Skip to content

There’s a “very good chance” the Red Sox trade Lackey and Lester

Jul 30, 2014, 12:27 PM EDT

The Red Sox are almost certain to trade Jon Lester. We’ve heard that the Red Sox may also consider trading John Lackey. But Ken Rosenthal just tweeted something that could turn this into a blockbuster:

That totally depends on whether “along with” means “as a package deal” or “trade them both, but to separate teams.”

Anyone getting both of those guys as immediately and dramatically improved their club. The Red Sox moving both of those guys — one of the best pitchers in the AL along with a guy who will be paid so little next season compared to his more-than-decent production — would justify a tremendous haul. Of course, even if it’s in separate deals, trading both of these guys would constitute a pretty major Boston overhaul.

UPDATE: Rosenthal clarifies:

OK, still fun.

  1. sidelineshot - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:33 PM

    Red Sox should ask the Dodgers for the moon … Joc Pederson, Corey Sieger and Matt Kemp (LA eating 25% of his salary) for Lester and Lackey.

    • proudlycanadian - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:42 PM

      They can ask for the moon; however, they are unlikely to get the moon

      • sidelineshot - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:46 PM

        A World Series ticket may be incentive enough for the Dodgers.

      • SocraticGadfly - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM

        We’ve already seen that the Dodgers rejected Ruben when he asked for the moon, in prospects, for Hamels. Why would they pay the moon for a rental plus Lackey? Well, if Boston takes 100 percent of Kemp’s contract, then perhaps yes.

        More seriously, I’ll venture no more than 50 percent that either one is traded, and no more than 25 pct, per simple math, that both are traded.

      • classicfinder - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:02 PM

        Pluto though could be had for the right price.

      • proudlycanadian - Jul 30, 2014 at 4:02 PM

        Have you seen what cells from early Disney cartoons are going for? One featuring Pluto would not be cheap.

    • 18thstreet - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:44 PM

      Why would the Dodgers want two starting pitchers?

      If they’re trading Lackey, it ought to be to a low payroll team. He’d be hugely valuable to the Royals.

      • sidelineshot - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:48 PM

        Because Lackey won’t be a rental.

      • SocraticGadfly - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:11 PM

        I’d be OK if the Cards took a gander on him, if the Sox don’t want too, too much back.

  2. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:34 PM

    Maybe the Cards will take them. Along with AJ, they will have drastically increased their level of Cantankerous Veteran Presence while fortifying their rotation in the process.

    • 18thstreet - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:51 PM

      Heh.

      You know what I don’t get? Lackey’s teammates love the guy. He seems like a jerk to me.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:02 PM

        Yes, while he bothers most of humanity, to exactly 24 other humans, all of his bitching and pouting and whining seem like fire and passion. Then someone HAS to use the word “bulldog.” I think that is included as a rider on his contract.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:42 PM

        I’ve really come to the conclusion that I would hate most professional athletes, if I got to know them on a personal level. I’m sure the feeling would be mutual.

      • SocraticGadfly - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM

        Is “bulldog” New Englandese for “grit”?

    • SocraticGadfly - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:47 PM

      Don’t need either. We’ve acquired the awe-inspiring Justin Masterson.

      Ugh.

  3. tbird05 - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:35 PM

    BOOM goes the dynamite.

  4. cranbery - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:36 PM

    I guess this mean my Red Sox have given up! Breaks my heart after last season!

    • jcmeyer10 - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM

      It’s been over for a while man.

    • sidelineshot - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:38 PM

      Maybe they’ll play better from here on. Loosie goosie.

  5. sidelineshot - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

    Ruby de la Rosa tagged as the next ace in Boston’s rotation. haha

    • proudlycanadian - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:37 PM

      His first name is spelled Rubby. He pitched decently last night, but got minimal run support.

  6. bronx77 - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:43 PM

    It was over before it started. Last year was the fluke.

    • 18thstreet - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:44 PM

      And yet they were still given a trophy at the end. How odd.

      • southpaw2k - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:17 PM

        I think his larger point was that the Red Sox went from one of the worst teams in the league in 2012, to World Series champs in 2013, and back to near the bottom of the heap this year.

        I’m pretty sure this is a fairly unprecedented sequence for any team. Even the Marlins in 1996 and 2002 weren’t that bad prior to winning their championships before they dismantled their teams.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:48 PM

        Yes, but the 2012 disaster still had — under contract — terrific players like Pedroia, Lester, Ortiz, Ellsbury and good ones like Saltalamacchia and Buchholz. That team, on paper, was not a last-place team. It was derailed by some subpar years and injuries and a disastrous manager. Let me be clear: they earned their last-place finish.

        But the pieces that won the World Series were already present. They were a very good last-place team (I can’t believe I just typed that!). So if you got expected performances out of the usual suspects and made a couple good signings (and Koji and Victorino come to mind) and a couple lucky breaks (Nava and Lackey), they were back in contention.

        It was shocking. But it wasn’t impossibly lucky. What it shows, to me, is that the line between winning and losing isn’t as thick as I used to believe. It’s helped me lighten up as a fan, which is a good thing.

      • theskinsman - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:52 PM

        “And yet they were still given a trophy at the end. How odd.”
        While the Yankees watched the good teams play on TV. For the 3rd time in the last 10 years.
        I’d rather my team have an off year as defending World Series Champs than have to depend on championships won before most of us were born to hang onto.

      • SocraticGadfly - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:08 PM

        @18th, but they weren’t racist … they signed plenty of those Caucasian folks who think certain T-shirts are funny and not serious.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 30, 2014 at 3:52 PM

        theskinsman: you were born before 2008? You type remarkably well for your age.

    • aceshigh11 - Jul 30, 2014 at 12:50 PM

      What the hell does that even mean?

    • El Bravo - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:04 PM

      If WS wins can be flukes as you say, how is it that the Cubs haven’t cashed in just once in the past century?

      • ejheim62 - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:35 PM

        because of the goat

      • joestemme - Jul 30, 2014 at 11:57 PM

        Just unlucky, I guess………..

    • sabatimus - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:08 PM

      You aren’t totally transparent or anything.

    • nomar8477 - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:15 PM

      a fluke..3 titles in 10 years

      • jbriggs81 - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:25 PM

        3 titles in 100 years actually

      • [citation needed] fka COPO - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:28 PM

        ’10 – 3rd Place
        ’11 – 3rd Place
        ’12 – 5th Place
        ’13 – 1st Place (WS Champ)
        ’14 – 5th Place

        I wouldn’t say last season was a fluke, but like the Sesame Street song goes…

      • buggieowens - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:32 PM

        Briggs, your math is as terrible as your historical knowledge.
        6 titles in 100 years…fixed it.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM

        I enjoy people bringing up the 86-year drought as if it has any relevance at all to whether the Red Sox should trade John Lackey.

        The Red Sox went 86 years without a championship because (a) the Yankees were the best team in all of baseball in many of those years; (b) the ownership was racist, denying a chance to sign and keep the best available players; (c) even when they weren’t racist, they were remarkably stupid; and (d) the team had more than its share of bad luck.

        None of these things are relevant today, except to the trolls. But, for the record, they started playing the World Series in 1903, and the Red Sox have won eight of them.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:56 PM

        And you can also make a case that John McGraw and the Giants forfeited the 1904 World Series and the Red Sox should be counted as the winner of that one, as well.

      • tigertigerwoodsyall - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM

        Love how a post regarding lackey and Lester turns into a Yankee bash and idiotic ‘fluke’ comments. The Sox are out of it and are making a business decision. It’s got nothing to do with their futility over the last 100 years or their success over the last 10. They have needs and can fill them via trades…then still get their ace back next year.

      • jbriggs81 - Jul 30, 2014 at 3:03 PM

        While my math and historical knowledge (LOL. who says this?) may have been wrong in my last post, the point I was trying to make was that you are using a very specific ten year span (2004-2014) to show that the Red Sox didn’t just win a fluke title. These endpoints are arbitrary though…Just as arbitrary as the 100 year endpoint I provided.

        Didn’t mean for this to turn into another Boston inferiority complex.

      • titansbro - Jul 31, 2014 at 8:24 AM

        that specific ten year span is the last 10 years, as in, what have you done for me lately?

    • the8man - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:33 PM

      Yes. But a magical, stick-it-in-Yankee-lover-faces sort of fluke. Whether the Sox finish first or last, it never gets old hating the pinstripes. Or their fans….

  7. danindelray - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:36 PM

    “3 titles in 100 years actually”

    So last century. Why should anyone care what a fat drunkard did in the 20s, or a not-fat drunkard did in the 1950s-60s?

    Let’s stick with THIS millennium, and we see the count is:
    Red Sox 3 Championships
    Cardinals 2
    Giants 2
    everybody else 1 or 0.

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 30, 2014 at 1:53 PM

      Why even go back that far? Who cares what a team with Ellsbury, Saltalamacchia and Dempster did in 2013?

      Let’s stick with THIS season, and the Red Sox are in last place.

      • the8man - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:22 PM

        So the Yankees 27 titles are meaningless also? Somehow, I don’t see obnoxious, self-aggrandizing pinstripers believing that.

        You know the Yankees have no shot, right?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:33 PM

        I was merely following the previous poster’s logic (history is unimportant, recent performance is all that matters) to its ultimate conclusion.

        Why do the Yankees have no shot? They are 4.5 games out of first place with 55 or so left to play, and they have the resources to bolster the club. Not to mention, much of their problem has been underperforming stars on the roster. Guys like Beltran and McCann could turn it on in the second half. Nothing is guaranteed, of course, but the team is hardly out of it.

      • 18thstreet - Jul 30, 2014 at 3:23 PM

        I can see your optimism for McCann. Beltran? Not so much.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jul 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM

        Beltran has an .832 OPS in July. Plenty of reason for optimism there.

  8. dakotablake - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:03 PM

    What is this, the 8th version of the same story?

    • SocraticGadfly - Jul 30, 2014 at 2:16 PM

      Well, the Yankees are teh suck, and there’s only so many Jeter Father, Son and Holy Ghost stories you can have, so, we have to have rumors about Boston that probably will never happen to juice up the East Coast news.

  9. pastabelly - Jul 30, 2014 at 5:02 PM

    I’m not so sure that John Lackey is even crazy about being in Boston, especially getting booed so much. I’d love to see the Red Sox sign Lester and deal Lackey right now while his value is so high. My problem with the Red Sox ownership and management is that they had themselves convinced that they are inflexible with their philosophy to a fault. Jon Lester is a class act who has no real injury history and has been one of the best post season pitchers in his era and one of the most consistent pitchers in the game for about eight years. He’s also a class act and represents the team and the sport as well as anyone. What’s not to like? Oh, the Red Sox hate that he’s 30.

  10. disgracedfury - Jul 30, 2014 at 7:01 PM

    Funny how on the Red Sox have a better team than the Yankees and yet bare just giving up.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Pitching duel highlights Game 1 of WS
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Morse (1752)
  2. L. Cain (1665)
  3. B. Posey (1650)
  4. A. Wainwright (1476)
  5. B. Roberts (1470)