John Lackey may need Tommy John surgery. Are the San Diego Padres still interested?

by Dex on Oct 25, 2011 9:22 AM PDT

WEEI in Boston is reporting that a "resolution" is near in regards to John Lackey's elbow. The article mentions the worst case scenario, in a medical sense, being Tommy John surgery, but doesn't mention the best case scenario, in a medical sense, which is that John Lackey's elbow is actually fine and the explanation for 2011 is that he took a huge pay day and decided that the money was being given to him to try to lay eggs, like a giant drunk, video-game loving chicken, which he did over and over for the Boston Red Sox, much to the delight of America outside of New England.

Does this affect how Padres Fan feels about the rumors that the Padres are interested in acquiring John Lackey? Maybe. I don't quite understand the numbers, but if Lackey misses 2012 due to elbow surgery, the Red Sox would be able to realize an option that turns Lackey's five year deal into a six year deal, with the sixth year being at league minimum. What that means is the overall value of the contract would be about $3 million less per year and the Red Sox wouldn't see quite as much of a hit when it comes to luxury tax.

WHICH MEANS...

Maybe the Red Sox would be more willing to take a chunk of the contract if they traded Lackey away? Maybe the Padres would have Lackey locked in at a better rate for a longer period of time? Maybe he'd come back stronger in 2013 and the super rubber arm from Tommy John + Petco Park = The Padres next SP Project?

Personally, I'd wouldn't mind Lackey in a Padres uniform, assuming the Red Sox take a HUGE chunk of his contract. Lackey can play video games and drink beer in the clubhouse as much as he wants as long as he's not pitching that day and as long as he plays well on the days he is pitching. At least he isn't out in public getting wasted like Tony LaRussa. At least it's videogames and not some other dastardly vice like being real mopey and boring like Adrian Gonzalez. And I bet with all that money, he can totally afford all the latest games. He probably has like two Kinects and 8 Nintendo 3DS machines.

John Lackey

#41 / Pitcher / Boston Red Sox

Height: 6-6

Weight: 245

Bats: R

Throws: R

Born: Oct 23, 1978

Famous Fictional Quote: "I get paid HOW much? To do WHAT? Woah."

Elbow: Near resolution

Gum: Stuck between first and second premolars

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Lackey vs. Heath in a Wii battle

THIS MUST HAPPEN!

Why ask a failed romance to come watch your successful one? You know, that's like inviting the Seattle Mariners to a World Series game. It's just weird for everyone.

by Friar Fever on Oct 25, 2011 9:36 AM PDT reply actions

I've said it before

But I think the Padres will end up acquiring Lackey along with the cash to pay his salary, while still counting that salary towards the 2012 payroll. It’ll allow them to roll out a $35 million dollar payroll and still say it “starts with a five”.

by Marver on Oct 25, 2011 11:53 AM PDT reply actions

Sneaky

Though for a winning season, they could get a salary that’s 5 times $3,000,000, say it starts with a “five” and I’ll be content.

by Dex on Oct 25, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

you're right

you’ve said it before

by iheartyourfart on Oct 25, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs

Or not...

John Lackey to have Tommy John surgery

New Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington said today that pitcher John Lackey will have Tommy John surgery and miss the 2012 season.

The best part about this news? Marver being dead wrong.

All hail, Wonkoland!

by Drama on Oct 25, 2011 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Some fan...

The best news is that the Padres won’t be stuck with John Lackey in the rotation.

And besides, I meant John Lackey as a metaphor for “player with a high salary who the Padres get via trade along with cash who they can then count against the payroll”. Duh.

by Marver on Oct 25, 2011 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions

is this about khalil?

by iheartyourfart on Oct 25, 2011 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

is this about Marver?

"Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

by Ron Mexico on Oct 25, 2011 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions

is this about six inches?

Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...

by sdchicken on Oct 26, 2011 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions

because for some reason

In the eyes of many here…not being a fan of low payroll means not being a true fan. Sorry Marver. I had to learn a long time ago that at the old GLB its not enough to accept crappy ownership and low payroll, you actually have to embrace it with anticipatory excitement for the amazingness that it is or else be labeled fair weather. Ill take my 30 or so years of apparent fair weathered fandom as dues enough to critique payroll. And yeah…the whole getting a crappy pitcher for a year so he can bloat his stats here then leave is getting kind of old already. I feel like PETCO is the opposite of what Mile High/Coors used to be, what with how hitters used to resurrect careers there. Go padres. But I guess more importantly….go ownership?

"Well, he ought to go home and find somebody else to bang." Jerry Coleman

by cubbuster on Oct 25, 2011 11:18 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs

That's not entirely fair

I think a lot of us would love to see the Padres be able to trot out a $200 million payroll, buy up other teams’ superstars, and win an ass-load (a technical term) of World Series rings. Unfortunately, a lot of us have accepted that the only mass market appeal our team is going to have is when Friar wear is sported by the D-O Double-G and the Jigga Man:

Exhibit A

Exhibit B

We’re stuck with the guy we’ve got, and unlike the last turd burglar who owned the Padres, Moorad is actually spending money on improving the farm system (in 3 years, Moorad has spent $24.2 million on the draft). Another way this group is unlike the Moores regime is how the farm system has actually improved with the money they’ve spent. No more must we shake our fists in angry, delusional defiance at Baseball America, shouting, “Just you wait, Mr. Callis! Wait until Matt Bush wins the ROTY, and then you’ll see!”

It ain’t great, but it ain’t the worst. At least our team isn’t in bankruptcy court (yet…).

Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...

by sdchicken on Oct 26, 2011 4:03 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

That's a funny way of putting it.

You credit Moorad for spending 24.2 — apparently the tenths place is significant when discussing minor league spending — million on the draft in 3 years<\strong> but have no ill words for cutting the payroll by 40 million, other than “we’re stuck with the guy we’ve got.”

And in case you missed it, the farm system improved primarily because we dealt our best player and best relievers — justifiably or not.

Wonkoland population: 2.

by Marver on Oct 26, 2011 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions

P.S. I suck at bolding text

by Marver on Oct 26, 2011 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions

Moorad didn't cut the payroll.

Moores did. Stop spouting your revisionist history.

by Darklighter on Oct 26, 2011 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions

woah now

Just for the record. I’m not joining in on any of this wonkoland namecalling craziness. I like it here and find my time reading here as a vacation from the monotony of my daily work schedule. I was just merely stating that I do sympathize with those who feel ripped on for disliking the Padres payroll/management/ownership. But not here to join in on ripping on any of the moderators or long time members. Just wanted to clear the air since it seems like youre getting a little mean spirited Marver. Take care everyone.

"Well, he ought to go home and find somebody else to bang." Jerry Coleman

by cubbuster on Oct 26, 2011 12:13 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions

I know what you meant, I wasn't ragging on you, and all I was saying is that I think a lot of us wish that we had a bigger payroll and the capacity to snatch up stars

Unfortunately, we don’t and probably won’t in the near (or distant) future.

I had no problem with Marver until he started being dickish to people. :-/

Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...

by sdchicken on Oct 26, 2011 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Nonsense

The payroll was cut for the new owner. Whether or not it was done by the new owner or for the new owner is really semantics. The bottom line is the payroll is $30-$40 million less than it used to be and you’re now touting an average of $8.07 million per season in minor league spending as somehow justifying that huge drop.

by Marver on Oct 26, 2011 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions

That's like...

Being fine with cutting your overall sex life in half so long as the volume of hjs increased marginally.

by Marver on Oct 26, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm not justifying it. I'm saying that's a difference between Moores and Moorad.

Am I happy with the current state of the Padres? No. Am I happy that we don’t have a payroll like the Marlins? Yes.

But you don’t really care what I’m writing or saying because you have an axe to grind.

Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...

by sdchicken on Oct 26, 2011 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Payroll is irrelevant on its own

If you’re using payroll as an indicator of an owner’s commitment to the team, then San Diego will NEVER have a “committed” owner and New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston will ALWAYS have a committed owner. In this economy, we aren’t going to see another Ray Kroc or John Moores as an owner. Given that, we have to see how the money’s being spent.

Trading away our best players for prospects for youth and prospects, shoring up the minor league system and spending in the draft, to ME, indicates a long term commitment.

Ignoring draft, boosting major league payroll in the hopes of winning now, to ME, indicates a short term commitment.

I’d want both, but in the absence of one, I’d want the long term commitment.

Also, keep this in mind: As long as the MLB rules allow for players to be paid less than their market value, then just looking at the payroll number will only get you part of the way there.

by Dex on Oct 26, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

I certainly agree with the principle

But this isn’t an apples-to-apples spending comparison.

If the overall money spent was the same, but the emphasis was on player development and a long-term commitment, I think the majority of Padres fans would overwhelmingly support that. I know I would.

But when the overall money spent significantly declines, with less than 1/3 of that decline going towards that long-term commitment, it is not ridiculous to question the validity of that long-term commitment.

I’m not asking for a huge payroll now or huge minor league spending now. I’m asking for a consistent overall budget that doesn’t disguise cheap practices as a “long-term commitment”.

by Marver on Oct 26, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions

But again... Why does it matter?

I mean, now we’re trying to critique WHEN the money is spent along with WHERE the money is spent. If there were no positives to come from 2011, then I would be very critical of the organization. However, when they’re up front about a plan involving shoring up the minor league system with an eye towards home grown talent AND our minor league system proceeds to completely kill the competition, then you have to concede that at least part of their plan appears to be working.

Basically, if the commitment is on player development, and we live in a world where you don’t actually have to pay minor league players obscene amounts of money, then why should we?

by Dex on Oct 26, 2011 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Think of it this way...

If we had spent more money on the minor leagues last season, would we have expected more? Obviously, there’s only so much money to be spent before it’s just throwing the cash around.

by Dex on Oct 26, 2011 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

These articles were published before Moorad took the position

This one states that a 40 million dollar payroll may be in effect for 2009.

This one talks about how they were still over the 40 million dollar cap they set before Moorad.

It seems as if cutting the payroll drastically was thought of before Moorad entered the picture.

Why ask a failed romance to come watch your successful one? You know, that's like inviting the Seattle Mariners to a World Series game. It's just weird for everyone.

by Friar Fever on Oct 26, 2011 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs