Cafardo’s Latest: Beckett, Red Sox, Twins, Lowry

The Boston Globe's Nick Cafardo has plenty of rumors from around the league for us this morning, so let's round them all up…

  • The Red Sox are likely to use Roy Halladay's three-year, $60MM deal "minus $6 million-$8 million" as a guideline for a potential Josh Beckett extension rather than John Lackey's five-year, $82.5MM deal. The reason being that they have some concern about the long-term health of his shoulder.
  • If another team comes offering Beckett big money after the season, the Sox will move on just as they did with Jason Bay. They could then look into free agents like Cliff Lee, who they pursued at the trade deadline, or even Ben Sheets and Brandon Webb if they bounce back from injury problems of their own.
  • With all of their additions this offseason, the Twins' payroll will jump from $65M to about $96M as they move into Target Field this year. GM Bill Smith said it will be up to manager Ron Gardenhire to determine how they use Jim Thome, and that they did their homework on Orlando Hudson's left wrist, which has given him trouble the last few seasons.
  • Minnesota's payroll will be larger than the Dodgers' this year.
  • The Red Sox watched Noah Lowry's recent workout, but "don't appear interested in signing him."
  • Dodgers' third base coach Larry Bowa said he knows that Manny Ramirez still wants to play another three or four years.
  • Two big league executives feel that the Giants and Tim Lincecum will settle on a contract before an arbitration hearing.
  • One reason the Cubs signed Kevin Millar was to loosen up the clubhouse after the Milton Bradley fiasco last season.
  • Drayton McLane is reportedly seeking $700MM to part with the Astros, but it's tough to see someone coming up with that when the Rangers sold for approximately $575MM.


Leave a Reply

87 Comments on "Cafardo’s Latest: Beckett, Red Sox, Twins, Lowry"


Deanezag
5 years 6 months ago

“three-year, $60MM deal “minus $6 million-$8 million” as a guideline for a potential Josh Beckett extension ”

Can anyone realistically (key word) Beckett signing that deal? Especially if he comes off a good/healthy season.

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

Uhh, Yeah…I could see Beckett signing that deal. Especially knowing that he has had shoulder trouble in the past. And a 3yr/52MM deal is pretty darn good. He knows thats what he’s worth. Thats what Doc got coming off a stellar season.

andrewyf
5 years 6 months ago

Beckett is not signing a deal less than Lackey’s, especially considering Lackey has just come off 2 UNhealthy seasons. So, first of all, that doesn’t even make sense that the Sox would rather have Lackey, who’s 32, for 5 seasons, and Beckett, who is 29, for 3.

The Red Sox are full of it if they think a 3-year deal will come even close to getting it done.

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

The deal would give Beckett more money than Lackey.

andrewyf
5 years 6 months ago

The deal would give Beckett $52 million. Lackey is guaranteed $82.5 million.

There’s absolutely no reason for Beckett to demand anything less than that. 5 years, $90 is a fair deal to both sides. The Red Sox better recognize that, or they risk losing Lee to the Yankees and Beckett to anyone else, and ending up with the scraps. Oh, and John Lackey, a worse pitcher and less healthy pitcher than Beckett.

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

No, I’m saying Beckett would be getting more money Anually. 52 over 3 pays more than 82 over 5. Plus, John Lackey could have gotten more if he had shown to be more healthy in the past.

andrewyf
5 years 6 months ago

So if your boss tells you that he’s going to give you 1.5 your pro-rated salary, but you’ll be fired 6 months in, or you could have your salary but work for a year, which one would you choose?

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

Well, Thats why I don’t think that the Sox wil be able to work out a deal. I’m just saying that Beckett will find his money and years somewhere.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Yeah and after the Red Sox “fire” him I think he is automatically forced to retire or at least go on welfare or something. I think that’s how it works. Good analogy bro!

andrewyf
5 years 6 months ago

I didn’t know people who got fired in the United States were forced to retire or go on welfare instead of looking for another job on the open market. It’s not a great analogy, true, but your rebuttal was even worse.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

You don’t mean it do you ='(

The point was that the answer to your question re: a boss doesn’t shed any light on the issue. Being “fired” is not bad when there is an open and active market of other “bosses” who are eager to pay you as much or more as you were already making. More money for fewer years is hardly an unusual proposal, even for pitchers over 30.

R_y_a_n
5 years 6 months ago

Yea, but if Beckett shows he is healthy again this season (throwing 200 innings, for example) that would be back to back seasons of 200 IP and 4 out of the last 5 seasons having 200 IP, showing he is a consistent pitcher. It wouldn’t make sense for Beckett to accept less money and less years just for a better annual salary.

Beckett will probably get something close to a Lackey/Burnett deal.

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

Well good point. But I think he deserves more money anually than Lackey and Burnett. If gets 5 years, I expect it to be 90-100 Million.

R_y_a_n
5 years 6 months ago

Exactly, but I’m stating whether he should get more money annualy or not, he certainly deserves the same amount of years as Burnett and Lackey, based on his health compared to the other two. If someone offers you 3 years/52 mil and another team offers 5 yrs/82.5 mil, you’ll jump on the 5 yr/82 mil offer because it is more guaranteed money and more financial security, even if it is the same annually as your peers.

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

Right. I think Beckett should get plenty more anually, assuming he has a healthy 2010.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Part of the motivation for extending him sooner rather than later is just that. If he does have another strong season, he has a ton more leverage than he would now.

markjsunz
5 years 6 months ago

Prehaps Boston does not want to resign him and will just make a superfical below market to Beckett next year so it does not look as bad.

Deanezag
5 years 6 months ago

I put “realistically” in my questio for a reason. 52m is a nice amount of money, 90m is also almost twice as nice. But this is Jason Bay v2, a guy’s in his contract year so we’re going to fall out-of-love with him and have all the media members talk about his shoulder to try to hurth is market value so we can get him on a team-friendly deal, and just like Bay, Beckett is going to walk away.

Oh and Doc is also 4 years older than Beckett, thats why he only got a 3 year extension and nto a 5 year eal.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

I’m a big Beckett fan, but it is ludicrous to pretend any player has anything resembling an objective value. His value to each team is determined by many factors, and overpaying for him is by definition unwise.

For example, presuming the Lackey deal is necessarily a starting point for determining Beckett’s value is silly. Boston was in a completely different situation (had very different needs) when they signed Lackey than they will be when Beckett’s turn comes around. I don’t know why anyone would imagine that the knowledge that Beckett may leave next year was not a significant factor in signing Lackey to the deal they did.

So while I don’t have a very good read on his value to Boston after next season, their history in these situations suggests that Boston probably does. And giving the guy more than he’s worth because someone else will pay him is, again, unwise by definition.

Deanezag
5 years 6 months ago

I didnt say Red Sox HAD to sign Beckett, just said there is no way Beckett takes 52m if he stays healthy

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

I think that’s beyond dispute. They’re attempting to sign him BEFORE he stays healthy, however, and I think that’s where the 52m stuff was suggested. That’s the only context in which it’s plausible, anyway.

AirmanSD
5 years 6 months ago

3/52 is the same exact deal that Peavy signed in SD after 2007. Which was considered a discount, there is no way that Beckett signs that type of deal.

R_y_a_n
5 years 6 months ago

Not at all if he is coming off a healthy year. Some team (I could see the Mets doing it) would give him 4-5 years at 15 per.

Deanezag
5 years 6 months ago

Agreed. If Mets suck again this year then I definately see their new GM going after a top of the rotation guy

mwmartin04
5 years 6 months ago

Another lazy column by Cafardo. Not as bad as the ProJo article which says Beckett is 32, but not much better. As he states, it’s just his opinion (which is usually wrong). No free agent pitcher is going to sign for 3 years, not if they’re 30 or younger. The Lackey deal set the market for Beckett. Theo will get this done in spring training.

On the bright side it was good to see a Globe story without mention of Damon or Teixeira. The days of the Boston Globe being a good source for Sox news are long gone.

elpikiman
5 years 6 months ago

I would think Beckett would like to go for a long-term deal.

elpikiman
5 years 6 months ago

i would think Beckett will go for a long-term deal.

BravesRed
5 years 6 months ago

If Beckett gets more than Lowe, I would be surprised. But, then again, Lackey has an injury history, and he got $16.5 or so in that area over 5 years. He is not on the same level as Halladay, so he shouldn’t get money like Halladay.

Lowry wasn’t impressive before he got injured, so I doubt he is impressive now.

Unless, an AL team offers him a contract to be the DH, he might play one more year after 2010.

Giants need to stop being greedy, and give Lincecum the money he deserves.

When McLane doesn’t sell the Astros now, when he needs to sell them, he’ll be lucky if he got what the Rangers sold for.

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

Yeah. Good move by the Cubs in that sense. Did I just say good move by the Cubs?

aap212
5 years 6 months ago

It was a good move to sign a guy who hasn’t hit even slightly in two years and can’t play the field except for a little first? You only get 25 spots on a major league roster. You shouldn’t waste one on a cheerleader.

baseball52
5 years 6 months ago

Milton Bradley was like a tactical nuke to the locker room. Millar will serve his purpose well.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

He probably will. I think the counterpoint is that the purpose (being a swell guy and a shitty baseball player) itself is a dumb one.

baseball52
5 years 6 months ago

Well being a Cubs fan who lives in Chicago, I heard about every bit of Milton Bradley BS out of the locker room, and from the looks of it, Millar will be needed to restore some good feelings.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

With Bradley gone, everyone is still going to feel bad?

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Forget all of our talent and millions and millions of dollars, we need A CLOWN

baseball52
5 years 6 months ago

Look at the difference Burnett and Swisher made as locker room guys.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

The Yankees would have been doomed without those players’ super duper team spirit?

baseball52
5 years 6 months ago

It made a difference, obviously not as much as a big star, but those clubhouse guys have great effects on teams. Plus what would be the difference between a Micah Hoffpauir and a Kevin Millar? That clubhouse ability in Millar.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Clubhouse Ability – the sixth tool.

Seventh, actually. Behind “Clutch”. Still ahead of the eighth tool, though – “Opposable Thumbs”.

baseball52
5 years 6 months ago

How many of those 7 does Micah have? At least Millar has one.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

The two barely merit comparison, but I suspect the larger point is that they were not the only two options.

baseball52
5 years 6 months ago

Oh, I’m sorry. Brad Snyder and Bryan LaHair.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Yes that is the full list of possible players, those four. Touche.

baseball52
5 years 6 months ago

Ok how about you list the rest of them then? Keep in mind the Cubs need a reliever and a starter more than a backup 1B, which can be filled by Tracy and Nady, and keep in mind their monetary restrictions.

jhawk90
5 years 6 months ago

I’m not going to go with the tired argument that the Pohlads are billionaires and could have done this all along, but this is a club that sat on a TON of revenue the past couple years to repay their stadium contribution. It’s nice to see this now – it should be the rule however and not the exception. If they were breaking even at 71 mil in the ‘dome, 85-105 should be consistently expected now.

5 years 6 months ago

I read somewhere that the twins were in the bottom 5 in revenue for the past couple of years. If memory serves they were bringing in a little over 100 mil a year, though I think thats a few years old. They’ve actually always been near the top as far as percentage of revenue spent on the team.

*Edit

Actually after doing some research I discovered that the Twins are usually near the bottom as far as % of revenue spent on payroll. I posted a thread in the forums ranking all the teams if anyone is interested.

cman
5 years 6 months ago

And a bulk of that revenue money went to the Vikings and Minnesota Sports Commission Authority, via concessions, parking, and the luxury box sweets. All in all the Twins have never been in a quality venue that could generate much revenue. That all changes now with Target field. We’ve already seen results too. A 30 million increase in the teams spending is nothing to balk at.

optionn
5 years 6 months ago

If I was the Twins owner I’d be trying to make as much money as possible in this business. I wouldn’t be paying tens of millions of dollars for grown men to play a game. Its crazy how much salary these guys get. I’d be paying them all the 400k veterans miniumum and thats probably too much.

andrewyf
5 years 6 months ago

Also, I think a lot of people are under the impression that the rest of Lackey’s deal will be ‘cancelled’ if he ever has TJ surgery. Wrong. He is absolutely guaranteed $82.5 million. Absolutely. The ‘major league minimum’ thing is a 2015 option for the Red Sox, which says that if he spends any time on the DL with a certain injury, the Sox can have him at the major league minimum for the year 2015. It’s kind of creative, but nowhere near as team-friendly as people seem to think.

Deanezag
5 years 6 months ago

“The ‘major league minimum’ thing is a 2015 option for the Red Sox, which says that if he spends any time on the DL with a certain injury”

Actually, it says he has to miss time due to surgery for the injury. So he can be on the DL all year with a strain and it that clause wouldnt kick in unless he has surgery

morgannyy
5 years 6 months ago

Thank you, andrewyf. That is exactly right. If he is injured, say even a career injury, there is no guarantee that you would even WANT him for 2015 at the minimum salary. And how motivated would a player be, being forced to pitch for the minimum? I think he would rather sit the year out.

Why do the Sox always use the injury excuse on their own free agents, yet have no problem giving Lackey a 5 yr deal?

ilikebaseball
5 years 6 months ago

If the guy’s pitching just for money, then by all means, sit out. I don’t want you on my team if you’re only motivated by money. Lackey strikes me as the kind of guy who would want to prove himself instead of sitting out and pouting for a year.

Taskmaster75
5 years 6 months ago

Then good luck get any people to come to Boston. How can you say that when you have no idea how you would react when you were in their situation? You have to look out for yourself and your family. It’s a business, you want to get as much as you can. You know that old adage that when you actually get money, you want more.

ilikebaseball
5 years 6 months ago

I didn’t say money couldn’t be a priority, I said I didn’t want it to be the sole priority. Also, there’s a chance that maybe I do know how I’d react.

markjsunz
5 years 6 months ago

I would hope he would be motivated by paying the team back for paying all those millions while he was injured, or motivated by the same things that motivate other people in this world who work for a living. Giving your employer everything you can give while you are working, or personal pride, or God forbid the love of playing the game like it used to be before multi million dollar contracts.

Rich_in_NJ
5 years 6 months ago

It depends on what kind of season Beckett has. If it’s like his 2007 season, he’s getting $20m+ for at least five years, and the RS will likely give it to him, Cafardo’s comments notwithstanding.

BentoBox
5 years 6 months ago

The Orioles aren’t THAT bad. They actually have a nice young core in Markakis, Jones, Matusz, Tillman, Wieters, etc. They have a decent farm system as well.

Holy_Roman_Emperor
5 years 6 months ago

“The Milton Bradley Fiasco last season”

Well, it isn’t like we didn’t see it coming.

5 years 6 months ago

I think its pretty pathetic when a GM signs a player, not for what he does on the field, but because he’s funny in the clubhouse. So now you’re saving a major league roster spot for a court jester!?!?!? Jim Hendry YOU IDIOT !!!!!!! No cubs fan deserves what we’re getting!

Steve_in_MA
5 years 6 months ago

All I can say is that Cafardo’s suggestion is a recipe for failure in the effort to resign him. THeo needs to refrain from messing around here and just pay the guy. $90MM + incentives that can get him to $100MM over 5 years.

UnfriendlyConfine
5 years 6 months ago

Am I the only Cubs fan tired of hearing about how the big “meaniehead” Milton Bradley caused the Cubs to have a subpar 2009? I know Sosa wasn’t quite the same, but I remember reading that he was selfish, egotistical (remember the boombox blasting salsa music?), and no one seemed to care until his skills diminished. I wish more people would realize that the Cubs didn’t perform, plain and simple. And why is Jim Hendry STILL employed? 3 years/30 mil to a guy that had never been with a team for more than 2 years? Oy vey…

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

so what if Beckett and Lackey both get injured while both under their respective 5 year contracts? Do the Sox just go and spend another 90 Million on a Pitcher?

Taskmaster75
5 years 6 months ago

I am going to disagree with you about Webb. That team really wants to keep him, and they are going to be competitive. While you have the cheap years of Reynolds and Upton, you might as well sign the guy. Webb had been a consistent Cy Young candidate pitcher every year before his injury. One year should not change things, and before that injury, they were already working on the extension for him.

Guest
5 years 6 months ago

Well the difference with Beckett and Lackey is they both have injury history. The Lackey signing should have triggered the Red Sox to trade Bucholz for a bat.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

I have a feeling a lot of the people calling the Lackey deal stupid still call the JD Drew deal stupid.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITHOUT ORTIZ AND LOWELL. HOW CAN ANY TEAM WIN GAMES WITHOUT TWO MEDICORE DH’S AHHHHH

start_wearing_purple
start_wearing_purple
5 years 6 months ago

In Epstein’s tenure the Sox have been in the playoffs every year except 2006, won 2 world series, 4 times reached game 7 of the ALCS, and won a division title for the first time since 1995. If by that measure a GM isn’t good then I really have no clue what the scale is.

markjsunz
5 years 6 months ago

It is not Epsteins fault. These are the same players that helped win two world series
for boston.The Marlins traded Lowell and he was on a downward trend at the time of the trade. He gave Boston some big seasons but he is doing what every ball player outside the steroid era does, decline with age. Ortiz is also on a downward trend without steroids, and as age is also setting in. however 28 HRS. AND 99 RB are not bad
With the loss of Bay his numbers will probably go down further. No team can stay at the top forever however Boston does have some young talent and will have to go through a rebuilding period. Epstein is the same guy who brought you two Championships so that is pretty good. He is the same guy who will retool the red sox and get them back into contention. This is strictly my opinion.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Lester
Lackey
Buccholz
Matsuzaka
Anypitchingprospect-or-freeagent

No matter the offensive upgrades, 100 loss season guaranteed with this rotation amirite. I mean they’d only have one ace! One! Looosseeeeerssss

5 years 6 months ago

Actually they will need one of the 2 mediocre players if they are going to win anything

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Next year? You know that’s what he was talking about right?

Mooks
5 years 6 months ago

That is a great rotation but if the Yankees put out something like :

Sabathia
Lee
Burnett
Vasquez
Chamberlain/Hughes

after the 2010 season, then the Sox rotation does not really look as good anymore.

markjsunz
5 years 6 months ago

One year can change everything with a pitcher. A bad injury can take away his prior abilitys. It might not be wise to extend a guy for a while. If the injury is bad enough to keep a guy out a year let him prove he still has his stuff and the ability to pitch a full season.

markjsunz
5 years 6 months ago

The JD Drew deal was a good one for the Dodgers also. It opened a position for Andre Eithier. Like Ronald Reagan used to say ” A win win situation”

chowdah219
5 years 6 months ago

No, they will put in a stipulation such as this one for Lackey…2015 club option at Major League minimum salary if Lackey misses significant time with surgery for pre-existing elbow injury in 2010-14

chowdah219
5 years 6 months ago

No, they will put in a stipulation such as this one for Lackey…2015 club option at Major League minimum salary if Lackey misses significant time with surgery for pre-existing elbow injury in 2010-14

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

…One reason might be because you have money committed to Lackey now? And a one-year-more experienced Buccholz. And Lester. And Daisuke.

I’m not saying “don’t sign Beckett”; I’m saying there will be plenty of legitimate reasons not to.

“You signed Lackey!” is not a legitimate reason to sign Beckett.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

…One reason might be because you have money committed to Lackey now? And a one-year-more experienced Buccholz. And Lester. And Daisuke.

I’m not saying “don’t sign Beckett”; I’m saying there will be plenty of legitimate reasons not to.

“You signed Lackey!” is not a legitimate reason to sign Beckett.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Top-notch prognostications here. And who can dispute all the data?

Like they always say, hitting wins championships.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

Top-notch prognostications here. And who can dispute all the data?

Like they always say, hitting wins championships.

Taskmaster75
5 years 6 months ago

I completely understand what you are trying to say, it’s just the Arizona has him as a priority to resign.

ReverendBlack
5 years 6 months ago

That doesn’t follow at all.

They were willing to do for Lackey GIVEN CONDITIONS X Y AND Z.

Conditions X Y and Z will have changed considerably when it comes time to negotiate with Beckett. The calculation is significantly different.

Taskmaster75
5 years 6 months ago

I can understand that side of the argument, but it is still just one injury. If the guy comes out blazing in the regular season, you just have to resign him, and they see that. No matter how good Haren can be. That team will compete with a core of Webb Haren Reynolds and Upton. After that, just one more .360 OBA hitter and that team will have a good size window.

I mean, they really don’t need pitching depth. They have Webb, Haren, and Jackson. They also have Kennedy, and Jarrod Parker. If one of those fails to develop, another guy like Wade Miley can come up and start.

All they need with Webb is another hitter, and i am sure that they can squeeze one in the next class with Byrnes salary off the books.

Taskmaster75
5 years 6 months ago

I can understand that side of the argument, but it is still just one injury. If the guy comes out blazing in the regular season, you just have to resign him, and they see that. No matter how good Haren can be. That team will compete with a core of Webb Haren Reynolds and Upton. After that, just one more .360 OBA hitter and that team will have a good size window.

I mean, they really don’t need pitching depth. They have Webb, Haren, and Jackson. They also have Kennedy, and Jarrod Parker. If one of those fails to develop, another guy like Wade Miley can come up and start.

All they need with Webb is another hitter, and i am sure that they can squeeze one in the next class with Byrnes salary off the books.

Taskmaster75
5 years 6 months ago

Short of like the Red Sox or Yankees blowing them away with like a package of Montero and Hughes, etc. or Casey Kelly and co, he isn’t moving in my opinion.

Would he be a Type A or B? I will have to look that one up.

Taskmaster75
5 years 6 months ago

I understand that there are more than 2 suitors for him (The Mets especially come to mind), but they just seem the most likely, but a team like the Angels sure as hell could use him, and they do have a great system.

But, him being a type A will raise his trade value, and i was not sure on the injuries effect on the Elias rating.

Montero still is a top 10 prospect though, and the Diamondbacks would absolutely love to have a good bat at 1b (Even though they have Brandon Allen).

Taskmaster75
5 years 6 months ago

That’s a pretty fair point, but the reason I bring them up is because when I look at the top 15 farm systems, I identify only the Brewers, Twins, Red Sox, and Yankees as realistic competitors that could use him. The Brewers are actually an intriguing option, but I don’t know if Arizona would want Mat Gamel. The Twins have a bunch of talent that isn’t high upside, but solid and surefire, which might be a good fit for what you are saying. I guess the Cubs could be an option, but Vitters is in the same boat as Gamel in many ways and they seem to have Castro as untouchable.