Free Agent John Lackey

As we inch closer and closer to the impending free agent signing period, rumors are picking up over some of the big name free agents. On the hitting side, we have guys like Matt Holliday and Jason Bay. On the mound, the closest thing to a superstar we have is John Lackey.

Recently, reports have come out linking Lackey to teams like the Brewers, Mariners, and Rangers, not to mention the obvious links to both New York teams, Boston, and a possible return to the Angels. Of course, unsubstantiated claims will abound until Lackey actually picks a team. What kind of value will Lackey be bringing to the table in 2010 and beyond?

A quick look at Lackey’s career shows arguably three or four all-star caliber seasons, despite the fact that he only made one all-star game, in 2007, when his 3.01 ERA led the league. Indeed, 2007 was an excellent season for Lackey, but so were 2005, 2006, and 2009, all seasons where Lackey posted 175+ IP and an FIP under 3.75. He suffered in 2008 due to an abnormally high HR/FB of 15.3% but still maintained an excellent 3.25 K/BB ratio.

There just isn’t a whole lot not to like about Lackey’s performance. His K/9 hasn’t dropped below 7.00 since 2005, and his BB/9 hasn’t been above 3.00 in that same time frame. Even in 2008 and 2009, seasons in which he suffered injuries, he managed to pitch over 160 innings and make at least 24 starts, much more than can be said about such injury-prone pitchers as Rich Harden, Erik Bedard, and Ben Sheets, who will be competing against him on the SP free agent market.

That being said, Lackey is 31. Although he’s averaged over 4 wins above replacement the last four seasons, expecting that out of a pitcher from his age 31 through age 35 or 36 seasons is irresponsible, and he has suffered injuries twice in the last two years. Lackey is likely looking for a four or five year deal. Over four years, a contract that expects 4 WAR worth of performance is worth roughly 18 million dollars. With the slight discount we usually see on long term contracts, that comes out to a 4 year/64 million dollar deal, or maybe a 5 year/80 million dollar deal.

That’s an awfully substantial risk for a team in any market. We know that Lackey can be a great pitcher, but for any team willing to sign him, they have to be ready to absorb the risks that are incurred with a 4 year commitment to any pitcher, much less one in his mid-30s.

Print This Post

Jack Moore's work can be seen at VICE Sports and anywhere else you're willing to pay him to write. Buy his e-book.

13 Responses to “Free Agent John Lackey”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. MBD says:

    Thanks for the post, Jack.

    Lackey has averaged 3 WAR over the last 2 years (2 and then 3.9). Do we think that number is more relevant than a 4-year average for a pitcher on the wrong side of 30? You say expecting 4 wins is irresponsible, so I’m guessing the main reason you stick with 4 when you turn to the money is that he’s the best SP available and teams will bid each other up (and some teams don’t know what they are doing). If we go with 3, then $13.5M a year is more reasonable and Lackey might have to take $50M over 4 years (with the discount). I would say Boston is willing to pay more per win because of the level of competition they face, but then last offseason they went with cheap depth to supplement the same 5 starters they have now, so maybe not. At least Lackey’s an AL guy, as opposed to Penny and Smoltz.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jack Moore says:

      It’s usually not a good idea to limit yourself to the last two years. Also, Lackey’s HR/FB in 2008 (his 2 win season) was ridiculously high, so he in reality pitched far better than a 2 win pitcher. It’s my belief that his “true talent,” as it were, is closer to a 4 or 5 win pitcher because of this, but of course this is where opinion and interpretation work their way into these sorts of analyses.

      When I say expecting 4 wins is irresponsible, I’m more referring to expecting 4 wins in each year of the contract. Due to pitcher attrition it’s very very hard to expect that.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Judy says:

    I’ll be stunned if the Red Sox show any real interest in Lackey. I think they’d rather re-sign Beckett, but I’d even be a little surprised if they did that.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Alex says:

    The only way the Red Sox get interested at all is if Buchholz gets traded for a hitter. They already have 5 starters and really only need to supplement that with depth.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Judy says:

    Even then, when have they given out 3+ year contracts to pitchers over 30?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Logan says:

    Solid analysis Jack.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. MBD says:

    I agree that they won’t want to go more than 3 years (if they’ll even go to 3), but they need good innings from somewhere and can’t count on Daisuke (59 IP in 2009), Wakefield (129 IP and getting older), and Buchholz (92 IP and not likely to be pushed beyond 150 in 2010, if that high). Lackey, even with his injuries, has thrown at least 163 innings in each of the last 7 years. He’s worth looking at and may want to pitch for a contender. Of course, the main need for the Sox is on defense, where Bay+Ellsbury+Lowell+Lugo/Lowrie didn’t work. They could sign Bay to split time between LF and DH until Ortiz (the main offensive problem in ’09) is gone and maybe trade for DeJesus (mentioned in another post) to be their starting LF. Or sign Holliday for LF, let Bay walk, and hope that Ortiz is better in 2010. And why can’t this team find a SS?

    What about the Mets and Lackey? They need a real starter, and the switch to the NL should be good for him.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Steve C says:

      Clay also pitched 99 in the minors so I would not be terribly surprised to see the Red Sox just let him pitch without using the kid gloves.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Matt says:

    “[Lackey’s] worth looking at and may want to pitch for a contender.”

    The Angels have won the AL West 5 of the last 6 seasons (2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009) and won the World Series as the Wild-Card in 2002. He doesn’t need to move to the AL East to pitch for a contender.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • MBD says:

      I didn’t mean to imply that the Angels weren’t a contender. I’m just thinking that good teams, such as the Angels and the Red Sox, might get a slight discount from a guy who wants to win.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. solbro says:

    I think he’s been a great Angel and it would sure be great to have him back.

    Vote -1 Vote +1