Red Sox Will Not Go Beyond Four Years For Beckett

The Red Sox will not offer Josh Beckett anything more than a four year contract extension reports ESPN Boston's Gordon Edes. The two sides have been discussing a new deal, but long-term concerns about the righthander's shoulder have dissuaded the team from offering their ace a fifth year.

It had been assumed that the five year, $82.5MM deals signed by John Lackey and A.J. Burnett in the last two years would be used as a benchmark for Beckett's new deal. Edes says that team officials had concerns about his shoulder when they acquired him from the Marlins, but not enough to walk away from the deal. 

Beckett will earn $12.1MM in 2010 after the club option on his three year, $30MM option vested last season.

85 Responses to Red Sox Will Not Go Beyond Four Years For Beckett Leave a Reply

  1. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    Several other teams will, so it wouldn’t surprise me to see Beckett walk here.

    • Zack23 5 years ago

      As long as he has a healthy year, if they only offer 4 then yeah he’s pretty much gone.

  2. jamesfleming12 5 years ago

    I don’t understand this, really. Do they think his shoulder will fall off the fifth year or something? If they feel confident enough in it to go to 4 – why not go to 5 if they have already set the precedent with Lackey?

  3. Ferrariman 5 years ago

    i wonder what mets number he will wear.

  4. BoSoXaddict 5 years ago

    I really hope this one issue doesn’t prevent a deal from getting done. I wonder if this means that Beckett wasn’t willing to put health clauses in the contract? Because, the consensus up to now was pretty much that the Sox would be willing to give Josh a Halladay-esque extension of 3 years 55-60 mil without health clauses, but that if they were to discuss a longer deal than health clauses would have to be factor. I think both sides should work out a 5 year deal with health clauses.

  5. bobbybaseball 5 years ago

    Don’t blame them -more than 4 years for any pitcher is way too risky.

  6. MNets 5 years ago

    Mets will :)

  7. lefty58 5 years ago

    Headline; Red Sox Will Not Go Beyond Four Years For Beckett”

    Nor should they.

  8. BentoBox 5 years ago

    A CC-Beckett 1-2 punch looks good.

    • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

      Not in 4-5 years it won’t. Which is the whole point.

      • ronny9 5 years ago

        Can Beckett get 5 years somewhere else? without a doubt; yanks, mets, rangers maybe the up and coming orioles (for some reason some people think have no cash but are going to surprise people in the coming 1-3 years).

        I personally think that Beckett took a team friendly deal the last time, and will again be willing to take somewhat of a discount. I am definitely not saying that he will take 3 years 30 million again. Obviously it will take alot more than that this time around. But to say that just because they will not go 5 years for him means he is going somewhere else is just as far from the truth as anything.

        They could offer him 4 years at 18 million for example. that would put him near 75 million for 4 years; which i would deem as favorable compared to the Lackey/Burnett deals.

        I still hold out hope that Beckett will remain with the Red Sox. He, just as much as anyone else, loves to compete and loves to win. The sox give him just as much a chance to this as any other team he could play for. And as long as the money is there he will be pitching for the Sox thru 2015. At least i hope so!!

        • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

          He didn’t take a team-friendly deal; he simply had very little value at the time. He was coming off his first season in the AL, and it was a comparatively horrible one. Not only were his overall numbers unimpressive, he looked shaken from his game the entire season — never really got comfortable. So it wasn’t a hometown discount; it was reduced value after declined performance. Good opportunism by the Sox.

          Sure, if he likes it in Boston, he’ll be more flexible about what he accepts. I’m a very big Beckett fan myself. But declining to sign him to a long-term deal is completely sensible. Even if I’d like to see them go for it.

          • Zack23 5 years ago

            Exactly. When he signed his contract with the Sox it was mid-season and his ERA was above 5 until like 3 days before he signed; plus he wasnt able to stay healthy in Florida. He got a guaranteed 30m (potential for ~45m) so he signed it; you should always take that first deal to set up your family, the 2nd deal is usually the mega deal that takes you to the next level.

          • ronny9 5 years ago

            Allright, i will give you that he wasn’t the Beckett of 07 when he signed the deal in 06. However, your not a very smart baseball fan if you don’t think that at the end of the 2006 season Josh Beckett at age 26 would not have gotten more than 30 million guaranteed. The guy has amazing stuff, at that time had the postseason record that was very good as well, had one of the most live arms in baseball, and did i mention that he was 26 YEARS OLD.

            Just so you know; the previous year JON GARLAND signed a deal for 3 years and 29 million.

            If you honestly think that at the time if Josh Beckett went on the open market he wouldn’t get better than 3 years 30 million guaranteed with the Yankees (at the time having an aging staff) The Mets (before they had santana) and even the Sox themselves having to bid against the other teams (and before Lester was proven and they had an aging schilling as the front of the rotation)

            You are absolutely dillusional…

  9. MitchNYM 5 years ago

    Wow, I hope the Mets can sign him .. providing the Sox don’t figure something out with him.

  10. AmericanMovieFan 5 years ago

    4 yrs./$80MM would be a reasonable deal for the Red Sox if they want to keep him. He’d take that significantly higher per year average over a fifth year guaranteed.

    • Zack23 5 years ago

      But would the Sox offer that? I mean they are only the 16th market in the US (just kidding). But seriously, not sure if they would offer 20m/per to him.

  11. LifeLongYankeeFan 5 years ago

    I’m not even sure if my Yankees will go after Beckett but if he does become a free agent I definitely think they should. AJ Burnett is an injury risk and they gave him 5 years and I even have to admit that I think Beckett is better then Burnett. I think Burnett has the nastiest stuff in baseball but he is just too inconsistent. I wouldn’t mind a CC-Beckett punch either. We’ll give you guys Vazquez lol. We’ll replace Pettitte and Vazquez with Lee and Beckett. It will do I guess lol.

    • BoSoxSam 5 years ago

      Yikes. And herein lies what I think is one of the inherent differences between Red Sox and Yankees fans. When I think of the Sox, and pitching, I’m really most interested in our prospects, Kelly and Buchholz. Okay, that and retaining Lester/Beckett, two guys who have been with the team for a while already. And Wakefield. When I hear Yankees fans talk about pitching (and it’s not just you), all they think about are free agents. Every year, it’s check out the free agent class, and we want the top of the list. I agree that getting a nice FA is exciting, but still, it seems a bit extravagant. Sure you may be kidding around about wanting Sabathia/Beckett/Lee/Burnett/Hughes, but at the same time I wouldn’t be surprised that come next offseason, yanks fans all around will hope that actually does happen.

      I dunno. Maybe I’m jealous. 😛

      • SierraM363 5 years ago

        Maybe it’s because Cashman’s prospects are flops and Theo’s actually contribute. Cashman tried Hughes and Kennedy as starters for a few years and gave it up. Now Joba is trading places with Hughes. Wang was good for a few years and where is he now? We can compare Lester who was brought up through the farm while CC was gotten through free agency. In the end, we trust Theo enough to bring up quality young pitchers.

        • dickylarue 5 years ago

          Joba and Hughes both contributed to a world series title. Without Hughes in the 8th inning, the Yankees do not win the regular season in the fashion they did.

          If the Yankees get one starter and a future closer out of Joba and Hughes in house, I’d say that’s pretty successful.

          Not to mention David Robertsen, another Cashman draftee, has been lights out in the pen and is talked in some circles as another potential heir to Mo.

          Wang had gotten injured and required near career ending shoulder surgery. How injuries are Cashman’s fault show how uniformed you Yankee haters are.

        • Zack23 5 years ago

          “Wang was good for a few years and where is he now?”
          It’s Cashman’s fault that Wang messed up his foot then blew out his shoulder?

          “we trust Theo enough to bring up quality young pitchers.”
          Besides Lester (and Papelbon) who else has been quality young pitchers? Bowden? Tazawa? Buchholz is still unproven, and failed in 2008 just like Hughes when he was given the job.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            I don’t have a dog in this fight, but did he fail in 2009?

            And given the length of Theo’s tenure, “besides Lester and Papelbon” is a huuuuge qualification.

            “Besides an AL East Ace and one of the game’s best closers, what good pitching has he produced?!”

          • Zack23 5 years ago

            He didnt fail, but it was also only 92 innings so he’s not proven either.

            It wasnt meant to downgrade Lester or Papelbon, or even Theo; but the quote was about confidence in Theo to bring up quality pitchers. But lets not act like he has a track record of Billy Beane or something. I also heard Bowden was a stud, that Hanson would be the closer within a year, that Tazawa threw 95mph +, etc.

          • SierraM363 5 years ago

            Hughes has yet to prove himself as a starter, so he can’t be compared to Lester yet. The Joba experiment as a starter is on hold. For all we know they might decide to switch Hughes back to relief like they did with Joba. Yankees seem to excel in placing their stud prospects in relief roles.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago


            Bowden, Tazawa et al are certainly not BAD players, though. Just overhyped. Hansen I don’t think was overhyped, he just flopped as some prospects do.

            Bottom line is that if you’re criticizing a comparison that says the Sox prospects are better than the Yankees, I think you’re better served by talking up the Yankees than talking down the Sox. They haven’t done much badly.

          • SierraM363 5 years ago

            I agree. In general Yankee prospects have declined in quality since Cashman has been on the helm. Theo’s regime is superior in bringing up and developing talent.

        • Vmmercan 5 years ago

          Really? That’s your response?

          Kennedy was tried as a starter for one year, not a few, and he got hurt. Now he’s a starter somewhere else and he netted an outfielder (a bigger need to the team in the present than a 4/5 starter which was the need in 2008) in his prime with all star potential.

          Hughes was called up in 2007 and just when he was turning a corner (no-hitting a very good Texas lineup in Texas for 6.2 innings), he suffered an injury which knocked him out the rest of the year. Then when he tried to recover, he pitched with injuries, was bad, then was out the rest of 2008. Then he’s finally healthy in 2009,the Yankees have a full staff but again, have a bigger need in the present, and he becomes the best setup man in the league.

          Now he’s in the rotation again.

          Joba was called up as a reliever to fulfill a missing need (there’s that word again) and he did it prolifically until he was eaten alive in Cleveland over something completely unrelated to baseball.

          Then he pitched the next season as a reliever because the rotation was again, fully staffed, and he was brilliant again, was moved midseason and stretched out to become a starter, and as he was in a groove, he hurt his shoulder.

          Last year he started and he struggled.

          This year the Yankees had two homegrown, cost-effective, young starters and Joba lost the job to Hughes.

          Now he,or Dave Robertson, the homegrown reliever with a top 3 k/9 in baseball last season, will be the setup men.

          So what are you talking about?

          Did Cano flop last year? Is his career .306 a flop? The Gardner/Cabrera platoon? Cervelli’s emergence to back up Posada? The Yankees will replace their homegrown catcher with either homegrowns Romine or Montero very soon. They have Jeter for the conceivable future at short. They traded Soriano (was he a flop?) to land A-Rod. Nick Johnson is back in the fold. Gardner is starting. Granderson we discussed. They landed Swisher with what everyone knew was crappy prospects to begin with.

          Not to mention, this homegrown argument that always gets hinted at between the Red Sox and Yankees is nonsense to begin with.

          The Sox won a title in 2004, the most heralded Boston sporting event of all time, which will be remembered for eternity, with one homegrown by the end of the season.

          Trot Nixon.

          And he was hurt for some of it.


          Would you trade that in so Jacoby Ellsbury could have mediocre range in center and have a .350 OBP out of the leadoff spot and you could say Theo’s prospects are exciting?

          The Yankees presently have four guys other teams cannot compare to in Jeter, Rivera, Posada, Pettitte, old homegrowns from more than a decade ago drafted by another GM.

          So if you all want to not include their names, than the Yankees have a roster of 21 to begin with.

          Those “flop” prospects under Cashman (Cano, Robertson, Joba, Hughes, Cabrera, Gardner, Jackson, Tabata) are all either on the team, or were traded for something useful and are still too young to be labeled anything.

          The Yankees’ system has directly or indirectly lead to: A-Rod, Jeter, Cano, Posada, Granderson, Swisher, Gardner, Johnson, Pettitte, Vazquez (twice), Rivera, Robertson, Marte, Hughes and Chamberlain. And they signed Aceves before he was developed anywhere else in America.

          That’s 15 players.

          If the Yankees and Red Sox are different in any way related to prospects, it’s that the Yankees are willing to use them to acquire needs in the present much more readily than the Sox are.

          Which is fine, Theo can have his prospects, and Cashman will use some of his to augment needs for the team, and trade some of his to acquire impact players in the present.

          Different schools of thought. In 2007 it paid off for the Sox.

          In 2009 it paid off for the Yankees.

          • BaseballFan0707 5 years ago

            You could have just said that all but 2 bullpen pitchers in our bullpen were homegrown and saved a few paragraphs =P.

          • jhd5787 5 years ago

            The yankees may have used prospects to get A-rod but then they used the checkbook the keep him. You can say every player on the team was indirectly obtained with prospects. Beckett was traded for with prospects, so was lowell. Pedroia, youk ellsbury, lester papelbon MDC were brought up through the system. Varitek was traded for with prospects. Victor martinez was traded for with prospects. and 2009 it paid off for the yankees because they bought free agents. not because of prospects.

          • Vmmercan 5 years ago

            Never denied that about the sox. That’s what the farm is there for. Keep some part with some fill the rest….so because the yankees spent big with 80+ million coming oFf the books it takes away everything the rest of the team did? Did you feel the same way when the sox signed drew lugo dice k and okajima? Will you feel the same way when they continue to spend big next offseason?

          • ronny9 5 years ago

            Youkilis was on the team in 2004 and was on the postseason roster as well. FYI

          • Vmmercan 5 years ago

            Have you checked his stats from that season? Its like me crediting Juan Miranda in 2009

        • Guest 5 years ago

          You can’t be serious? You have Jon Lester (yes he is a good pitcher) and frankly, I don’t even think Theo drafted him. Theo calling up and drafting are two very different things. Theo get’s a lot of credit for things he has not done. In fact, the way I see, he has un-done much of the progress management before him. You’re also fighting a losing battle. You just made a comment “Cashman’s prospects are flops and Theo’s actually contribute.” when both of those prospects basically were the back end stoppers of our rotation and bullpen last season. Do I need to play the highlights from the parade to refresh your memory for the results of their contributions Gee, perhaps it’s just me, but didn’t Papelbon do his normal thing and blow the lead in the ALDS? Ian Kennedy? We spun him into an all star center fielder. Not much of a flop in my opinion.

          Who else. Oh that’s right our starting 2nd baseman, who many scouts think is a given to win a batting title at least one point in his career. Hmm. There is this guy Jesus Montero that sounds pretty good. You tell me. Apparently he is the #1 rated hitting prospect in the minors. Yeah the Yanks may not have the drafting potential as say the Nat’s, Pirates, or Orioles, but then again we have not lost for the last 10 years or so.

          You want to talk contracts? Theo paid Mike Cameron 3 times what he is probably worth. You got to love the Alex Gonzales comment I read elsewhere this morning. “forget it” love that one. Instead Theo signs a less capable, older player to a 2 year deal for more money (scratching my head).

          The worst thing a Red Sox fan can do is criticize Brian Cashman. It’s apples and oranges btw him and Epstein.

          The Sox have upwards of a $180mm payroll this season, not a single HOF’r playing on the team. No real all stars that I can see. Shoot someone months ago made the comment that Esptein built a $200mm version of the Twins. You kidding me. The Twins are a better team in and out at half the cost.

          The Sox are in a mound of trouble. No one wants to listen to this when I comment. That’s fine. We’ll see how this plays out, and I’ve changed my view on the Beltre signing, for now. At first I thought that was a bad deal at $10mm for a year, but now that I look closer, it’s probably the only move Theo made this off season that made sense. Sucks that btw the DH and the bench the Sox have about $40mm in salaries to cover.

          Sorry dude, but there is little I like about this Red Sox team this year. Even me as a Yank fan would like to see a Red Sox team like 2004 again. At least that was fun for me and actually a team that worried me. Red Sox fight for third place at best this season.

          • Guest 5 years ago

            oh yeah and I have concerns as to how they are handling the Beckett situation. If the Sox believed that Beckett would be around for long term, I don’t think they would have been as aggressive as they were with Lackey this season. My feeling is Beckett’s days in Boston maybe coming to end as well. Seems like they have serious concerns about his health. Beckett is going to want $85mm over 5 when he is probably no more than 3 for $60, which if correct me if I am wrong, that is what Roy Halladay accepted as an extension from the Phillies.

      • NomarGarciaparra 5 years ago

        I read this and you describe exactly what I think. Honestly, everywhere you go to read comments by Yankee fans, they talk about signing this player and this player next season.

        I mean, it significantly requires less skills to build a team with money like that. Gimme 500 mil and I’ll build the most solid team you’ve seen.

        • jhd5787 5 years ago

          But if you spent 500mil in one offseason then won the world series, you definately did not buy that championship. It is just a coincidence that those two things happened in the same year.

  12. wakefield4life 5 years ago

    They’ll offer him 4 years with either a mutual option or a vesting option for the fifth year, and there will be some injury protection clauses and some buyouts – assuming that he stays healthy and productive all year. It will probably equal the contract that Lackey is getting if Beckett stays healthy and productive. I really can’t see him signing with the Yankees if he doesn’t resign with the Red Sox. If he does get 5 year offers somewhere else, he’ll go there before going to the yanks. Anyway, lefty pitchers fair much better in yankee stadium, and righty fastball flyball pitchers tend to get rocked in Yankee stadium – it wouldn’t be a good move for his productivity.

  13. disgustedcubfan 5 years ago

    How about Beckett to the Cubs?
    His numbers would be much better in the N.L.
    The Cubs have lots of money coming off the books in the next 2 years, need starting pitching, and have a long history of giving too much $$$ and too many years to F.A. pitchers.

    • johnsilver 5 years ago

      Can’t hardly see Boston moving Beckett if they can’t get an extension worked out until they see if they are way, way out of the W/C race and even then, some team is going to have to turn their pockets inside out with youngsters to acquire him for a pennant push, something most doubt the Cubs will be in this year, unless the Red Birds fall totally flat for some reason.

      Good point that beckett would at this point of his career be a dominant NL pitcher, much more than he was when he left and he was just a thrower. now he has finely crafted his game to a better extent.

      Really hope that can get him signed to even a 18-20M per season 4 year deal however, having the Beckett/Lester/lackey 3 some at the top for the next 3 years will make it tough on most teams.

  14. dickylarue 5 years ago

    Typical Red Sox nonsense. They treat their own players like lepers. That’s why Boston can never have an Old Timer’s Day as most ex-Red Sox players would rather light the Green Moster on fire than show that organization some respect.

    It’s a complete slap in the face to Beckett that they can’t give him the same contract length they gave Lackey, a guy who is as big an injury risk as anyone. Lackey’s arm can blow up at any second, yet he’s good enough for 5 years but a guy who has been a horse for you and won a WS title for you is an injury risk?

    I know the Mets, Rangers, Cubs, etc. will all get in line to give Josh Beckett 5 years.

    If this report is accurate then he will most definitely be an ex Red Sox player by October.

    • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

      (1) Nomar, for one, definitely agrees with you.

      (2) It’s not a slap in the face. Beckett’s a better pitcher, but only marginally. Lackey’s ERA+ has actually been better than Beckett’s over the last three years. Lackey is not nearly the injury risk you’d like everyone to think. He’s also not a power pitcher. Beckett is, which makes him a higher risk — in terms of performance if not necessarily injury — than Lackey.

      (3) You’re absolutely right that other teams will go 5 and possibly right about Beckett walking. You’d be wrong to call it dumb or disrespectful, though.

      • Zack23 5 years ago

        “Lackey is not nearly the injury risk you’d like everyone to think.”

        I’m not saying Lackey’s arm is about to fall off; but he started the last 2 seasons on the DL due to an elbow issue, and the Sox required that there is a clause in his contract about his elbow. All signs point to there being an issue with his elbow.

        • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

          Correct. Distinguishing between “greater injury risk than normal” and “arm can blow up at any second”.

          • dickylarue 5 years ago

            He’s enough of an injury risk for the Red Sox to insist on a precedent setting clause in a contract that states if he has TJ surgery, they get him for another year for the league minimum.

            Considering no other pitcher in the history of baseball ever agreed to such a clause, I’d say even his new team has MAJOR questions about his arm health.

            And they still guaranteed him 5 years.

          • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

            Still, you’d think if his could “blow up at any second”, they’d not guarantee him 5 years!

            If anything, they seem to expect that ***in about 5 years***, there’s a reasonable chance his arm could blow up. Or at least tweak.

      • dickylarue 5 years ago


        I don’t think I called it dumb. I get the cerebral reasons why the Red Sox do what they do. It just makes them feel a bit soulless.

        I do think it is disrespectful to offer him less than Lackey when he’s been braving the AL East for you for many seasons now and has been a true #1 starter.

        By doing that, the Red Sox are basically telling him to go to free agency and see what’s out there. They get to say, “well we tried, we offered 4 years” and then let him walk off to a better deal.

        Teams will definitely give Beckett a 5 year offer. The chances to obtain a top of the rotation starter are slim these days.

        He’s on his farewell tour in Boston if the report is accurate.

        • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

          Agree to disagree about the idea of soullessness and disrespect.

          I agree however about Beckett’s superiority, the merits of his accomplishments in the AL East, and the likelihood of him walking after this year. He deserves what the market is willing to give him, which is very probably 5 years and serious dollars.

    • Zack23 5 years ago

      “Lackey’s arm can blow up at any second”
      Any pitcher’s arm can blow up with 1 pitch.

  15. markjsunz 5 years ago

    Beckett should grab that deal up it is only because of the red sox ability to score runs that he has a two to one win to loss ratio with the red sox. Entering this season he has a lifetime 4.05 ERA with Boston. You can present any other stats you want but allowing four runs a game and looking at a 18 to 20 million dollar a year payday is sad. With the expected decline in the red sox run production in may not be as easy padding his win to loss stats.

    • alphabet_soup5 5 years ago

      Win/Loss ratio has nothing to do with a pitchers actual skill. Looking at his past 3 seasons, he definitely deserves more at least $18 mil a year. Although he has been poor in the postseason the last 2 seasons, he also has had great, great success in the postseason before that.

      • markjsunz 5 years ago

        He will need a great season this year to get the money. Another bad or injury plauged season and adios to Mr. Beckett why pay him when you can wait for a younger sounder pitcher to become a free agent? Loyalty only counts if you can get the job done. To me this guy is way overrated.

      • ReverendBlack 5 years ago

        The person you are speaking to thinks that ERA is an informative stat and that ERA+ & FIP are not.

        Good luck with your discussion.

  16. Roy Munson 5 years ago

    Not beyond 4 years.. then this is his last year in boston

  17. Steve_in_MA 5 years ago

    Flat out, I’m gonna disagree with Theo and Co., and numerous posters on this board. We can’t go through life fearing the worst. We have to review the past and have a positive outlook for the future. We might get stuck with a bad contract later, but the risk is just too good not to take. Give the man 5 years, $90MM with a shoulder clause applicable in years 4 and 5. Its just plain foolish to run around scared and let our prime talent run away in free agency. Beckett doesn’t owe the Sox anything and certainly can get 5/85 next winter, with no shoulder clause. If that happens, I will post a billboard in Kenmore Square saying that Theo and Larry suck.

  18. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    Uh, they didn’t have 5/85 already committed to a 30+ pitcher when they signed Lackey?

    Committing TWO contracts of that magnitude to pitchers entering their mid-thirties is high-risk.

    I’d like to see Beckett back, but declining to offer him a Lackey deal is hardly a difficult decision to explain.

  19. quintjs 5 years ago

    It does sound odd I agree, but you would assume since they know Becketts medical history, and lackeys, and you don’t, that Beckett’s shoulder is either more of a risk, OR he isn’t willing to accept the same protection that they put in Drew and Lackey’s deal (and not in Bay’s).

    If Lackey didn’t accept that provision I don’t imagine the Sox would have signed him, much yet to a 5th year.

  20. Yankees420 5 years ago

    Isn’t Lackey’s provision that he has to have a pre-existing injury? How in the world could the Red Sox possilby prove that?

  21. Zack23 5 years ago

    Starting the season on the DL for 2 years in a row? MRIs? Doctor examinations?

    All pitchers have some sort of elbow/shoulder damage, our bodies are just not made to throw over hand the way they do. So obviously they found something substantial in Lackey that is more than just ‘normal wear and tear’

  22. quintjs 5 years ago

    I think the contract would explicity state what the problem is and that it equires tommy john surgury or something.

    I am sure the Red Sox have been through it with MLB, and MLBPA and their lawyers to make sure they could prove it and it wasn’t useless provision.

  23. Yankees420 5 years ago

    My point is that yeah he could very well injure the same exact spot in his shoulder/elbow that he has before, but how could the Red Sox prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not a NEW injury? Because he’s been injured there before? That doesn’t prove that any future injury that comes up is pre-existing. Seems like a pointless revision that would be extremely tough to prove for the Red Sox.

  24. Zack23 5 years ago

    The clause in the contract says that if he misses time due to elbow surgery for a pre-existing injury; so it’s safe to assume they found something concerning with his elbow, but not enough to require surgery right now. So in the future if he requires TJS, then it’s safe to assume it’s because he already has a partialy torn UCL.

    Lackey could take the case to arbitration if it comes to that, but he did sign the contract so it shows he agrees with the Sox that there is something wrong with his elbow.

  25. yougotrondod 5 years ago

    No offense, but that’s why you aren’t a doctor. Doctor’s can tell around the time period an injury occured. You could have a pre-existing back injury, get in a car accident and have a new injury, and they can differentiate the previous injury and the new one. The clause put in the contract is very specific, but there is a reason why it’s there, and it’s because the Red Sox know doctor’s would be able to spot the difference between new and re-aggrivated injuries.

  26. andrewyf 5 years ago

    But it’s not really all that useful of a provision.

    John Lackey is absolutely, positively, guaranteed $82.5 million. If he has Tommy John surgery, the Red Sox can keep him for the minimum at the 6th year. The chances of Lackey being all that good at that age, and after having Tommy John, are almost nil.

    So it doesn’t really change all that much.

  27. Zack23 5 years ago

    While he won’t be the pitcher he is 5 years from now, that clause still gives them some protection, which is better than no protection. And while he may not be “all that good” they’ll only be paying him ~1m, and if he’s only a 4/5 starter well then that’s still a deal.

  28. Zack23 5 years ago

    “So why would they have signed Lackey to five if they were unwilling to do the same for Beckett?”

    1. Concerns about Beckett’s shoulder long term
    2. If they passed on Lackey, Beckett would have more leverage next year because Sox would have to re-sign him to more than they are willing too.
    3. Maybe they just prefer Lackey over Beckett.

    (Not saying any of these reasons are valid, just 3 reasons that came to mind when thinking about the topic.)

  29. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    Why is this so difficult for people to get their heads around? The signings don’t happen in a vacuum. “x is at least as good as y and y got this much, so x should get at least this much”. Facile.

    Maybe the quickest way to explain it is that if the Red Sox had already extended Beckett for 5/85 this offseason, the decision to offer Lackey 5/85 would be extremely difficult. They almost certainly wouldn’t do it.

    Now is that because Lackey gets worse in that scenario? Of course not. Nothing changes with Lackey. The Red sox NEEDS and LIABILITIES change. They already have big money committed long-term to a pitcher in his thirties. Risky. Doing it twice? Very, very risky. Even if you love both pitchers.

    That’s the situation here. They’d probably love to have Beckett and would love to believe his performance won’t decline much as he gets older. But it’s an extremely small group of guys who have historically pitched at that high level into their mid-thirties. So that kind of money is very high-risk.

  30. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    Simplest explanation is probably time. Even if extension talks were customary immediately after the season (and they’re not), they tend to be protracted. And they’d need an answer before someone else signed Lackey. They also had no idea whether 5/85 would get Beckett done. He could probably legitimately ask for more.

    So, with no assurances that Beckett would even take 5/85, much less take it or turn it down quickly enough for them to move on to Lackey, they took one shot at Lackey before moving on to Beckett, who can’t be signed by anyone else. Lackey bites, which actually gives the Sox leverage they wouldn’t otherwise have with Beckett. Unfortunately for Beckett it also means they’re extra hesitant to commit an additional year.

    I’m very certainly a Beckett fan and will take him over Lackey every day. But I just don’t see any mystery here.

  31. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    It would only be idiotic if they knew before signing Lackey that they could sign Beckett at a reasonable price.

    And they didn’t.

  32. Zack23 5 years ago

    Josh Beckett:
    Career FIP: 3.61 (3.76 w/ Sox)
    Career ERA+: 117 (116 w/ Sox)

    John Lackey
    Career FIP: 3.83
    Career ERA+: 117
    And shoulders worry teams more than elbows, maybe they feel they can handle Lackey’s elbow better than Beckett’s shoulder long term.

  33. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    “If the only reason they don’t resign Beckett is because they signed Lackey and don’t want to lock up that much money and number of years in two pitchers then they never should have signed Lackey because they knew it would effect how they pursued Beckett.”

    This is only true if they were confident Beckett would sign for 5/85 or very close to it. They weren’t and couldn’t be, as I’ve said a few times. So the truth of everything you’ve said is dependent on something untrue.

  34. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    Uh…Lackey has pitched a minimum of 160 innings over the last SIX years.

    Also Beckett is far more reliant on velocity, which is dependent on shoulder strength. Lackey is less dependent.

    Again, I take Beckett over Lackey every single day. But your comparisons continue to miss the mark.

  35. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    Yes, you can change your argument and be correct. But you said “For the past six seasons he has pitched a minimum of 150 innings” as if this distinguished him from Lackey in any way. And I pointed out that neither of those numbers are significant, since Lackey has not only matched them but done better.

    Your new, revised comment is correct. And I agree entirely.

  36. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    “He fits the bill of similar pitchers who have gotten 5/85 so yes, they in fact COULD make the assumption that such a deal would be good enough.”

    Who, Burnett? Everybody and their brother knows that Beckett is way, way better than Burnett by virtually every metric available. Beckett came off a strong season and a three-year stretch during which he was one of the 5 best pitchers in the league.

    And, as I’ve aaaalready pointed out, they’d not only need confidence that he’d take 5/85, they’d need to be SO sure that they could let negotiations draw out as they always do, missing a chance at Lackey in the process.

    “They never should have signed Lackey, to any deal at all, if it was going to effect signing Beckett to any deal at all. If they weren’t 100% sure they could retain Beckett while also signing Lackey to such a deal, then Lackey should never have been allowed to don the Red Sox uniform.”

    They weren’t 100% sure they could retain Beckett WITHOUT Lackey either. And at least if they can’t WITH Lackey, they have Lackey. And Lester. And Buchholz and Matsuzaka.

    If they don’t sign Lackey, they have far less leverage with Beckett, who may ask for MORE than 5/85. Then he walks, then they’re down 2 front-end starters.

    This choice you imagine between Lackey or Beckett for the same deal never existed.

  37. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    “Beckett has no injury concerns and this is supported by the fact that he has pitched at least 150 innings for the past six seasons.”

    “Lackey has injury concerns and this is supported by the fact has pitched at least 160 innings for the past six seasons.”

  38. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    There ya go! That’s what you should have been pointing out all along.

  39. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    Worth adding, though, during those 3 years:

    Lackey 563.2 IP 129 ERA+
    Beckett 587.1 IP 126 ERA+

  40. ronny9 5 years ago

    woadude; you really know alot about what the sox are trying to do… Are you really Theo??? Just tell us, i mean your so right its obvious..

    This is a place where people get to tell others what they think of news.. Maybe they are thinking 4 years and 18 per; does that make me wrong?

    Its like looking at the clock when its 305 and saying its 3; then your know it all buddy corrects you. I mean seriously, we don’t know what the sox are doing/thinking/will do. don’t spoil it for the rest of us, let us have our fun.

  41. ronny9 5 years ago

    You two really have some good points. I would have to side with Mets tho; i just generally dislike the guy that posts just to tell the other guy he’s wrong.

    Here’s an idea to all of those who fit that description: Try to come up with your own ideas about the news that is posted on the site. Write your own comment and have your own opinions, rather than just trying to prove everyone wrong.

    In the end, the sox will have to sign him in the next 10 days in my opinion or he will be gone. I would think he would accept 4 years 70 million. Thats alot of cash and to have Beckett Lester and Lackey (and possible Buchholtz depending on how good he actually turns out to be and/or if he is actually a member of the Sox after they acquire in some way their long term solution at both catcher and/or whichever corner infield spot Youkilis doesn’t play)

  42. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    That’s right, you can’t know. And so you can’t take the chance of passing on Lackey on the hope that you’ll get Beckett.

    (1a) If you assume Beckett will accept and you are correct, you probably get Beckett and not Lackey. (Because your offer to Lackey, if you even make one, is less than what he receives on the open market.)

    (1b) If you assume Beckett will accept and you are incorrect, you probably get neither Beckett nor Lackey. (Same as above, only Beckett doesn’t sign either.)

    (2a) If you assume Beckett won’t accept and you are correct, you probably get Lackey but not Beckett. (Lackey signs, Beckett does not.)

    (2b) If you assume Beckett won’t accept and you are incorrect, you probably get Lackey AND Beckett. (Lackey signs, Beckett is likelier to accept comparable offer.)

  43. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    As always, strongly agree that Beckett is and will be the better pitcher.

  44. ReverendBlack 5 years ago

    Thanks for the advice. MY advice would be to read entire threads, catching for example the very first comment – mine – which had nothing to do with anyone else.

    Maybe try not to police other peoples’ discussions, too, if we’re talking etiquette.

  45. ronny9 5 years ago

    I wasn’t directly attacking you; i was pointing out that while i seem to be leaning toward the other person’s argument, that it also was looking alot like you weren’t letting him have an opinion of his own.

    I just can’t stand trying to have an opinion (or read others’) on a place where you are supposed to have opinions; and having people in general, not just you, telling others constantly that they are wrong.

    You are entitled to your opinions, no doubt about it, however other people are too and there is really no reason to jump all over everyone about what they believe to be true/or even what they are cooking up in their own mind(s).

    I am also not saying that you don’t have opinions of your own either; b/c as a frequent reader and someone who posts here and there but not all the time, i know that you do and sometimes i even agree with what you have to say; just sometimes you and others come off sounding and acting like you can’t let anyone else have a thought or a “word in edgewise”.

    Appologies for sounding like i was jumping on just you, and for being rude to you and others in general.

    There (in my opinion) is a fine line between disagreeing and having to be right no matter what.

Leave a Reply