John Lackey and Kevin Millwood

[Fan4Life]

The difference is on how much value you put on a 80-82 record as opposed to 72-90. To me the difference is virtually zip.

I'm not saying that they are already doomed to 70-92. I'm taking issue with you reasoning that adding a Lackey would be worth doing if only to turn another disastrous into a merely mediocre season. I think that's a meaningless goal.

The goal should be to contend, period. If you think you're close, then get ready to start writing checks. If not, then don't squander resources in chasing mediocrity.

As I said.. we don't agree on the value of 2010 and so we likely won't agree on the details of it as well.

[Arthur_Bryant]

If this is the case, then this organization is never going to compete.

Plan for success. I know that it seems distant at this point, but in the next 3-5 years they could easily be looking at major contracts for Jones, Reimold, Tillman, Matusz. In addition, they will be paying down existing contracts for Roberts and Markakis. Bell and Snyder or whoever fills those spots will be entering their arb years most likely.

Want a big FA bat? What should they set aside? Even $15/5 won't buy "premium."

Now let's start counting the coins in the cookie jar to make a run at extending Wieters.

Still like that Lackey contract?

[Sports Guy]

Plan for success. I know that it seems distant at this point, but in the next 3-5 years they could be looking at major contracts for Jones, Reimold, Tillman, Matusz. In addition, they will be paying down existing contracts for Roberts and Markakis.

Want a big FA bat? What should they set aside? Even $15/5 won't buy "premium."

Now let's start counting the coins in ther cookie jar to make a run at extending Wieters.

Still like that Lackey contract?

Yes I do...The 17 million you give Lackey shouldn't impact those things.

First of all, extending Wieters isn't happening, so you can get that fantasy out of your head now so you don't get disappointed later.

Secondly, Jones can be extended this offseason and keep his salary down.

Lastly, you have no idea what is going to happen with the other young players...Maybe you want to keep them..Maybe you don't...Maybe you trade some of them, maybe you don't.

If you sign them at the proper times, then you are looking at getting them cheaply anyway..The only years that would really be a huge impact would be the FA years for some of these guys and if you extend them early enough, you can keep that down.

So no, the lackey contract should be fine for us..No reason for it not to be..especially if we start contending..Ticket sales go back up...MASN gets more profitable, etc....

We also could have a new owner by then that would spend more money.

In other words, a lot could happen.

[doctorbj]

Is this a moot point?

I know we all feel that Andy has 'complete' control, but was Angelos not quoted as saying that he would never go 5 years for any pitcher?

Barry

[mweb]

I would not give that contract(which I think is below he'll get) to him if those were going to be his numbers. The innings are certainly nice, but would want a better ERA, those numbers are not those of a TOR starter which people are clamoring for.

[Mackus]

Is this a moot point?

I know we all feel that Andy has 'complete' control, but was Angelos not quoted as saying that he would never go 5 years for any pitcher?

Barry

Things Angelos have said publicly 10 years ago are irrelevant.

Its Andy's show to run.

[Frobby]

While their numbers may look similar on a cumulative level, to me Lackey has been a far more consistent pitcher. He's worth more than Millwood was. Partly because he is younger, he's also worth more than Derek Lowe who signed for 4/$60 mm last winter. I'd imagine Lackey will be looking for (and probably get) A.J. Burnett-type money.

[Fan4Life]

While their numbers may look similar on a cumulative level, to me Lackey has been a far more consistent pitcher. He's worth more than Millwood was. Partly because he is younger, he's also worth more than Derek Lowe who signed for 4/$60 mm last winter. I'd imagine Lackey will be looking for (and probably get) A.J. Burnett-type money.

How does Millwood compare to Lackey using the stats you and RShack looked at with regard to average outs/Inn per start?

[RShack]

How does Millwood compare to Lackey using the stats you and RShack looked at with regard to average outs/Inn per start?

FWIW...

A couple minor details are different, due to changes to do rounding in a consistent way. Same end result...

Lackey	ERA	ERA+	IP	GS	O/GS	%CG	OTE+	Level2002	3.66	121	108.1	18	18.0	66.7%	81	#22003	4.63	95	204.0	33	18.5	68.7%	65	#32004	4.67	96	198.1	32	18.6	68.8%	66	#32005	3.44	123	209.0	33	19.0	70.4%	87	#22006	3.56	128	217.2	33	19.7	73.1%	94	#12007	3.01	151	224.0	33	20.4	75.4%	114	#1,CYA-cand2008	3.75	119	163.1	24	20.4	75.5%	90	#12009	3.47	131	174.1	26	20.1	74.4%	97	#1Millwood ERA	ERA+	IP	GS	O/GS	%CG	OTE+	Level1999	2.68	167	228.0	33	20.7	76.8%	128	#1,CYA-cand2000	4.66	99	212.2	35	18.2	67.4%	67	#32001	4.31	103	121.0	21	17.3	64.0%	66	#32002	3.24	128	217.0	34	19.1	70.9%	91	#12003	4.01	99	222.0	35	19.0	70.5%	70	#32004	4.85	92	141.0	25	16.9	62.7%	58	#42005	2.86	146	192.0	30	19.2	71.1%	104	#1,CYA-cand2006	4.52	102	215.0	34	19.0	70.3%	72	#32007	5.16	87	172.2	31	16.7	61.7%	54	#52008	5.07	87	168.2	29	17.4	64.4%	56	#42009	3.75	120	189.2	30	18.9	70.1%	84	#2

The OTE+ values are right, and I'm comfortable with the thresholds for #1, #2, and the floor of #5.

I'm not real sure about the 3/4 and 4/5 boundaries. I'm just using the one that fits the AL this year. They could be wrong.

[hoosiers]

These are terrible comps though.

You can only go by the info you have...With what we have about Lackey, he is a durable, power pitcher that is showing no signs of decline.

Dreifort and Pavano were injury riddled and/or coming off career years...Chan Ho doesn't have lackey's pedigree...Ryan was a closer.

They are poor comps when comparing to Lackey's stuff and career numbers .... and I never claimed they were comps.

What I did post was .....

"there was tremendous risk to such a contract regardless of the similarities of their (Millwood and Lackey) statistics" and I cited examples of poor values received for long term, big $ free agent pitching contracts.

IMO, very few such contracts are justified by the production. If you feel Lackey will justify his contract, then go after him. As I posted, at some point in trying to build a winner, a GM will have to take such a risk. I am indifferent to signing Lackey, generally, but would probably lean against it at the required $.

[byrdz]

Lackey's career versus the AL Beasts:

New York - 4.66 ERA

Boston - 5.25 ERA

Millwood's career versus the AL Beasts:

New York - 4.86 ERA

Boston - 3.84 ERA

More Exposure + Aging Vets = Contract Hell

[Fan4Life]

Lackey's career versus the AL Beasts:

New York - 4.66 ERA

Boston - 5.25 ERA

Millwood's career versus the AL Beasts:

New York - 4.86 ERA

Boston - 3.84 ERA

More Exposure + Aging Vets = Contract Hell

Career numbers would be misleading... what does the last 3 years look like?

[Mackus]

Lackey's career versus the AL Beasts:

New York - 4.66 ERA

Boston - 5.25 ERA

Millwood's career versus the AL Beasts:

New York - 4.86 ERA

Boston - 3.84 ERA

More Exposure + Aging Vets = Contract Hell

What's a better indication of his talent, 12.5% of his career or 100% of his career?

What are his numbers on Tuesdays? That's about 1/8th of his career starts.

[RShack]

Career numbers would be misleading... what does the last 3 years look like?

To me, the last 3 years make Lackey look like a #1 and Millwood look like a guy who is having a good year (#2) after 2 lousy (#5, #4) years.

[Frobby]

Lackey's career versus the AL Beasts:

New York - 4.66 ERA

Boston - 5.25 ERA

Millwood's career versus the AL Beasts:

New York - 4.86 ERA

Boston - 3.84 ERA

More Exposure + Aging Vets = Contract Hell

League average (2009): 5.37 ERA vs. NYY, 4.92 ERA vs. Boston. So, on balance, Lackey is about league average against them. As to the O's staff? 6.87 ERA vs. Boston, 6.72 vs. NYY this year. I'd take Lackey's numbers against them.