A major league source tells Rob Bradford of WEEI.com that the Mets thought a five-year offer to John Lackey would be riskier than a four-year offer to Jason Bay. The Mets, who say they are not concerned about Bay's defense, ultimately signed the outfielder to a four-year $66MM deal with a vesting option for a fifth year. They talked to Lackey and had strong interest in him, though they considered Bay the safer choice.
“We liked Lackey,” GM Omar Minaya said. “We thought Lackey was probably the best starting pitcher out there. As for as Bay, we thought we needed a power hitter."
Bay thinks the Red Sox were smart to add another top starter to their rotation. He told Bradford in this article that the Lackey signing was "genius" and the team's rotation is "ridiculous."
Sweet so instead of making just one bad signing, they also liked the idea of another bad signing too.
Good to know.
Giving 5 year contracts to these two is a mistake, Lackey has been getting worse the last two years and Bay is going to drop off a cliff and is already a terrible defender.
where did it say they liked the deal boston gave?
plus i didnt know you had a crystal ball into the future to already know these deals arent going to work out. good job.
Thank you very much.
I got my crystal ball one summer back in 2005 when a Gypsy camp moved in on the wasteland behind my house. One of the gypsy elders had a striking young daughter who despite the deformities was hauntingly beautiful. Not soon after we started dating, little did she know I was just using her to steal her Grandfather’s(Who was also her Uncle)crystal ball.
Anyway cut to 2010 I still have the crystal ball, was it worth the subsequent curse? Well I’ll let you know when the genital boils go down and my duck bill is removed, until then we’ll say the gypsies won this round.
OR
I could have just assumed that any John Lackey deal would have been similar to the one he signed with Boston. Safe in the knowledge Boston’s FO is quite good and if they could have got him for cheaper they would have.
Baseball is fairly easy to predict, there are numerous sites/people who make these predictions although I’m sure to you such chicanery would be considered witchcraft and said predictors would be burnt at the stake.
Hugs & Kisses,
Jack.
*No offense was meant to the Gypsy community, I was using my daring wit to respond to a ridiculous post.
still doesnt say anywhere that they liked the deal boston gave except in your little head. in fact, if anything it infers the opposite. there is nothing to suggest lacky or bay are going to completely fall off during their contract. if both get seriously hurt during the contract, bays 5th yr doesnt vest and i know boston worked something into lackeys deal involving a possible injury. try again!
It doesn’t have to say that they liked the deal. That was the going rate for Lackey this off season. How it infers they didn’t like him at that price I don’t know, all it tells us is they preferred Jason Bay.
Lackey has steadily declined over the past few seasons and power pitchers over 30 who have had injuries the past two years don’t really project to start to either get better or regain past form.
Jason Bay is already a terrible defender and has the type of skill set that doesn’t age well, this is widely known. In a season where the Mets aren’t going to win the NL East and still have a relatively young core I fail to see the logic in signing a player who figures to be decent the first 2 years and then awful the next 2-3 especially when Crawford & Werth will be FA’s next off season.
Up until this post I hadn’t mentioned getting seriously hurt.
My crystal ball predicts another emotional overly aggressive response.
Why do you think we have any chance at Werth or Crawford? Seriously!
Well I think it would be a major improvement to have Crawford patrolling the outfield at…wait – exactly where would the Mets put him? Is it possible they could they “toss” Frenchy and insert Crawford in RF? I would think he’d have the range for it. Of course I can make all the phantom plans I like, but how exactly the Mets could trade for him (let alone sign him) is the real question.
Well Tampa are said to be cutting payroll down to $50 mil next year which makes them signing CC when they already have a replacement highly unlikely.
Yeah well in my version the Mets would have dumped Frenchy and never signed Bay so the OF would be either:
LF-FMart
CF-Voltron
RF-Werth
OR
LF-Crawford
CF-Voltron
RF-FMart
Preferably the latter.
And kid8 I don’t see why the Mets wouldn’t have a shot at Werth OR Crawford certainly no less than we did Bay.
“A major league source tells Rob Bradford of WEEI.com that the Mets thought a five-year offer to John Lackey would be riskier than a four-year offer to Jason Bay.”
Considering that’s the first sentence of the piece, I’m not sure where you got your theory…
gotta give him a pass, he’s not good at reading comprehension.
Deals to pitchers are always riskier than deals to OF players, that tells us absolutely nothing.
I carn reed verie wel thanck yu.
Are either of you suggesting that the glorious Mets FO would have been able to get Lackey at either a cheaper price than Boston did OR less years?
That simply would not happen, here it says they liked Lackey but preferred Bay. If they liked Lackey it would have been 5 years at least $80 mil or they wouldn’t have got him.
Bay was the safer option so they went with him.
Of course the Mets are going to say that. They are not going to say that Lackey was their number 1 priority (even though they desparately needed pitching), because he did not even give them the time of day after talking to Boston. This report is a simple attempt to appease fans.
I wish Bay could pitch…
Makes sense. Everyone is quick to point out Bay’s knees/legs. However, they conveniently forget it’s been several years since Lackey left ST ready to pitch.