JoeMcKim wrote:I kind of think that Lackey has a compensation pick tied to his signing that he's going to go almost all winter before getting signed, ala Lohse. He's a good pitcher but he's only got maybe 3 more years left in him, I doubt a team is going to give up a sandwich pick for a guy who's probably a #3 pitcher at this point.
I'd be fine with Leake, even though it's not the most exciting move in the world. He's a decent bet to provide the value of his contract over the next four or five seasons.
picasso wrote:I don't see a re-signing of Lackey, cause it's not just a re-signing but a giving up of a compensation pick. We sign Leake, we give up nothing. Signing Lackey we lose a (around 35ish) type draft pick. Don't see it.
Sandwich picks are worth next to nothing, basically a lottery ticket. 3 out of 4 either don't even make the majors, or provide negative MLB value. Less than half since 1995 even make it to MLB to begin with. 6% of picks 31-40 since 1995 have provided 10 WAR or more over their careers. The average sandwich pick that makes MLB accumulates about 2.7 WAR over the entire first six years after they're drafted... or half of what John Lackey did last season, less than he did in 2013, and 1.4 more than he did in 2014 (but again... that's over six years).
So you're looking at a 6% chance that your pick will even have a chance to outproduce Lackey during his potential deal with the Cardinals. More likely, you'll get a dud.
They can miss me with Mike Leake. I'm hoping all these "viable" options sign with another team before we can sign them. All these guys look like Kyle Lohse to me. If you're not going to get a big pitcher, just take a flyer on a Cliff Lee type and stay in house. These second-tier guys are never worth the money they get paid. I'd rather a reclamation project like Johan Santana than these dudes.
picasso wrote:I don't see a re-signing of Lackey, cause it's not just a re-signing but a giving up of a compensation pick. We sign Leake, we give up nothing. Signing Lackey we lose a (around 35ish) type draft pick. Don't see it.
Is that right? I didn't think we'd give up a pick if we re-sign him. Every other team would give us their comp pick if they sign him.
picasso wrote:I don't see a re-signing of Lackey, cause it's not just a re-signing but a giving up of a compensation pick. We sign Leake, we give up nothing. Signing Lackey we lose a (around 35ish) type draft pick. Don't see it.
Is that right? I didn't think we'd give up a pick if we re-sign him. Every other team would give us their comp pick if they sign him.
I think the idea is that they get a pick when he signs with someone else, but they would forfeit that pick by signing him themselves.
I don't think the Cardinals are overly concerned about the pick. They don't want to pay Lackey for his 2015 performance, by far his best in the past eight seasons, when he just turned 37.
jagtrader wrote:I don't think the Cardinals are overly concerned about the pick. They don't want to pay Lackey for his 2015 performance, by far his best in the past eight seasons, when he just turned 37.
That's fair, but qualifying offers typically suppress value on the open market (I realize how odd that is given everything I just said about the value of those picks).
In his case, I think it'd be enough that they'd more likely be paying for his 2013-2015 average. Something in the range of $13-14M per year, and they'd have to give him a 3rd year to get it done. I'd be 100% ok with that given his durability and reliability, more so than any of the other options.
