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"


Member
Deanezag
5 years 5 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.

Member
Guest
5 years 5 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.

Member
andrewyf
5 years 5 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.

Member
Guest
5 years 5 months ago

The deal would give Beckett more money than Lackey.

Member
andrewyf
5 years 5 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.

Member
Guest
5 years 5 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.

Member
andrewyf
5 years 5 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?

Member
Guest
5 years 5 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.

Member
ReverendBlack
5 years 5 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!

Member
andrewyf
5 years 5 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.

Member
ReverendBlack
5 years 5 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.

Member
R_y_a_n
5 years 5 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.

Member
Guest
5 years 5 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.

Member
R_y_a_n
5 years 5 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.

Member
Guest
5 years 5 months ago

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

Member
ReverendBlack
5 years 5 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.

Member
markjsunz
5 years 5 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.

Member
Deanezag
5 years 5 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.

Member
ReverendBlack
5 years 5 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.

Member
Deanezag
5 years 5 months ago

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

Member
ReverendBlack
5 years 5 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.

Member
AirmanSD
5 years 5 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.

Member
R_y_a_n
5 years 5 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.

Member
Deanezag
5 years 5 months ago

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

Member
mwmartin04
5 years 5 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.

Member
elpikiman
5 years 5 months ago

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

Member
elpikiman
5 years 5 months ago

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

Member
BravesRed
5 years 5 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.