Lackey's BoSox deal not done yet

Leave a comment

The Boston Globe’s Nick Carfardo reports that the Red Sox and John Lackey still haven’t finalized a five-year, $82.5 million contract because of issues regarding contract language.
According to Cafardo, the Red Sox want something in the contract that would protect them in case Lackey goes down with a pre-existing medical issue, presumably related to his elbow problems of the last two years. There’s similar language in J.D. Drew’s five-year deal involving his right shoulder, which had given him problems previously in his career.
While Drew’s deal is hardly unique, it might be a first if the Red Sox can get themselves protected against an arm injury to a pitcher. It’s buyer beware when entering into a long-term deal with a pitcher, particularly since taking out an insurance policy has become so expensive, when they’re available at all, that most teams forgo them these days.

Report: Mets have discussed a Matt Harvey trade with at least two teams

Al Bello/Getty Images
3 Comments

Kristie Ackert of the New York Daily News reports that the Mets have discussed a trade involving starter Matt Harvey with at least two teams. Apparently, the Mets were even willing to move Harvey for a reliever.

The Mets tendered Harvey a contract on December 1. He’s entering his third and final year of arbitration eligibility and will likely see a slight bump from last season’s salary of $5.125 million. As a result, there was some thought going into late November that the Mets would non-tender Harvey.

Harvey, 28, made 18 starts and one relief appearance last year and had horrendous results. He put up a 6.70 ERA with a 67/47 K/BB ratio in 92 2/3 innings. Between his performance, his impending free agency, and his injury history, the Mets aren’t likely to get much back in return for Harvey. Even expecting a reliever in return may be too lofty.

Along with bullpen help, the Mets also need help at second base, first base, and the outfield. They don’t have many resources with which to address those needs. Ackert described the Mets’ resources as “a very limited stash of prospects” and “limited payroll space.”