I’m not going to argue that John Lackey isn’t the “best” pitcher to sign – with “best” meaning the best combination of track record, reliability and upside. In free agency however, the value of signing somebody is relative to the contract so they require, because there is a budget, however much dispute there might be over how big/small that budget is in reality.
Is John Lackey’s value better than other pitchers on the market considering that by all estimates the contract he will require is far greater than those other pitchers? Naturally, this is difficult to answer now before we see what contracts all the pitchers get; but given reasonable expectations, I’m inclined to say no, the Mets could be more judicious than to spend their money on Lackey.
I think taking a look at two pitchers – Lackey and Randy Wolf helps to illustrate this point.
All of this is very speculative, because Lackey and Wolf’s respective values depend on the contracts they sign. Estimates on Lackey range from anywhere from $100 million to $60 million, but I think somewhere in the $70 million range that comes close to what A.J. Burnett received last year of $82.5 million over five years is logical to expect. Then again, who said logic dictates the market. For Wolf, most estimates and reasonable conjecture speculate that he’ll get a 3 year deal for over $30 million. Tim Dierkes of MLB Trade Rumors said, “Wolf is primed to get a three-year deal worth more than $30MM.”
Given those very vague estimates of a contract, I prefer Wolf to Lackey.
Last year, Wolf was a better pitcher than Lackey. He had a 3.23 ERA to Lackey’s 3.83, 34 starts compared to Lackey’s 27, and a 1.01 WHIP to Lackey’s 1.27. Does this mean I think that Wolf is a better pitcher? No. Looking at a range of years indicates that Lackey is certainly a better pitcher. Still, I think looking at both of their numbers over the last few years shows that even though Lackey is better, he isn’t that much better as to put him in a different category from Wolf. Lackey hasn’t shown enough consistency, health, or production throughout his career to put him in the elite class of aces.
Generally, my point is that Lackey isn’t better to the point of justifying $40 million more. Wolf isn’t as good, he is older, and has benefited from pitching in the NL while Lackey has had to pitch against a DH in the AL. Still, in a team rife with holes, $40 million over the course of time could be used to fix a whole lot.
Sure, the way Omar sometimes looks at money, $40 million wouldn’t even buy two contracts for Luis Castillo. Hey, maybe, he’ll use the left over money to bring back Moises Alou on a two-year deal. Or perhaps that money could be used to pay off the rest of Bobby Bonilla’s contract. But, maybe, hopefully, if the money is around the Mets brain trust can figure out the right place to spend it.
Pete Lappin (3)
