On the heels of Larry’s excellent analysis of the 2009 Yankees pitching staff, I want to double down on my earlier recommendation that the Yankees sign John Lackey, immediately. (Quick tangent here, after reading Larry’s piece, ask yourself, did you ever see this team doing what it did? Yeah, me too, but it was still amazing).
Larry was quick to point out that signing Lackey is not recognized universally as the right move. The argument against Lackey has two pillars: 1) Brian Cashman didn’t throw the kitchen sink at Minnesota for Johan Santana in 2007, and won, big. The Yanks got CC Sabathia one year later and still have two potential starters developing in Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes; and 2) The 2010 free-agent pitching class is crazy deep, featuring Roy Halladay, Josh Beckett, Cliff Lee, Brandon Webb and Dontrelle Willis. (What, no love for D-Train?)
The Yankees have the following dilemma: Sign Lackey, the best free-agent pitcher available in 2009, or wait until next year and make a big splash on a better pitcher. Allow me several paragraphs to ARGUE INSANELY FOR JOHN LACKEY! Ahem.
The Yankees got lucky in 2008. As I already mentioned, CC wanted to come anywhere but New York. ANY-WHERE. It took an extra year and $20 million to convince him. Everything turned out great in the end, but there is no guarantee we can lure one of the marquee free agent pitchers to New York. Expect Boston to keep Beckett and Lee to re-sign with Philadelphia. Brandon Webb had shoulder surgery (never good) and is an NL pitcher. The Yankees could potentially get their hands on Roy Halladay…(sorry, I suddenly began salivating uncontrollably) but he’s old, and will cost a fortune. (D-Train, however, will be available.) The Yankees could easily come away empty-handed.
Waiting until after the 2010 season to fix a glaring need in the rotation also brings the following numbers to mind: 35, 37, 34, 40, 37, 35, 35. That’s not last night’s winning lotto numbers. That is how old the following really old Yankees are, right now: Derek Jeter, Jorge Posada, Alex Rodriguez, Mariano Rivera, Andy Pettitte, Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui. Those dudes are old. They will be not one, but TWO, years older (assuming we keep all these guys that long) in 2011, the earliest the Yankees would be able to field a rotation with a 2010 signing. Injuries happen. Aging happens. You know this. Just ask your mother. These guys are playing well right now, why risk waiting until after 2010 when the team knows it can compete AGAIN in 2010?
The Yankees also have lineup issues looming on the horizon. We don’t like to talk about it, but the window is closing on some of these guys. As a result, Cashman is justifiably looking to get younger. The 2011 position players may not be as good both in terms of age but also talent on the field as the team in 2010. (The Yanks could turn around, sign Matt Holliday, and prove me completely wrong, but its dangerous to assume the team will get better.)
That brings me to my main point, which is that it’s stupid to play for the 2011 season when the team is ready to compete and possibly REPEAT in 2010. 2011 is a complete unknown. The best input for making predictions about that season is 2010, which hasn’t even begun on the calendar yet. The best input for making predictions about 2010 is 2009. I forget how that turned out.
The Yankees are only a handful of pieces away from fielding a 1998-esque team in 2010. They could easily put the best offense on the diamond and an untouchable pitching staff on the mound. They should go for it, particularly since the Angels don’t feel Lackey is worth more than $10 million per year. The Yankees are most likely seen to be competing against the Mets to sign him. Even if Matsui or Damon gets away, the eight remaining position players from last year combined with a rotation of CC, A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettitte, Joba or Hughes, and then with Lackey, is a beast that would compete for years.
Finally, signing Lackey does not preclude signing Halladay or Beckett. Andy Pettitte, god bless him, is 37 years old. He’ll be 38 years old next year, and has been playing the retirement hokey-pokey for a while. As much as we love him, its important to remember that in all probability he’ll represent a starting pitcher, at $12-$13 million, coming off the books in 2010. That alone isn’t enough to get a Roy Halladay or a Josh Beckett, but its most of the way there. We saw in 2008 that the Yankees ARE willing to expand payroll for the right players. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to fantasize about a pitching staff of CC, Halladay, A.J., Lackey and Joba/Hughes.
(Necessary addition: Rumors are circulating that the Yanks and Sox are in the trade hunt for Roy Halladay THIS offseason. This surely means losing one of Joba or Hughes. Roy Halladay’s 2009 pitcher VORP? 74.8. The combined 2009 pitcher VORPs of Lackey and Hughes? 59.1. The difference is roughly equal to the difference between Lackey and Doc’s ERAs, or 1/2 a run per game. Not worth giving up one of our young pitching prospects over.)
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
5 Responses to The argument for John Lackey
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
"did you ever see this team doing what it did? Yeah, me too, but it was still amazing" …you posted two weeks ago that the team's success was unexpected. Now, with a championship in their pocket, you expected it….interesting.
and I'm not completely sure how the Yankees won big on not getting Santana. If they had been able to trade for him, they still could've picked up every single free agent they did last season…and they could still sign lackey now.
At all times I could have seen the team winning the World Series. I never said that I didn't expect that to a certain degree of probability. My point was then, and was with this most recent post, that it wasn't nearly as pre-ordained as many people said. It still took above expected performances from many players.
That was my point with the sidebar. Reading Larry's piece reminded me how much the Yankees had to overcome. But I would never go so far as to say that I was certain the team didn't have what it took. And I never have said that.
Santana got hurt this year. And the Yankees got lucky. They were not guranteed to get an impact pitcher in 2008, but they did. Not having Santana may turn out to be good if his nagging injuries turn into a real problem. But passing on him was a gamble that paid off for them. It was, however, still a gamble.
Let's just put it this way…I disagree with almost everything you say. Most of it doesn't make sense or doesn't have anything to do with anything. Santana is completely irrelevant to this entire argument. So are Hughes and Joba.
You brought up Santana in your comment. And he is entirely relevant to the post. Others in the blogosphere are using the example of the Yankees not pursuing him and waiting to year to get Sabathia as an argument against signing Lackey. It is therefore important to point out how luck broke the Yank's way when the made that decision. Huges and Joba are therefore relevant to the argument, as they would have been traded for Santana, or would be traded for Halladay, if the team heads in that direction. Lackey is a better option, provided he's at full heatlth.
see my comment on larry's post for the difference between santana and halladay. you brought up santana in your post, so i told you it's not relevant, which is still completely true. Whether the yankees sign john lackey as a free agent has nothing to do with trading players for johan santana….because those players don't play a factor in the signing of lackey.