|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 24, 2014 13:45:38 GMT -5
I'm much, much less excited about this after actually hearing the real terms of the contract. It went from 5 years, $90 million to 5 years, $110 million. You guys are assuming that the vesting option is going to be difficult to reason. I'm not. It will probably just be about how many ABs he gets in the last year or two. It went from an amazing signing to a meh signing real quick. I don't really get the hair-splitting on details like this. You like him at 5/90 but not at 5/110? What's the difference, really? How many free agent signings would look significantly better or worse in retrospect if you adjusted the contract by 15%? If only Carl Crawford would have signed for six years instead of seven that would have worked out perfectly... What is the difference, as if $20 million dollars isn't a ridiculously large difference between the two deals.
|
|
|
Post by nexus on Nov 24, 2014 13:46:34 GMT -5
I'm much, much less excited about this after actually hearing the real terms of the contract. It went from 5 years, $90 million to 5 years, $110 million. You guys are assuming that the vesting option is going to be difficult to reason. I'm not. It will probably just be about how many ABs he gets in the last year or two. It went from an amazing signing to a meh signing real quick. When healthy, Hanley is one of the most productive hitters in the game. We should be rooting for him to trigger that option. I still cannot believe this. The fact Hanley and the Dodgers could not agree to extension terms had me thinking Hanley's reps were asking for the moon. This deal @ 4 years doesn't even crack the top 60 total guarantee contracts of all-time.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 24, 2014 13:56:48 GMT -5
Look, I get that Hanley is a good player and that I still would rather him over Sandoval, even though it looks like we got both. But the large increase in the actual contract from the reported contract moves this one from a steal to a okay signing with a lot of risk.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,787
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 24, 2014 14:16:52 GMT -5
Look, I get that Hanley is a good player and that I still would rather him over Sandoval, even though it looks like we got both. But the large increase in the actual contract from the reported contract moves this one from a steal to a okay signing with a lot of risk. I think the risk isn't that big honestly. Considering that he'll be in the outfield, he should stay healthier. And if worst comes to worst at least he's only under contract for 4 years versus Crawford's 7 year deal. High AAVs look ugly, but theres a premium you pay for stars. Looking back, if we swapped Matt Holliday with Crawford (holding other factors aside), we would likely have been a perennial playoff team rather than missing in 2012 and probably even this year. My point is that it isn't the high AAV's that could kill us. It's having a guy completely flop like Carl Crawford did. Hanley is a great fit here. Both he and Sandoval have less cause for concern about hitting in Fenway than Crawford did. We also didn't forecast the loss of defensive value Crawford would have when he came to Boston. I'm not saying they will be worth their AAVs according to the fangraphs standard WAR$, but I think we took the odds that niether are the next Crawford.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 24, 2014 14:19:11 GMT -5
I don't really get the hair-splitting on details like this. You like him at 5/90 but not at 5/110? What's the difference, really? How many free agent signings would look significantly better or worse in retrospect if you adjusted the contract by 15%? If only Carl Crawford would have signed for six years instead of seven that would have worked out perfectly... What is the difference, as if $20 million dollars isn't a ridiculously large difference between the two deals. It's not.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 24, 2014 14:21:58 GMT -5
Look, I get that Hanley is a good player and that I still would rather him over Sandoval, even though it looks like we got both. But the large increase in the actual contract from the reported contract moves this one from a steal to a okay signing with a lot of risk. The difference in AAV is $4M. So you're saying that the size of Craig Breslow's contract last year is what makes this a bad deal for you. That's why people don't get why you're upset. Maybe it's no longer a "steal", but it's hard to say that difference makes it a "bad" contract if you're changing the last year to a vesting option to mitigate the risk involved.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 24, 2014 15:29:47 GMT -5
Look, I get that Hanley is a good player and that I still would rather him over Sandoval, even though it looks like we got both. But the large increase in the actual contract from the reported contract moves this one from a steal to a okay signing with a lot of risk. The difference in AAV is $4M. So you're saying that the size of Craig Breslow's contract last year is what makes this a bad deal for you. That's why people don't get why you're upset. Maybe it's no longer a "steal", but it's hard to say that difference makes it a "bad" contract if you're changing the last year to a vesting option to mitigate the risk involved. I'm not saying this is a bad deal. Just saying we paid market value for an injury prone player here. Not exactly making out like bandits. There's no doubt this signing improves the team going forward and we got an impact bat. But we were lead to believe for about 12 hours that we got a ridiculously awesome deal in the 5 year/$90 million pact. I'm just point out that the actual terms change that fact.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 24, 2014 15:49:07 GMT -5
I don't think there is any possible way you can say that 4 guaranteed years was expected for Hanley Ramirez.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Nov 24, 2014 15:53:31 GMT -5
I forget where I read it, but in the early analysis of the top free agents, there was speculation that Ramirez might have to settle for a pillow deal. I think you are absolutely right, and, of course, this is why the Sox got him.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Nov 24, 2014 15:53:43 GMT -5
I don't think there is any possible way you can say that 4 guaranteed years was expected for Hanley Ramirez. MLBTR’s Zach Links projected Ramirez would get a six-year, $132MM deal, so the reported total of his pact with Boston lags behind in both years and dollars.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 24, 2014 16:35:54 GMT -5
Look, I get that Hanley is a good player and that I still would rather him over Sandoval, even though it looks like we got both. But the large increase in the actual contract from the reported contract moves this one from a steal to a okay signing with a lot of risk. The difference in AAV is $4M. So you're saying that the size of Craig Breslow's contract last year is what makes this a bad deal for you. That's why people don't get why you're upset. Maybe it's no longer a "steal", but it's hard to say that difference makes it a "bad" contract if you're changing the last year to a vesting option to mitigate the risk involved. $4m a year for five years is not franchise-crippling money, but it absolutely does matter, especially if (when) the Red Sox want to dip below the luxury tax limit.
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Nov 24, 2014 16:48:02 GMT -5
I don't think there is any possible way you can say that 4 guaranteed years was expected for Hanley Ramirez. MLBTR’s Zach Links projected Ramirez would get a six-year, $132MM deal, so the reported total of his pact with Boston lags behind in both years and dollars. No it doesn't. Hanley basically got 5 years, $110 million. If you added a 6th year at his AAV, you would get 6 years, $132MM. Basically that is the contract Hanley got. But 1 year shorter. Because I'm pretty sure the vesting option is going to very achievable based on playing time. We paid pretty much market value. While yes that isn't a bad thing, it isn't like this is some super steal here.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 24, 2014 16:50:09 GMT -5
MLBTR’s Zach Links projected Ramirez would get a six-year, $132MM deal, so the reported total of his pact with Boston lags behind in both years and dollars. No it doesn't. Hanley basically got 5 years, $110 million. If you added a 6th year at his AAV, you would get 6 years, $132MM. Basically that is the contract Hanley got. But 1 year shorter. Because I'm pretty sure the vesting option is going to very achievable based on playing time. We paid pretty much market value. While yes that isn't a bad thing, it isn't like this is some super steal here. And they only guaranteed 4 years instead of 6, which is a much, much bigger deal than the AAV dollar amounts. Part of market value(or arguably most) is # of years. I mean if they could sign Lester for 3/$70, that wouldn't be market value because you wouldn't be paying for his decline.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 24, 2014 17:08:44 GMT -5
Market value is the money commanded on the market so whatever a player signs for is his market vamue.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 24, 2014 17:14:46 GMT -5
Market value is the money commanded on the market so whatever a player signs for is his market vamue. So every contract is market value? Or maybe there are factors that make a team pay less or more, such as the players' willingness or reluctance to play for a certain team?
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 24, 2014 17:22:09 GMT -5
Why is this any better than 5/90 which would have been much better for the team. Its lesser dollars and easier to trade at the end if needed. The option buyout could be worth $2m atleast. This. I can understand being happy about a 4yr+vest structure and the deal is totally fine to me. But being even more happy about this contract than a hypothetical 5/$90 contract which we assumed to be in place makes no sense at all to me.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 24, 2014 17:26:06 GMT -5
Why is this any better than 5/90 which would have been much better for the team. Its lesser dollars and easier to trade at the end if needed. The option buyout could be worth $2m atleast. This. I can understand being happy about a 4yr+vest structure and the deal is totally fine to me. But being even more happy about this contract than a hypothetical 5/$90 contract which we assumed to be in place makes no sense at all to me. It basically comes down to would you rather pay $22m a year through the 2018 season or be forced to pay $18 million for his age 36 season in 2019? Red Sox prefer the former.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 24, 2014 17:27:28 GMT -5
“@iamjoonlee: Xander Bogaerts was ecstatic upon hearing the news that the #RedSox had agreed on a deal with Hanley Ramirez. Looks up to him on the field.”
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 24, 2014 17:33:38 GMT -5
It basically comes down to would you rather pay $22m a year through the 2018 season or be forced to pay $18 million for his age 36 season in 2019? Red Sox prefer the former. But why not just pay him $22m a year for the next for years and then pay him only $2m in 2019? All it takes is a little imagination - and incidentally, if you discount the value of future dollars then you are paying even less than that. You can basically get his age 36 season for free just by backloading a bit. Pretending that a 5/$90m deal means we are paying $18m in today's dollars for the 5th year is completely insane.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Nov 24, 2014 17:34:00 GMT -5
“@iamjoonlee: Xander Bogaerts was ecstatic upon hearing the news that the #RedSox had agreed on a deal with Hanley Ramirez. Looks up to him on the field.” Well, that explains a few things.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 24, 2014 17:37:28 GMT -5
It basically comes down to would you rather pay $22m a year through the 2018 season or be forced to pay $18 million for his age 36 season in 2019? Red Sox prefer the former. But why not just pay him $22m a year for the next for years and then pay him only $2m in 2019? All it takes is a little imagination - and incidentally, if you discount the value of future dollars then you are paying even less than that. You can basically get his age 36 season for free just by backloading a bit. Pretending that a 5/$90m deal means we are paying $18m in today's dollars for the 5th year is completely insane. Because the money doesn't matter. It's the AAV. You'd be paying $18 million in 2019 towards the tax or cap that is in place then. Regardless, it's pointless to argue over something that didn't happen. I'm guessing this is the contract that Hanley wanted to sign. I bet there are rules that prevent crazy contracts like that anyway. If there weren't, you'd probably have teams handing out 20 year contracts that they could trade to other teams with $500k for 10 years at the end just to get around the luxury tax.
|
|
|
Post by bringhanleyback2 on Nov 24, 2014 18:26:02 GMT -5
Great signing IMO, but i'm a little bias. I guess its time for me to retire, good day all.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Nov 24, 2014 18:56:17 GMT -5
“@iamjoonlee: Xander Bogaerts was ecstatic upon hearing the news that the #RedSox had agreed on a deal with Hanley Ramirez. Looks up to him on the field.” Well, that explains a few things. Cheap shot alert.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Nov 24, 2014 19:02:21 GMT -5
A Whole Lotta Love around here for a guy who...let's be honest... has had 1 really good year in the last 6 years. And it seems reasonable to me that the 5/90...which everyone seems to think is a great deal...was probably the highest offer he received or was going to receive........or why would he be so eager to sign this early in free agent period. He's been a real enigma at times in his career. I am sure the Sox will get some good value...he is talented....but this is more risky than Panda. He hit .283/.369/.448 last year, .345/.402/.638 in 2013, .300/.378/.475 in 2010, and .342/.410/.543 in 2009. So in the last six years, he's had two MVP-caliber seasons and two more All-Star-caliber ones. And hit total WAR is 13.2 for those 6 seasons. So he's been a 2.2 war player for those seasons. Look...this is a case where the numbers are empty. If you want to throw out slash numbers to prove your point that's fine....but it's selective..
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Nov 24, 2014 19:02:53 GMT -5
Well, that explains a few things. Cheap shot alert. Always room at the inn for a wandering son coming home. Especially, ones who can rake. Welcome back Hanley.
|
|