Are the Seattle Mariners interested in acquiring John Lackey?

It’s easy to get caught up in the rumors.  MLB Trade Rumors has become one of the most successful baseball blogs on the internet and has a loyal following of crazed armchair GMs.  When the site was first gaining momentum I was definitely among those people, but it’s important to take the rumors for what they are.  The Meriam-Webster definition of rumor includes words and phrases such as “opinion,” “no discerable source” and “without known authority of for its truth.” They’re not to be relied upon.  Information can get misinterpreted in an elaborate game of telephone, and others purposely inject false information into the reports in hopes of furthering their own cause.  Whenever SI’s Jon Heyman theorizes about how many teams are interested in a Scott Boras client or how much they could get paid in free agency, chances are Boras fed him that information directly in hopes of getting GMs across the country bidding against themselves (Heyman has a long history of working with/for Boras).  There is a memorable anecdote from Moneyball in which Billy Beane feeds ESPN’s Peter Gammons false information in order to help him complete a trade.

I don’t get riled up by the rumors anymore, but I do acknowledge them, and I think they have some value.  If something keeps coming up from various sources then it may be worth paying attention to.  The way things are specifically worded can give you clues as to how real something is as well.

Enter John Lackey.  Larry LaRue posted today that “Lackey simply isn’t on [the Mariners'] radar, and they certainly aren’t on his.”  I don’t really trust LaRue as he tends to do his reporting based on what he would like the team to do, but even if he thinks Seattle’s resources should be spent elsewhere, I can’t imagine how he can state Seattle’s disinterest so plainly.  This is LaRue versus many other reputable reporters who are using words just as cut and dry.

Based on these reports as well as some of the stuff I have heard from people in the know in private conversations I am led to believe that GM Jack Zduriencik is doing more than the obligatory kicking of the tires.  I believe he is very serious about dishing out some big money and stealing the rival LA Angels’ ace.

How much will Lackey get paid?

As mentioned in the previous post, the numbers being thrown around are all over the place.  There have been multiple writers suggesting he could be looking at a $100M+ payday as recently as today, which I think is very unlikely given his injury history.  A.J. Burnett money (5 years and $80M) is a lot to commit to Lackey from any non-Yankee team, let alone 7 years and $100M+.

In the last post I wrote that I expected Lackey to get something between 4 years/$50M and 5 years/$80M, which is much lower than most reporters and analysts.  Odds are, I’m probably shooting too low.  After all,  it only takes one team to decide they want Lackey no matter what for him to end up with $80M+ guaranteed, or even $100M+.  But there aren’t many teams that have the luxury of dumping unlimited resources into the pursuit of one pitcher.  Neither the Seattle Mariners nor Milwaukee Brewers are that team.  The New York Mets have a big payroll but are already scheduled to pay huge sums of money to Carlos Beltran, Oliver Perez, Johan Santana, David Wright and Jose Reyes.  They’re thought to only have about $40M to spend this offseason, which doesn’t go very far for a team that has holes in the infield, outfield, rotation and bullpen.  The Red Sox really have no reason to go after Lackey with Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, Diasuke Matsuzaka in tow.  The Yankees are, in my opinion, the only team that are likely jump in and make the writers predicting a historic payday for Lackey look smart.  Otherwise, I don’t see the bidding war getting out of hand.  There are some great buy-low arms on the market this offseason that teams should see as a nice consolation prize.

So, let me clarify my thinking.  4 years/~$55M is my low number with 5 years/~$85M being my high.  I have a hard time seeing a team offer up a 6th or 7th year, which is what it would take to get the total amount over $100M.  I’ll be extremely (but not completely) surprised if he becomes the 6th pitcher in MLB history to get $100M, even in this starting pitching weak free agent market.  5 years/$70-75M has been my prediction for most of the offseason, but it takes so little to knock those numbers down and (especially) up that I’m not sure there is any point in making predictions anyway.

I’ve heard that Seattle is willing to go 5/$70M for Lackey, which may or may not be enough.  If it takes any more than that I think most of us can agree that Seattle shouldn’t be pursuing him anyway.  Which leads me to…

Do I want Seattle to break the bank for Lackey?

I’ve spent enough words expressing my feelings that Seattle is going to be more aggressive with Lackey than most of the blogosphere will admit that I think some may be putting me in the pro-Lackey camp, but I’m really not.  At least, not at the higher figures.  At the unrealistic but plausible low projections, sure; but any higher and my interest wanes.  Long, expensive contracts to starting pitchers come back to bite teams in the butt more often than not (or so it seems), so I’m not eager to see my team use up a high percentage of their resources on a staff ace when they already have one.  Rich Harden seems like a legit possibility and a great way to beef up the rotation without risking too much, and opportunities in the trade market could show themselves as well.