Might as well kick this bad boy off because his name keeps coming up.

From TH today....

Having traded Hardy for a centerfielder, Melvin did say he might have to explore the free agent market for pitching help. He mentioned John Lackey, the top pitcher on the market, but didn't indicate he would pursue him.

We've speculated about stuff like this with far, far less, so we might as well get going here.

Some ESPN.com stuff:

Yankees in line for Lackey?

The free agency period officially opened for business Thursday and Angels right-hander John Lackey was among the 79 players to file.

ESPN The Magazine's Buster Olney writes in today's blog that if the Yankees want Lackey, the best free-agent pitcher available, then they will get him, "because they are the team best in the position to consider stepping out farther out on the contract limb than anybody else."

Buster adds that the Yankees and the Braves were the only team to offer a fifth year in a deal with A.J. Burnett. The same question could be in place for the Lackey contract talks: Will any team go to a fifth year in its offer for Lackey, who just turned 31?

Keith Law

What Lackey brings

Lackey is the only bona fide number-one starter on the market this offseason; while others have the capacity to pitch at that level, they're all either hurt, struggled in 2009, or lack a major league track record. That, and the perpetual demand for high-quality starting pitching, should give Lackey a healthy market even if teams remain reluctant to spend on free agents. He throws four pitches but works primarily with his fastball, curve, and slider. The fastball is 91-94 with some riding tail, although I've seen him cut a 92 mph fastball as well. The slider is 83-85 with good tilt and some depth; it's better than his curveball, an upper 70s pitch with good depth, which he prefers to the slider. Lackey's big and well-built with easy velocity and commands all three of his main pitches. The one negative on his resume is minor arm trouble that limited him to 51 starts over the last two years, which would make me hesitant to pay him like a 33-start workhorse, even though he's built like one and was that guy from his 2002 debut until 2008.

I guess you could throw the Braves in there.

Yankees, Braves, Mets, Brewers?  Looks like one team is already out of the running.

 Some random thoughts....

- If the Yankees actally want Lackey, you can pack it in completely because this isn't going to happen.

- Other than the Yanks, it looks like a weak market for the pitcher. The usual suspects are a bit thin this year. The Red Sox probably are more interested in offense this year, the Angels aren't in this or they would have made the offer already, the White Sox already spent their money. The Dodgers, Mets and Rangers all have ownership spending questions looming to one degree or another. Would Rickets go splashy here to prove to the fans that he's "serious about winning"? Are the Yanks really going to spend more money on the rotation?

-  If the Brewers make a play for him, there is a way that it can make sense. Basically, what you're doing is giving 5-6 years to the man and hoping and praying you can win one in the next two seasons before Fielder leaves and Lackey's performance declines. In an ideal world, you could then flip Lackey and get out of the end of that contract, though obviously you can never count on being able to do that. It's an all or nothing shot, but that sort of all or nothing shot can be justfied given the expiring time limit on the Fielder/Braun duo in Milwaukee. If it goes bad (big injury and or major decline in production from Lackey) then you're really screwed for the length of the deal, so you would need to make sure you have his medicals and they look good. It can be done, if the price isn't over the moon big.

- The scariest thing about pursuing this course of action (other than the risk of a big deal to a pitcher on the wrong side of 30) is what happens if you miss? If another team wins out and snags the man, then you're sitting on a pile of cash with the need to aquire a pitcher and a fanbase/media that is disappointed and demanding action. Then Scott Boras rides up with his next best Jarrod "in state hero" Washburn and you end up spending too much of that money burning a hole in your pocket. That would suck.

Excellent post, Einstein. The third point is jarring.

I need to go record some more tonight; I am in an awful baseball mood.

radio silence:

Excellent post, Einstein. The third point is jarring.

Oh, sorry, fourth point. Where are my counting skills?

radio silence:

Oh, sorry, fourth point. Where are my counting skills?

I don't like this free agency market at all.

This is the wrong time to make a principled stand about "sacrificing offense for pitching."

radio silence:

I don't like this free agency market at all.

This is the wrong time to make a principled stand about "sacrificing offense for pitching."

The market does seem to be getting better by the day, though I was hoping that either Hudson or Webb would end up on the market and neither has.

What would you say to a 5 year,  80 million dollar deal to Lackey? Would it be worth the risk? I mean, you would be going after the top of the market and the ROI tends to be better up there than in the mid market. Would you be willing to cross your fingers on this and take the shot for the next two years knowing that Prince is going to leave after 2011 and then you'll need to rebuild anyway?

Einsteinhood:

 Some random thoughts....

- If the Yankees actally want Lackey, you can pack it in completely because this isn't going to happen.

- Other than the Yanks, it looks like a weak market for the pitcher. The usual suspects are a bit thin this year. The Red Sox probably are more interested in offense this year, the Angels aren't in this or they would have made the offer already, the White Sox already spent their money. The Dodgers, Mets and Rangers all have ownership spending questions looming to one degree or another. Would Rickets go splashy here to prove to the fans that he's "serious about winning"? Are the Yanks really going to spend more money on the rotation?

-  If the Brewers make a play for him, there is a way that it can make sense. Basically, what you're doing is giving 5-6 years to the man and hoping and praying you can win one in the next two seasons before Fielder leaves and Lackey's performance declines. In an ideal world, you could then flip Lackey and get out of the end of that contract, though obviously you can never count on being able to do that. It's an all or nothing shot, but that sort of all or nothing shot can be justfied given the expiring time limit on the Fielder/Braun duo in Milwaukee. If it goes bad (big injury and or major decline in production from Lackey) then you're really screwed for the length of the deal, so you would need to make sure you have his medicals and they look good. It can be done, if the price isn't over the moon big.

- The scariest thing about pursuing this course of action (other than the risk of a big deal to a pitcher on the wrong side of 30) is what happens if you miss? If another team wins out and snags the man, then you're sitting on a pile of cash with the need to aquire a pitcher and a fanbase/media that is disappointed and demanding action. Then Scott Boras rides up with his next best Jarrod "in state hero" Washburn and you end up spending too much of that money burning a hole in your pocket. That would suck.

If the Brewers sign Lackey and it all goes wrong one option then would be to go into full rebuilding mode.  That would mean trading Prince and possibly even Braun.  Both of those guys would bring in a lot of needed young talent that was cheap and controllable.  So I think the Brewers should take some chances this off season and see where it takes them. 

Einsteinhood:

radio silence:

I don't like this free agency market at all.

This is the wrong time to make a principled stand about "sacrificing offense for pitching."

We'll see.

The market does seem to be getting better by the day, though I was hoping that either Hudson or Webb would end up on the market and neither has.

 

What would you say to a 5 year,  80 million dollar deal to Lackey? Would it be worth the risk? I mean, you would be going after the top of the market and the ROI tends to be better up there than in the mid market. Would you be willing to cross your fingers on this and take the shot for the next two years knowing that Prince is going to leave after 2011 and then you'll need to rebuild anyway?

Lackey is going to want a 100 mm contract. If we can get him for a 5 yr/80 mm I guess i would like it.  If Lackey doesn't pitch, Melvin should trade him to dump the contract... similar to Kazmir and the Rays

Einsteinhood:

radio silence:

I don't like this free agency market at all.

This is the wrong time to make a principled stand about "sacrificing offense for pitching."

We'll see.

The market does seem to be getting better by the day, though I was hoping that either Hudson or Webb would end up on the market and neither has.

 

What would you say to a 5 year,  80 million dollar deal to Lackey? Would it be worth the risk? I mean, you would be going after the top of the market and the ROI tends to be better up there than in the mid market. Would you be willing to cross your fingers on this and take the shot for the next two years knowing that Prince is going to leave after 2011 and then you'll need to rebuild anyway?

I would do a 5, year 80 million dollar deal for Lackey.  It's a big risk, but as you said could reap a big reward as well.  If he gets hurt or it blows up in your face, you trade Prince anyways to rebuild somewhat..  It's a big risk for the Brewers, but you're gonna have to roll the dice at some point before Braun and Fielder's time together is over, IMO.

Steve Mahne:

Lackey is going to want a 100 mm contract. If we can get him for a 5 yr/80 mm I guess i would like it.  If Lackey doesn't pitch, Melvin should trade him to dump the contract... similar to Kazmir and the Rays

Now what I really want to know is how on earth Melvin would be able to trade Lackey at the kind of price they would be paying for him if he "doesn't pitch"? The reason Kazmir was movable was because the contract wasn't outrageous and he was still young enough to consider "bounce back" a possible conclusion. Lackey would be in another tax bracket and his potential decrease in producitivty is much more likely to be a product of age and decline than Kazmir's was.

As opposed to any other type of MLB speculation on 11-6?

It's all dumb.  Have fun with it.