It's clear that kind of contract is not going to fly for the Red Sox anymore. Not even in the case of Josh Beckett.
Two weeks ago, we considered the pros and cons of re-signing Beckett — whose current deal is up at the end of the 2010 season — before the end of spring training. Sure, it would be nice, at least in theory, to do away with the potential distraction of in-season contract talks and get a deal done to keep the 29-year-old ace right-hander in Boston for the next few years.
What are the chances of Beckett and the Red Sox agreeing on a deal in the near future? Well, it depends a lot on Beckett's willingness to allow the Boston brass to delve into his past, present and even future health issues.
Take as an example Beckett's newest rotation mate, John Lackey.
Lackey, 31, left the Angels to ink a five-year, $82.5 million, free-agent deal with the Red Sox in December, one of the biggest signings of the offseason. Despite Lackey's relatively good health and reliability on the mound — in his seven full seasons in the majors, he's averaged 30.7 starts and 199 innings pitched — there was sufficient injury history and "wear and tear on Lackey's elbow to warrant contract protection." In other words, there's a clause written into Lackey's deal that drastically lessens his pay grade if he undergoes Tommy John surgery at any point during the five years of his deal.
And if the Boston brass sticks to its recent modus operandi, Beckett is likely to be faced with a similar situation, though it's his shoulder that will likely be the wild card in his contract.
Wait, but Beckett's healthy, isn't he? Absolutely, and for most of us, there's no reason to think otherwise.
But we're not the ones likely to be offering him tens of millions of dollars over the next few years. And even though Beckett has been relatively healthy during his four seasons in Boston — averaging 30.5 starts a year and 198 innings pitched — with over 1,400 innings on his arm’s regular-season odometer, the Red Sox are going to be careful to protect themselves and their investment as much as possible (see Martinez, Pedro, circa winter 2004-05).
Will they refuse to shell out a well-deserved sum of money for a stud pitcher? Probably not. They know what they have in Beckett, a two-time All-Star and two-time World Series champ, and they'll surely do all they can to keep him around. But will they blindly offer a long-term deal without considering the possibility of burning out after a season or two or three? No way.
Cafardo suggests that if the Red Sox offer Beckett something now, it would be in the range of Roy Halladay's three-year, $60 million extension from the Phillies, though probably $6-8 million less. Now $17-18 million a season ain't half bad, especially in this economy. But could another team — say, one from the Bronx that wears pinstriped uniforms — offer him more? Probably. Would he want to play there? Who knows?
It's all part of Baseball Economics 101. Supply and demand. Buy low, sell high. Timing is everything. Do you take major risks hoping for a huge payoff or bank on the sure thing and opt for slow, steady growth? The Red Sox front office will take all sides of it into consideration.
"What the Red Sox are doing is good business," an executive with a competing team told The Globe. "Their offers are all very competitive, and if a player wants to play for a team like Boston, then he’ll take the deal with the provisions. I think it shows you how much Lackey wanted to play for the Red Sox, where you have a chance to win every year."
Fair enough. But Beckett already has a home for the next nine months, and he isn't subject to the same conditions. So where do his options stand?
We've heard little about Beckett's willingness to open up to Red Sox physicians and let them explore the health of his shoulder. But let's suppose that he did and decided that he wanted to make a deal sooner rather than later. If that were the case, the two sides would be going largely off the current market value for pitchers. The Lackey deal sets a rather high precedent, both monetarily and in terms of duration, but it would require Beckett to show a great deal of transparency with the team. On the Red Sox' side, it’d be tough to commit, say, three years and $54 million (much less Lackey's five years and $82.5 million) without feeling 100 percent confident in Beckett's health.
But if both sides were to wait until fall? Well, both Beckett and the Red Sox would have more results to go on. Based on his success (or the lack thereof), the price for the tall Texan could go up or down. But someone’s going to make a serious offer, and if the Red Sox allow it to get to that point, they could end up in a bidding war that artificially raises Beckett's price — when the demand goes up, so does the price.
And as the offseason has already proven, some players understand the injury risks and how they affect their contracts and are willing to take them into consideration (Lackey), while there are some who aren't (Jason Bay).
Cafardo suggests that the Red Sox would be wise to employ a wait-and-see strategy with Beckett. Perhaps Cliff Lee could be an adequate replacement in the rotation. Or maybe Daisuke Matsuzaka or Clay Buchholz will step up in the meantime and make a convincing case as a stand-in. They're all viable possibilities, yes, but reliable aces with mid-90s heat and ankle-breaking curveballs don't come around every day.
Whatever the case, it's clear that the Red Sox are developing a routine for dealing with this type of scenario: Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. It's not the sexiest strategy out there, but it could serve them well in baseball's new economic environment.
