Cubs Sign John Lackey - 2 years $32M per Rosenthal

[nolanwood]

I don't really like this move in a vacuum, but if it allows us to go after Heyward, Gordon or Upton (more so on the latter 2 if Soler is dealt) I don't mind it as much.

 

in a vacuum how could you not love it? it's almost guaranteed neutral value with some potential for solid surplus plus very short term commitment.

 

it's outside said vacuum that you can find reasons to not like it, IMO

 

How does one of the loyal knights of the [expletive] Pitchers table call this almost guaranteed neutral value.

 

the fact that he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season and pretty much always does that and it's only 2 years we have to worry about.

 

i also like that his velo has been consistent for like 8 years (and, as mentioned earlier, is actually up a tick in that span).

 

2 Seasons above 2 WAR in his last 6 seasons, one in which he significantly outperformed his peripherals. Not sure how that translates to "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season".

[Cubswin11]

I don't really like this move in a vacuum, but if it allows us to go after Heyward, Gordon or Upton (more so on the latter 2 if Soler is dealt) I don't mind it as much.

 

in a vacuum how could you not love it? it's almost guaranteed neutral value with some potential for solid surplus plus very short term commitment.

 

it's outside said vacuum that you can find reasons to not like it, IMO

I don't like giving a 37 year old pitcher $16-18 million a year who relatively recently had an injury when we also seem to have a tight budget to work with. Again I don't like it if it's our only significant signing/addition, but if he came in that much cheaper than other options and it will help us make other additions I don't mind it as much.

 

Example if the option was Samardizja at $100 or more and then like Span or Parra for CF or Lackey and Fowler/Heyward/Gordon/etc. I like the move and the general decision

Edited December 4, 2015 by Cubswin11

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't really like this move in a vacuum, but if it allows us to go after Heyward, Gordon or Upton (more so on the latter 2 if Soler is dealt) I don't mind it as much.

 

in a vacuum how could you not love it? it's almost guaranteed neutral value with some potential for solid surplus plus very short term commitment.

 

it's outside said vacuum that you can find reasons to not like it, IMO

how is it almost guaranteed neutral value?

 

lackey is old and has recently had two consecutive completely lost value seasons.

 

He's thrown 600+ innings and has an 8.4 combined fWAR over the last 3 seasons.

So last three years is all that matters? The fact that he's 37, a doughy douchebag and recently provided no value for two consecutive seasons means he's a lock to be good again this year?

[UMFan83]

Theo loves giving John Lackey money I guess

[shnsajax]

Curious to what Shark ends up signing for, but I am guessing once we find out we won't be too upset with this.

[Guest]

the fact that he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season and pretty much always does that and it's only 2 years we have to worry about.

 

i also like that his velo has been consistent for like 8 years (and, as mentioned earlier, is actually up a tick in that span).

 

Is the John Lackey I am thinking of a completely different pitcher than the one you are referring to?

 

i have no idea what your reply has to do with the post you're replying to. unless you're talking about the years like 4 years ago when he got hurt and the year he recovered from that injury.

[jersey cubs fan]

yes, he got hurt in 2011 and missed 2012, but other than that TJS, he's been very durable, both recently and in the past.

 

what a silly silly statement.

[Guest]

I don't really like this move in a vacuum, but if it allows us to go after Heyward, Gordon or Upton (more so on the latter 2 if Soler is dealt) I don't mind it as much.

 

in a vacuum how could you not love it? it's almost guaranteed neutral value with some potential for solid surplus plus very short term commitment.

 

it's outside said vacuum that you can find reasons to not like it, IMO

I don't like giving a 37 year old pitcher $16-18 million a year who relatively recently had an injury when we also seem to have a tight budget to work with. Again I don't like it if it's our only significant signing/addition, but if he came in that much cheaper than other options and it will help us make other additions I don't mind it as much.

 

the fact that he's that age is why we were able to only give him 2 years and at a reasonable AAV for the way he has produced recently. any pitcher who isn't 37 with his recent track record would have gotten way more money. i can't believe so many aren't seeing this.

[Rob]

Lackey is a giant douchenozzle of a human being.

 

That said, he's a 2.5 or 3.0 fWAR guy probably. And we're past the days of $5M per WAR on the FA market - it's closer to $7M or $8M now. So he's a fine bet to actually be worth the money. It's also a big bonus to only be on the hook for a two year deal. That's way less risk.

 

It's a solid baseball move. Hard to root for the guy, but I get why they did it.

[jersey cubs fan]

the fact that he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season and pretty much always does that and it's only 2 years we have to worry about.

 

i also like that his velo has been consistent for like 8 years (and, as mentioned earlier, is actually up a tick in that span).

 

Is the John Lackey I am thinking of a completely different pitcher than the one you are referring to?

 

i have no idea what your reply has to do with the post you're replying to. unless you're talking about the years like 4 years ago when he got hurt and the year he recovered from that injury.

 

um yeah, you can't have it both ways, talking about 8 years of consistency that he always does and then blowing off a 2 year stretch of nothing.

[Guest]

yes, he got hurt in 2011 and missed 2012, but other than that TJS, he's been very durable, both recently and in the past.

 

what a silly silly statement.

 

sure thing.

 

guy throws 180+ innings every year, including the last 3, but he's not durable because he had TJS once, which like half of pitchers have.

[jersey cubs fan]

yes, he got hurt in 2011 and missed 2012, but other than that TJS, he's been very durable, both recently and in the past.

 

what a silly silly statement.

 

sure thing.

 

guy throws 180+ innings every year, including the last 3, but he's not durable because he had TJS once, which like half of pitchers have.

stop saying every year when he's recently missed 2 years and is 37

[Guest]

the fact that he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season and pretty much always does that and it's only 2 years we have to worry about.

 

i also like that his velo has been consistent for like 8 years (and, as mentioned earlier, is actually up a tick in that span).

 

Is the John Lackey I am thinking of a completely different pitcher than the one you are referring to?

 

i have no idea what your reply has to do with the post you're replying to. unless you're talking about the years like 4 years ago when he got hurt and the year he recovered from that injury.

 

um yeah, you can't have it both ways, talking about 8 years of consistency that he always does and then blowing off a 2 year stretch of nothing.

 

his UCL exploded and he got it fixed. it happens. he hasn't had shoulder issues and his velocity hasn't suffered. that's all you can really ask for.

[Guest]

yes, he got hurt in 2011 and missed 2012, but other than that TJS, he's been very durable, both recently and in the past.

 

what a silly silly statement.

 

sure thing.

 

guy throws 180+ innings every year, including the last 3, but he's not durable because he had TJS once, which like half of pitchers have.

stop saying every year when he's recently missed 2 years and is 37

 

recently as in 4 years ago.

[Jazz]

His character aside, getting a strong viable #3 with this short of a commitment is much less risky than throwing 5 years at Shark or someone comparable. With a rotation of

 

Arrieta

Lester

Lackey

Hammel

Henderson

 

Our rotation is already one of the better ones in the league. If we can find a #4 via trade, than I think we're a solid defensive CF, we'll be one of, if not the most well rounded teams in the league.

[Guest]

Lackey is a giant douchenozzle of a human being.

 

That said, he's a 2.5 or 3.0 fWAR guy probably. And we're past the days of $5M per WAR on the FA market - it's closer to $7M or $8M now. So he's a fine bet to actually be worth the money. It's also a big bonus to only be on the hook for a two year deal. That's way less risk.

 

It's a solid baseball move. Hard to root for the guy, but I get why they did it.

 

Yep.

[Guest]

2 Seasons above 2 WAR in his last 6 seasons, one in which he significantly outperformed his peripherals. Not sure how that translates to "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season".

 

i'm thinking you're looking at the wrong WAR (especially for a guy savvy enough to be concerned with his peripherals)

 

also, that wouldn't be what translates into "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season." what translates into that is the fact that he's making $16M a year and that means he needs to meet or exceed around 2-2.3 WAR per season.

Edited December 4, 2015 by David

[davell]

I don't really like this move in a vacuum, but if it allows us to go after Heyward, Gordon or Upton (more so on the latter 2 if Soler is dealt) I don't mind it as much.

 

in a vacuum how could you not love it? it's almost guaranteed neutral value with some potential for solid surplus plus very short term commitment.

 

it's outside said vacuum that you can find reasons to not like it, IMO

how is it almost guaranteed neutral value?

 

lackey is old and has recently had two consecutive completely lost value seasons.

 

He's thrown 600+ innings and has an 8.4 combined fWAR over the last 3 seasons.

So last three years is all that matters? The fact that he's 37, a doughy douchebag and recently provided no value for two consecutive seasons means he's a lock to be good again this year?

 

 

You originally said you didn't like the amount. You then said its not even value-neutral. The last 3 seasons are certainly more important than the two prior to that, as you know. So you think this needs to be judged on 5 then? Why not 8?

 

He IS a douche. I'm not a fan of him either. But this contract is just fine. What did you expect him to get?

[Irrelevant Dude]

His character aside, getting a strong viable #3 with this short of a commitment is much less risky than throwing 5 years at Shark or someone comparable. With a rotation of

 

Arrieta

Lester

Lackey

Hammel

Henderson

 

Our rotation is already one of the better ones in the league. If we can find a #4 via trade, than I think we're a solid defensive CF, we'll be one of, if not the most well rounded teams in the league.

 

Is that Rickey or Dave?

[ctcf]

So is Bosio just gonna tell him the balls have cancer so he throws them away as fast as he can?

[UMFan83]

2 Seasons above 2 WAR in his last 6 seasons, one in which he significantly outperformed his peripherals. Not sure how that translates to "he has to be worth like a shade over 2 wins per season".

 

I mean teams are paying about $8M per win lately, so if he has a 2 WAR season hes at market, if he has another 5+ war season hes a huge bargain. The age issue is somewhat offset by the short commitment I guess?

[CyHawk_Cub]

Smart signing, but I still despise this dooshbag.

[Guest]

His character aside, getting a strong viable #3 with this short of a commitment is much less risky than throwing 5 years at Shark or someone comparable. With a rotation of

 

Arrieta

Lester

Lackey

Hammel

Henderson

 

Our rotation is already one of the better ones in the league. If we can find a #4 via trade, than I think we're a solid defensive CF, we'll be one of, if not the most well rounded teams in the league.

Henderson?

[Irrelevant Dude]

His character aside, getting a strong viable #3 with this short of a commitment is much less risky than throwing 5 years at Shark or someone comparable. With a rotation of

 

Arrieta

Lester

Lackey

Hammel

Henderson

 

Our rotation is already one of the better ones in the league. If we can find a #4 via trade, than I think we're a solid defensive CF, we'll be one of, if not the most well rounded teams in the league.

Henderson?

This guy here is dead.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Functional and kinda trolly toward cubs fans. I like it.