind of starts, yes?

But in those five starts, he had four starts that looked like this:
26.2 IP, 26 H, 14 Ks, 11 BBs, 7 ER, ERA of 2.36

and one start that looked like this:
3.1 IP, 9 H, 1 BB, 3 Ks, 8 ER, ERA of almost 24

In May, he pitches five times. Two of the starts are wins where he pitches 13.1 innings, and gives up a total of 3 ER, for an ERA of 2.03. In the other three starts, he goes 1-2, giving up 15 ER in 18 innings.

In June, his ERA is 3.86, and he goes 4-0. Sounds pretty good, right? He has three great starts, pitching 21 innings, and givign up 5 ER. Then he has three starts where he pitches 18.2 innings, gives up 30 hits and four walks...and still goes 1-0 with 2 no-decisions.

In July, he has three starts in a row where he pitches very well: 2-0, 19.2 IP, 4 ER, 13 Ks, 5 BBs, ERA of 1.83. But in the start before that streak, he pitches 4.2 innings, gives up 7 ER, 8 hits, and 6 BBs.

In August, he pitches really well twice (8 IP each times, 3 ER and 2 ER in the two games), and pitches like crap the other four times (24.2 IP, 36 hits, 11 BBs, 21 ER).

On balance, he's had 14 starts where he pitched at least six innings, and gave up 3 ER or less. There's only been one game where he only did the minimum of 6 IP and 3 ER - the rest of the 17 starts, he pitched at least into the 7th, and/or gave up fewer than 3 ER. It's a very good half season.

The other 13 starts, though, are generally lots of innings, and lots of hits, and a fairly high amount of ER. He's only failed to pitch 6 innings three times this year.

I can't stand him because of his mouth-breathing looks, but as a Red Sox fan, I'll say this: after looking at the numbers, I do not think John Lackey is the reason we're not making the playoffs. He's not a #1 starter, but if his BABIP goes back to it's historic norms, he'll be fine in 2011 - not awesome, but fine. I do worry about the last couple of years of the deal, though...

I think Dice-K may have some value, if we were able to get him to waive the no-trade. That would open up a spot in the rotation. He's only getting $10 million in 2011 and $10 million in 2012. Sure, we'd have to swallow some of that, but his recent efforts haven't been that bad (in fact he's been the #3 starter the last few weeks, in my opinion). There are a lot of teams who could use league-average pitching at $10 million a year. I'd start with the Mariners (for whom Dice-K promotionally holds the most value, I'd guess) and go from there. Then you use whatever $ you save on moving Dice-K to sign Lee.

You also could--I think--easily move Papelbon if $ was an issue. That would be another $10 million saved for 2011. Add to that the savings of no Lowell ($10 million) and possibly no VMart ($7 million), and you have some serious $ to throw at Lee... if you were so inclined.

I don't see them making a play for OF help, I really don't. Drew has some value in the last year of his contract if you wanted to free up some cash to go get a Werth, but I suspect the Red Sox feel they'd be OK going into 2011 with the same plan as they had for 2010, only everyone's 1 year older and (hopefully) healthy. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that I suspect the Red Sox won't spend a lot at the OF position in free agency.

I think Lackey will bounce back in the future, so long as he is healthy.

Btw, Lackey's career batting against line: 265/324/404.

And with Mike Napoli catching him: 251/308/385.

That almost certainly means nothing. But if the Angels do end up being ########, maybe we'll get a chance to see if Naps has any kind of magic with Lackey.

Sigh. Lackey was supposed to be better than Burnett, and thus worth the money. But this seems to happen whenever the Red Sox try to spend in free agency: they get a player's decline years. Frankly, I think they should stay out of free agency (barring somebody obviously great), and just stick to building the team through a good farm system and trades.

Who has succeeded, after being signed by the Red Sox, recently (I'm talking about deals where the team laid out a lot of money)?

JD Drew: Probably the only real answer to this question.
Dice-K: No
Lackey: No
Beltre: Yes, but that's only a one-year deal and chances are he'll be gone next year.
Scutaro: Not really.

Not to be any bigger pain in the *ss than I am usually, but...Jim, this article really belongs in Sox Therapy.

Lackey is essentially back where he was in 2003-4, except he's giving up more walks and fewer HRs. He turned a corner in '05, but he was hurt in '08 and '09, which made signing him a gamble.

Ye Olde QMAX "Hit Hard" stat for Lackey in '10 is 48%. That's worse than '03 (39%). Even in his best season ('07), he was no hero at avoiding "hit hard" games (27%). I'm sure his "indicated" numbers in '07 are a good bit higher than his ERA.

Lackey's K/BB and K/9 has actually been better in his last eleven starts, but the "on-off" pattern alluded to above has become more pronounced.

Napoli's "magic" vis-a-vis Lackey is mostly due to 2006-7; last year, that line looked like this: .309/.355/.439.

17. Lackey is marginally better than Burnett:
Lackey: ERA+ 95 WHIP 1.506 H/9 10.3 HR/9 0.8 BB/9 3.3 SO/9 6.2 SO/BB 1.89
Burnett:ERA+ 77 WHIP 1.513 H/9 9.9 HR/9 1.1 BB/9 3.7 SO/9 6.7 SO/BB 1.79
Very marginally.

[edit] this year

[edit] this year

Sweet! I feel so much better now!

Dice-K: No

Yes for 3 years, no for one is my scoring of that deal. Now, perhaps he's a disappointment in terms of expectations vs. results, but he's been above average in 3 of the 4 seasons.

But this seems to happen whenever the Red Sox try to spend in free agency: they get a player's decline years.

Doesn't this happen when anyone spends money in free agency? I mean, unless you're signing someone who was a full-time major leaguer at 21 or younger, this is going to be true. Who was the last person 27 or under to be a free agent? A-Rod? (Not counting marginal players who get non-tendered in their arbitration years, of course).

EDIT: Forgot about Sabathia. But the point still holds: its rare to find a free agent who isn't heading into his decline years.

Scutaro: Not really.

They didn't lay out a lot of money for Scutaro...now, if you had said LUGO...

They didn't lay out a lot of money for Scutaro...now, if you had said LUGO...

Yeah. Or Renteria.

Yes for 3 years, no for one is my scoring of that deal.

I suppose that's true. I always look at last year, and the year before that when even his FIP was good, but he was walking a ridiculous number of hitters.

its rare to find a free agent who isn't heading into his decline years.

That is true overall, yes. So I'd like the Red Sox to stop giving huge deals to free agents and put themselves ahead of the money game that way. :)