SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox, Pierzynski nearing 1-year/$8.25mm deal
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 3, 2013 16:54:35 GMT -5
Hanigan's certainly a smart gamble for the Rays. Their FO is always on it, making sure they don't break the bank while getting good players to fill in the blanks. But the Sox don't need an aging catcher with injury issues for the next 3-4 years. They have a bunch of guys who are or will be knockin' on the door. I'm glad they're serious about looking in-house. As for Pierzynski, he just happened to be in the right place (behind the plate) at the right time (post CBA free agency) with the right bat (a lefty one). Ray's didn't have to extend him. They just wanted a high defensive value low priced catcher. Which they already had two of in Molina and Lobaton.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 3, 2013 16:58:49 GMT -5
The price on Hanigan was shockingly low. I'm pretty disappointed the Red Sox couldn't get involved there. I think the third year of that extension may be a bad idea, but the Red Sox could have dealt for Hanigan without extending him (or only giving him a two-year extension). All Tampa gave up was a very fringy relief prospect (think Kyle Martin or Joe Gunkel) and taking Heath Bell for $5.5m (he put up a 3.08 xFIP (4.10 FIP, 4.11 ERA) last year, so it's only an overpay of a few million at most). Arizona also gets a PTBNL or cash from the Rays, but that's very unlikely to be a significant piece. Even if this exact three-team scenario couldn't have worked, it looks like the Red Sox should have been able to get Hanigan without giving up a top-40 prospect (remember, the Rays only gave up a 22-year-old undrafted reliever who put up decent stats in rookie ball and took on a very mildly onerous contract). If the asking price was that low, I'm pretty annoyed the Red Sox signed Pierzynski instead.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 3, 2013 17:06:22 GMT -5
The final on Hanigan trade: www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/12/rays-to-acquire-ryan-hanigan.htmlI don't know much about Choate (insert comperable Red Sox Prospect here), but it looks like the Rays got Hanigan for salary relief on Bell. We could have basically made this same deal for the price of AJ. Not really sure what you are going to get with Bell, but I would of liked that move much better than AJ. Choate is a 22 year old reliever in A ball. Not much to write home about. My guess is that the PTNBL is a halfway decent prospect because the DBacks gave up Holmberg, who has a good chance to be a solid back-end guy, and the Rays were only willing to do the deal for three years of control of Hanigan. The deal wouldn't have worked as well for the Sox for a few reasons. First the Red Sox have Swihart and Vazquez so they don't need a catcher they can control for three years. Second, putting Bell in Fenway is just asking for trouble. The Rays might be able to hide him better at the Trop. Third the Red Sox would have to give up at least one player to keep a 40 man spot for Bell. All in all because of the Red Sox pitching and catching depth, I don't think the same deal works as well for the Sox, which is likely why they chose another route.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 3, 2013 17:12:17 GMT -5
Bell's full boat next year is $9M, $5 comes from the Marlins, and $.5 from the Dbacks so it will be $4.5M. Yes they could have done the deal without extending Hanigan just as the Rays could have, but the Rays probably don't do the deal without the extension. IOW, it wouldn't have been worth it otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 3, 2013 17:14:58 GMT -5
The final on Hanigan trade: www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/12/rays-to-acquire-ryan-hanigan.htmlI don't know much about Choate (insert comperable Red Sox Prospect here), but it looks like the Rays got Hanigan for salary relief on Bell. We could have basically made this same deal for the price of AJ. Not really sure what you are going to get with Bell, but I would of liked that move much better than AJ. Choate is a 22 year old reliever in A ball. Not much to write home about. My guess is that the PTNBL is a halfway decent prospect because the DBacks gave up Holmberg, who has a good chance to be a solid back-end guy, and the Rays were only willing to do the deal for three years of control of Hanigan. The deal wouldn't have worked as well for the Sox for a few reasons. First the Red Sox have Swihart and Vazquez so they don't need a catcher they can control for three years. Second, putting Bell in Fenway is just asking for trouble. The Rays might be able to hide him better at the Trop. Third the Red Sox would have to give up at least one player to keep a 40 man spot for Bell. All in all because of the Red Sox pitching and catching depth, I don't think the same deal works as well for the Sox, which is likely why they chose another route. A few notes: -It's either a PTBNL or cash, according to MLB.com's Steve Gilbert, which almost certainly means the PTBNL is not a notable prospect -Hanigan didn't have a no-trade clause, which means that the Red Sox could have traded for him and not offered him an extension. Even as a one-year rental, Hanigan's trade cost was so low to make acquiring him well worth it, in my opinion. -The Red Sox could have just DFAed Bell if they needed the 40-man spot and didn't think he could offer any production. The combined value of Bell + Hanigan's salaries would have totalled about $8m, which is about what the Red Sox gave Pierzynski. So if you think Hanigan is better than Pierzynski in 2014, you'd still rather trade for Hanigan, even if you think Bell has negative on-the-field value (I don't, by the way; Steamer projects him for a 3.39 ERA/3.60 FIP and 0.3 fWAR). -Between this and the reported price for Saltalamacchia (three years at $8m per), the Pierzynski signing keeps looking worse and worse. EDIT: Bell's full boat next year is $9M, $5 comes from the Marlins, and $.5 from the Dbacks so it will be $4.5M. MLBTR and Cot's says Miami is only on the hook for $4m, so Bell would cost $5.5m in 2014.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 3, 2013 17:33:30 GMT -5
The price on Hanigan was shockingly low. I'm pretty disappointed the Red Sox couldn't get involved there. I think the third year of that extension may be a bad idea, but the Red Sox could have dealt for Hanigan without extending him (or only giving him a two-year extension). All Tampa gave up was a very fringy relief prospect (think Kyle Martin or Joe Gunkel) and taking Heath Bell for $5.5m (he put up a 3.08 xFIP (4.10 FIP, 4.11 ERA) last year, so it's only an overpay of a few million at most). Arizona also gets a PTBNL or cash from the Rays, but that's very unlikely to be a significant piece. Even if this exact three-team scenario couldn't have worked, it looks like the Red Sox should have been able to get Hanigan without giving up a top-40 prospect (remember, the Rays only gave up a 22-year-old undrafted reliever who put up decent stats in rookie ball and took on a very mildly onerous contract). If the asking price was that low, I'm pretty annoyed the Red Sox signed Pierzynski instead. I'm betting the PTBNL is worth more than you might think and is just a way of getting around the Rule 5. And here is an article that explains the Red Sox thinking which makes sense to me. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/rays-red-sox-take-different-paths-to-similar-value/Basically the premise is that the Sox wanted a guy who is not really a risk at all and that is Pierzynski. He's never been terrible. He is who he is. Hanigan has never been a starter and was absolutely awful at the plate last year. There is more risk there.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Dec 3, 2013 17:43:41 GMT -5
[quote author=" jmei" ). -Between this and the reported price for Saltalamacchia (three years at $8m per), the Pierzynski signing keeps looking worse and worse. I'm just guessing that I was wrong is not an option.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Dec 3, 2013 17:49:56 GMT -5
Felger and Mazz says a source told them salty was pissed @ being benched in the WS and really did not want to come back. Anyone else hear that?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 3, 2013 17:50:45 GMT -5
I lost you at Felger and Mazz.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 3, 2013 18:13:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 3, 2013 18:16:35 GMT -5
I had this post all typed up!
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 3, 2013 18:22:39 GMT -5
It certainly does change the Hanigan deal from "what were they thinking?" to "wait and see" mode.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,986
|
Post by jimoh on Dec 3, 2013 18:59:02 GMT -5
espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/42721/a-wild-and-crazy-day-of-transactionsBy David Schoenfield "The Red Sox signed A.J. Pierzynski. Makes sense. One-year deal, leaving the possibility of Blake Swihart or Christian Vazquez to take over at catcher in 2015. Love what the Red Sox are doing here. They could have an extremely young core of Xander Bogaerts, Will Middlebrooks, Jackie Bradley Jr. and Swihart in a couple years ... leaving plenty of payroll to spend on David Price when he becomes a free agent after 2015. It's good to be a Red Sox fan right now."
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 3, 2013 19:08:09 GMT -5
It certainly does change the Hanigan deal from "what were they thinking?" to "wait and see" mode. Right I didn't think that Arizona was going to give up Holmberg just to clear $4.5M. Further it didn't make sense to me that Tampa would require an extension as part of the deal if the PTNBL was a nobody. The extension btw is part of the value received of the deal. Let's recall that David Ross who is older was paid nearly that much over two years to be a backup. The Rays want Hanigan to be their primary starter. You wanted to DFA Bell as part of the deal and not give the extension. So assuming Hanigan got $2.5 in arbitration you are talking about paying Hanigan $7M AND giving up a prospect to boot. That's a lot considering that Hanigan has only caught 100 games in the majors once. Hanigan doesn't strike out a ton, but his walk rate was likely inflated by hitting 8th in the national league. He's not getting 13 IBBs a year in the AL. Hanigan is excellent defensively and I think that the Rays took a fair risk in betting that he can become an every day catcher. However it's probably a better bet for the Rays than it would be for the Red Sox. The extension is less valuable to the Sox because of their catching depth, and Bell is less valuable to them because of their pitching depth and the size of their home park.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,671
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 3, 2013 20:21:53 GMT -5
Salty signed for just 3 years $21 million with the Marlins. I really wished the Sox had signed him for that instead of swing first ask questions later Pierzynski. Salty was no great shakes and he struck out a ton, but at least he along with the rest of the lineup worked the opposing pitchers.
I mean, $7 million for a decent starting catcher would have covered them for this year, 2015 if Vazquez wasn't ready for full-time duty and 2016 if he still wasn't ready or at worst Salty would have had a very tradeable contract with that one year $7 million remaining.
I can't help but feel there's more to it than simply not wanting to block Vazquez or Swihart. It seemed obvious they didn't want him back at all. I wonder if he got into it with Farrell when he got benched after Game 3 and it was a bigger problem than reported or if the Sox flat out didn't like his catching. It's obvious they lost faith in him after Game 3 and trusted Ross a lot more, but he was still a decent to above average catcher, so for just $7 million/year it seems strange for the Sox to lose above average catching because they're worried about a 3rd year for a contract that wouldn't be a millstone and would most likely be highly tradeable.
Honestly I'd prefer Salty in 2014 to AJP and I'd prefer Salty and Vazquez as the 2015 tandem
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Dec 3, 2013 20:43:33 GMT -5
Why do we suppose no one else traded for Hanigan? Why do we suppose that Salty without a QO offer was only worth 3/21?
Do we just assume irrationality prod we assume that no other ML teams valued these players as highly as folks here did for some reason?
When presented with contrary evidence, we should examine our positions, not become entrenched.
|
|
|
Post by mordecai67 on Dec 3, 2013 21:17:27 GMT -5
I like the signing. I like ballplayers who show emotion and who are outspoken. The one year facet is perfect. I will miss Salty - but so many holes in that swing! Like many of you on this board - I wish we could fast forward to 2015 with Swihart, JBJ, Xander, Pedroia, Middlebrooks etc.
Looking forward to the sandwich pick for Ellsbury too.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 3, 2013 21:30:28 GMT -5
Why do we suppose no one else traded for Hanigan? Why do we suppose that Salty without a QO offer was only worth 3/21? Do we just assume irrationality prod we assume that no other ML teams valued these players as highly as folks here did for some reason? When presented with contrary evidence, we should examine our positions, not become entrenched. I agree that there should be a mild presumption of competence amongst major league front offices, but they make plenty of mistakes, too. There was really no one who thought Saltalamacchia would get so little or that Hanigan wasn't worth a look at this price (pending the identity of the PTBNL, at least), on this forum or really anywhere else in the baseball blogosphere. Why do you think we were all so far off in our projections?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 3, 2013 21:39:07 GMT -5
Why do we suppose no one else traded for Hanigan? Why do we suppose that Salty without a QO offer was only worth 3/21? Do we just assume irrationality prod we assume that no other ML teams valued these players as highly as folks here did for some reason? When presented with contrary evidence, we should examine our positions, not become entrenched. I agree that there should be a mild presumption of competence amongst major league front offices, but they make plenty of mistakes, too. There was really no one who thought Saltalamacchia would get so little or that Hanigan wasn't worth a look at this price (pending the identity of the PTBNL, at least), on this forum or really anywhere else in the baseball blogosphere. Why do you think we were all so far off in our projections? RE: Salty, fwiw, Heyman's prediction article said: Agent: 3 years, $29M. GM: 3 years, $27.5M. Me [Heyman]: 3 years, $30M. So yes, he did sign for less than many thought. Wonder if he took a bit of a discount to play near home.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 3, 2013 21:56:24 GMT -5
People are analyzing the "what would it have taken to get Hanigan?" question all wrong. What went on between the Diamondbacks and Rays is completely beside the point; the Reds don't give a flying freak whether the Diamondbacks got David Price and Evan Longoria for Hanigan, or a pair of their used cleats. They wanted a good prospect, and they got Holmberg.
If the Sox wanted to be the high bidders here, it meant offering the Reds more than Holmberg. Period. Heath Bell has no more to do with it than Heath Ledger or Alexander Graham Bell would, even if they were both alive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 22:03:02 GMT -5
Did we lose a pick?
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 3, 2013 22:05:27 GMT -5
No. You actually gained one today.
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Dec 3, 2013 22:07:56 GMT -5
People are analyzing the "what would it have taken to get Hanigan?" question all wrong. What went on between the Diamondbacks and Rays is completely beside the point; the Reds don't give a flying freak whether the Diamondbacks got David Price and Evan Longoria for Hanigan, or a pair of their used cleats. They wanted a good prospect, and they got Holmberg. If the Sox wanted to be the high bidders here, it meant offering the Reds more than Holmberg. Period. Heath Bell has no more to do with it than Heath Ledger or Alexander Graham Bell would, even if they were both alive. The most comparable player to Holmberg in the Red Sox system is Brandon Workman. Workman probably isn't as good a prospect as Holmberg because Holmberg is a lefty and has a better chance to start with four average pitches. So you are probably talking about adding a second lower level prospect like Sean Coyle. Pierzynski costs you money, is lower risk, but lower potential reward. Hanigan costs you prospects, but he could very easily be as bad as he was last year. I don't think it's clear cut, but I can certainly understand why the Sox would take the low risk option that only cost them money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2013 22:08:13 GMT -5
No. You actually gained one today. That's all that matters to me this offseason. Love this deal, stick to the plan BC.
|
|
|
Post by PedroKsBambino on Dec 3, 2013 22:19:48 GMT -5
@ken_Rosenthal Pierzynski passed physical with #RedSox, one-year deal is official.
|
|
|