John Lackey and Kevin Millwood

[RShack]

You know as well as anyone that a 5 year deal for a 31 year old pitcher is a recipe for regret.

Most of the time yes...

Then you're advocating spending megabucks on a 5-year bad-odds bet.

I agree that Lackey is perhaps the best available guy.

I disagree that giving any 31-yr-old FA SP a 5 year deal is sensible.

He had pitched like a #1. So, why aren't the Angels keeping him?

Now, maybe you do it if the guy is one of those freaks with no injuries. But Lackey ain't one of those freaks. This is the 2nd year in a row that he missed a month and a half of the season, 2nd second year in a row that he's under 190 IP. For 2 straight years he's basically missed a fourth of the season. IMO, these things are not good omens for a long-term deal.

So, all in all, it's like one of those dumb bets in the middle of the craps table. You can win doing it, but it's easy to end up looking very dumb, since there is no mystery about what the odds are.

[Sports Guy]

Then you're advocating spending megabucks on a 5-year bad-odds bet.

I agree that Lackey is perhaps the best available guy.

I disagree that giving any 31-yr-old SP a 5 year deal is sensible.

Now, maybe you do it if the guy is one of those freaks with no injuries. But Lackey ain't one of those freaks. This is the 2nd year in a row that he missed a month and a half of the season, 2nd second year in a row that he's under 190 IP. For 2 straight years he's basically missed a fourth of the season. IMO, these things are not good omens for a long-term deal.

So, all in all, it's like one of those dumb bets in the middle of the craps table. You can win doing it, but it's easy to end up looking very dumb, since there is no mystery about what the odds are.

Neither of his injuries have been a big deal....And since they were early on, it takes a little longer to come back from because of the lack of ST.

My comparison in this thread, Millwood, suffered injuries before he signed his deal as well...missed a lot more time than Lackey did...and he has still thrown plenty of innings.

[Sports Guy]

Jason Marquis, who SG basically said was worthless if I recall correctly could have been had easily last off-season, even though he had a track record of providing 190+ mediocre innings just like Millwood had in recent years. Now Millwood strikes out more guys and has more potential, but the results in terms of ERA+ and innings haven't been much different, both even have had better years than you'd expect this year.

So I guess I don't get why Millwood is a great example of we should get Lackey, but Marquis was awful, and Guthrie should be traded.

My point is if all we're expecting from Lackey is to be like Millwood has with the Rangers, there's cheaper alternatives to get that from, inlcuding a guy already on the team.

But again, I expect Lackey to better than Millwood in terms of ERA, just don't see why looking at what Kevin has done would inspire anyone to want Lackey.

I was calling for Marquis last offseason..The idea of getting a one year stop gap instead of spending the money on a multiyear deal for the same pitcher was more intriguing to me.

I showed the millwood comp for obvious reasons...because his deal hasn't hurt the Rangers..Because he has been worth his deal.

They have a similar track record going into their FA contracts...As we both agree, Lackey should be better...190 IP and a 4.30 ERA on average for the 5 seasons would be worth it IMO.

[Sports Guy]

LAckey has 50 starts the last 2 years...He has gone at least 7 innings in 33 of those starts.

[RShack]

Neither of his injuries have been a big deal....And since they were early on, it takes a little longer to come back from because of the lack of ST.

The diff between averaging 25 GS the last 2 years vs. 33 GS the previous 5 years is a very big deal. That's true no matter what the reason is.

Now, maybe you think it's not a big deal. But I expect AM is not gonna spend a fortune making your 5-year bet for you.

This is a perfect example of why you grow the arms, not buy them:

Arms are fragile and, by the time one is proven enough to be a big-dollar FA, it's already somewhat used up.

So, when you give a long term deal to buy one that's used up enough to be proven, you're just asking for it...

[mweb]

I was calling for Marquis last offseason..The idea of getting a one year stop gap instead of spending the money on a multiyear deal for the same pitcher was more intriguing to me.

I showed the millwood comp for obvious reasons...because his deal hasn't hurt the Rangers..Because he has been worth his deal.

They have a similar track record going into their FA contracts...As we both agree, Lackey should be better...190 IP and a 4.30 ERA on average for the 5 seasons would be worth it IMO.

You may have wanted Marquis because you thought that would get us someone of more value back in a trade for doing the Cubs the favor of taking him. But don't lie and said you liked the guy as a starter for this team. You ripped the guy a ton! I know this because I was often the person on the other side of these debates.

I don't care what FanGraphs says, I wouldn't pay what Millwood got or what Lackey is likely to get for an average of 185-190 innings of slightly better than league average pitching unless I was really desperate.

He's really only had 1 year that I would be happy with getting from Lackey for the contract he'll likely get, that's this year. And he's has had two years I'd be very disappointed with. Note I'm talking about ERA here.

And that's given the knowledge that he'll give you those innings, which we obviously don't have with Lackey. You can't come close to counting on those innings from Lackey.

Sure, he's more likely to provide them than a guy like Harden, but not really over Guthrie or Garland or Doug Davis, all much cheaper options.

[Sports Guy]

The diff between averaging 25 GS the last 2 years vs. 33 GS the previous 5 years is a very big deal. That's true no matter what the reason is.

Now, maybe you think it's not a big deal. But I expect AM is not gonna spend a fortune making your 5-year bet for you.

This is a perfect example of why you grow the arms, not buy them:

Arms are fragile and, by the time you want to buy one, it's already somewhat used up.

So, when you give a long term deal to one that's used up enough to be proven, you're just asking for it...

Oh, I agree it is a big deal..I am not poo pooing it...I am just saying the injuries haven't been that big of a deal...He hasn't had to have surgery or anything like that.

That's all i am saying.

[Sports Guy]

You may have wanted Marquis because you thought that would get us someone of more value back in a trade for doing the Cubs the favor of taking him. But don't lie and said you liked the guy as a starter for this team. You ripped the guy a ton! I know this because I was often the person on the other side of these debates.

I don't care what FanGraphs says, I wouldn't pay what Millwood got or what Lackey is likely to get for an average of 185-190 innings of slightly better than league average pitching unless I was really desperate.

He's really only had 1 year that I would be happy with getting from Lackey for the contract he'll likely get, that's this year. And he's has had two years I'd be very disappointed with. Note I'm talking about ERA here.

And that's given the knowledge that he'll give you those innings, which we obviously don't have with Lackey. You can't come close to counting on those innings from Lackey.

Sure, he's more likely to provide them than a guy like Harden, but not really over Guthrie or Garland or Doug Davis, all much cheaper options.

I wanted Marquis because he was a one year commitment vs guys like Looper, etc...who would have been multi-year commitments.

[mweb]

I wanted Marquis because he was a one year commitment vs guys like Looper, etc...who would have been multi-year commitments.

You didn't want him, you wanted the benefit of what the Cubs would give to get rid of him. You thought he was poor.

Nothing on the rest of the post?

[Sports Guy]

You didn't want him, you wanted the benefit of what the Cubs would give to get rid of him. You thought he was poor.

Nothing on the rest of the post?

Nothing really to say that I haven't already said.

No need to waste my time and continue repeating the same thing.

To me, it is worth it to spend that money for 190 IP and 4.3 ERA average season over the next 5 years...For the division we are in, our need to improve and help the pen and our need to have at least 3 starters sporting 4.20 ERAs or better to contend in our division, I am ok with Lackey at that number.

His salary won't hurt us...It won't stop us from doing other things.

While I hate 5 year deals for pitchers, I think Lackey is an exception to the rule.

[mweb]

Nothing really to say that I haven't already said.

No need to waste my time and continue repeating the same thing.

To me, it is worth it to spend that money for 190 IP and 4.3 ERA average season over the next 5 years...For the division we are in, our need to improve and help the pen and our need to have at least 3 starters sporting 4.20 ERAs or better to contend in our division, I am ok with Lackey at that number.

His salary won't hurt us...It won't stop us from doing other things.

While I hate 5 year deals for pitchers, I think Lackey is an exception to the rule.

How many years would you have been happy with Millwood if you were paying him 17M a year?

And to state the obvious again, you don't know that he'll average 190 innings, decent chance he doesn't. If you're expecting a 4.3 ERA out of him, he better average 190+ innings, because there's not much margin for error in that case imo.

[Sports Guy]

How many years would you have been happy with Millwood if you were paying him 17M a year?

Well, he has been worth 55 million over the first 4 years...So, the answer is 3...If you are asking me back then what would I have been happy with...Well, i wouldn't have given him the deal he got...But the organization is in a different position now.

And to state the obvious again, you don't know that he'll average 190 innings, decent chance he doesn't. If you're expecting a 4.3 ERA out of him, he better average 190+ innings, because there's not much margin for error in that case imo.

Of course I don't know..I don't know if Matusz and Tillman will be anything more than bullpen pitchers either.

Its a risk...but one where the team won't really get hurt all that much.

[mweb]

Well, he has been worth 55 million over the first 4 years...So, the answer is 3...If you are asking me back then what would I have been happy with...Well, i wouldn't have given him the deal he got...But the organization is in a different position now.

Of course I don't know..I don't know if Matusz and Tillman will be anything more than bullpen pitchers either.

Its a risk...but one where the team won't really get hurt all that much.

Ok, so you're happy with an ERA+ of 87 for about 170 innings for 17M. If Lackey has two straight years like that, the board will be bashing him left and right, regardless of what FanGraphs says.

[Sports Guy]

Ok, so you're happy with an ERA+ of 87 for about 170 innings for 17M. If Lackey has two straight years like that, the board will be bashing him left and right, regardless of what FanGraphs says.

I already posted what I expect from him...3.6ish ERA in year 1, 3.9ish ERA in year 2, 4.1ish ERA in year 3, 4.3ish ERA in year 4 and 4.5ish in year 5...That actually works to better than a 4.3 ERA..That works out to about a 4.10 ERA for his time here...And I think the IP will be there.

That's around what I would expect from him...And I would be happy with that.

[mweb]

I already posted what I expect from him...3.6ish ERA in year 1, 3.9ish ERA in year 2, 4.1ish ERA in year 3, 4.3ish ERA in year 4 and 4.5ish in year 5...That actually works to better than a 4.3 ERA..That works out to about a 4.10 ERA for his time here...And I think the IP will be there.

That's around what I would expect from him...And I would be happy with that.

That's fine, I'm just going with your Millwood example, which I don't think is a good one to suggest a Lackey signing for more money. And I can't imagine you'd be happy with an 87 ERA+ in 170 innings, which you basically just said you would be.

It's a good comp based on the stats you listed though. However, something in Lackey's favor in that comp is he's been more consistently good in the years leading up to the contract where Millwood was coming off a great year and had an amazing year when he was young, but was league average or so for most of his career.