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.
Should the Red Sox sign Josh Hamilton?
|
Post by Guidas on Dec 6, 2012 16:51:35 GMT -5
$30M might be too much given luxury tax if they are (as Speier said) at around $140M now and there may desire to add another piece or two plus someone later in the season. $25 x 3 or is certainly doable, however, esp with the threshold going up next year and some money coming off the books.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 6, 2012 17:08:15 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal @ken_Rosenthal Sources: #Mariners have discussed three-year deals with Hamilton in range of $20M to $25M per season. If thats the best Hamilton can do, then the Red Sox are definitely in this. I see no reason why the Red Sox wouldn't do a three year deal between 25-30. It does not look like the Red Sox want him. Everything written today suggests its the Rangers or the M's depending on where Grienke signs.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 6, 2012 17:12:43 GMT -5
[ One lineup has at least $25m more dollars allocated to it. If you wanted to be reasonably fair, make it Hamilton and Iglesias vs. Swisher and Drew plus a bit more freedom to spend more on pitching this season (not to mention assuming less long term risk). You're also assuming four years, which is still a very large assumption, unless you're willing to go above the $25m AAV. What do you mean make it fair? The Sox might not want Swisher either, but I'll tell you one thing - if I'm the Sox and I'm giving up a 2nd round pick, it'll be on Hamilton, not Swisher, who probably would get at least 4 years. And from what I'm reading, the Mariners have been discussing 3 years deals in the vicinity of $65 - $75 million. If the Sox can't/won't top that kind of 3 year deal then they're fools. I can understand a hesitation at 4 years, but not at all on 3 years. If the Sox are into spending big annual $ amounts on short contracts, then there are none better than Hamilton to spend it on. If you've going to overpay for a short span of time, do it on Hamilton. Instead the Red Sox seem to want to overpay Victorino, who's a mediocre player, and Johnny Gomes, who's a platoon OF whose known for butchering LF. That makes little sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 6, 2012 17:12:54 GMT -5
Ben Cherington and John Farrell personally met with Hamilton in Houston. That's as strong of an objective indicator of interest as I can imagine.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 6, 2012 17:15:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 6, 2012 17:17:26 GMT -5
I think jmei may be right. The Hamilton winds seem to be shifting towards Boston. I'm in favor of signing Hamilton in the right kind of deal, one that does not prevent the signing of another SP or two, or trading one one and signing one. If the Rangers get Upton they almost certainly are not signing Hamilton. However, there is another potential opportunity: Bourn. Virtually every team looking for a CF has found one, and he's still out there. Obviously, his demands were too much. He may get a bit more realistic. I think he is the best of the possible replacements for Ellsbury. It appears, however, that the Sox are not going to trade Ellsbury right now. I don't think the Sox want Hamilton, to be honest, 3 year deal or not. John Heyman says that the Sox are very unlikely. . Sorry that I didn't do the linking correctly. Either Greinke signs with Texas and Seattle gets him or Texas doesn't sign Greinke and they're able to trade Michael Young to the Phillies because if Young waives his no-trade clause that opens up a spot for Hamilton, Either way it looks like the Sox are letting the best short-term free agent who could have impacted this club get away.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 6, 2012 17:27:12 GMT -5
Maybe they don't want to block Wil Myers?
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 6, 2012 17:37:38 GMT -5
$30M might be too much given luxury tax if they are (as Speier said) at around $140M now and there may desire to add another piece or two plus someone later in the season. $25 x 3 or is certainly doable, however, esp with the threshold going up next year and some money coming off the books. I think Speier may have been high on his estimates for the arb eligible players - he's projecting $35M total for arb players while MLBTR projects $25M for the same players (and Speier calls his estimates "aggressive"). So using MLBTR the projection drops from $138M to $128M, and one would assume that if they sign Hamilton they would trade Ellsbury and his $8M (MLBTR projected), leaving them something closer to $60M (minus Hamilton), and trading Salty ($4M) and/or Aceves ($2.5M) - both distinct possibilities - would get them even lower. Even using Speier's projection though, if they sign Hamilton for $30M and trade Ellsbury (and subtracting MLBTR's projection, which is less than what Speier projected) they would have ~$15M to spend on a pitcher (using MLBTR's projection obviously leaves them with more like $25M to spend). 138 (Speier projection) - 8 (MLBTR Ells) + 30 (Hamilton) + 15 (Pitcher) = $175M. Whether they should tie that much money up into one player, even for three years, is a different story though, and one I'm not even sure how I feel about.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 6, 2012 17:53:40 GMT -5
$30M might be too much given luxury tax if they are (as Speier said) at around $140M now and there may desire to add another piece or two plus someone later in the season. $25 x 3 or is certainly doable, however, esp with the threshold going up next year and some money coming off the books. I think Speier may have been high on his estimates for the arb eligible players - he's projecting $35M total for arb players while MLBTR projects $25M for the same players (and Speier calls his estimates "aggressive"). So using MLBTR the projection drops from $138M to $128M, and one would assume that if they sign Hamilton they would trade Ellsbury and his $8M (MLBTR projected), leaving them something closer to $60M (minus Hamilton), and trading Salty ($4M) and/or Aceves ($2.5M) - both distinct possibilities - would get them even lower. Even using Speier's projection though, if they sign Hamilton for $30M and trade Ellsbury (and subtracting MLBTR's projection, which is less than what Speier projected) they would have ~$15M to spend on a pitcher (using MLBTR's projection obviously leaves them with more like $25M to spend). 138 (Speier projection) - 8 (MLBTR Ells) + 30 (Hamilton) + 15 (Pitcher) = $175M. Whether they should tie that much money up into one player, even for three years, is a different story though, and one I'm not even sure how I feel about. 30 million seems like an overpay. The Mariners are rumored to be talking between 20 and 25 million on a three year deal. I would not offer one cent more than the Mariners. If he wants to try to hit in that ball park (even with the fences moved in), good luck to him.
|
|
|
Post by dcri on Dec 6, 2012 18:34:34 GMT -5
The only way a player could be worth $30M is if his addition guaranteed making the post-season. I can't think of any current player who could do that. Even $25M seems extreme, given how much of a team's total budget that represents. However, salary inflation continues, which seems absurd, given the state of the economy.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2012 18:54:34 GMT -5
What do you mean make it fair? The Sox might not want Swisher either, but I'll tell you one thing - if I'm the Sox and I'm giving up a 2nd round pick, it'll be on Hamilton, not Swisher, who probably would get at least 4 years. You posted the current Red Sox lineup and then added Hamilton to a hypothetical separate lineup as if those are the only two options. One lineup had an extra ~$25m, of course that one looks better on paper for 2013, why wouldn't it? If you spend the leftover money on other players for the original lineup that one will look much better too. It's not like they are either going to spend $25m AAV in Hamilton or keep all that extra money and give it to Liverpool. No one is debating that Hamilton would improve this team on paper for 2013. Swisher would too. So would Drew, Anibal, and lots of other guys who could be signed for some of that money.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 6, 2012 19:27:14 GMT -5
What do you mean make it fair? The Sox might not want Swisher either, but I'll tell you one thing - if I'm the Sox and I'm giving up a 2nd round pick, it'll be on Hamilton, not Swisher, who probably would get at least 4 years. You posted the current Red Sox lineup and then added Hamilton to a hypothetical separate lineup as if those are the only two options. One lineup had an extra ~$25m, of course that one looks better on paper for 2013, why wouldn't it? If you spend the leftover money on other players for the original lineup that one will look much better too. It's not like they are either going to spend $25m AAV in Hamilton or keep all that extra money and give it to Liverpool. No one is debating that Hamilton would improve this team on paper for 2013. Swisher would too. So would Drew, Anibal, and lots of other guys who could be signed for some of that money. Who are these lots of other guys? Drew is an upgrade over Iglesias, but he's hardly great himself. The Sox aren't going to fork over a six year contract for a pitcher like Anibal. Swisher costs a draft pick and more likely would be a longer contract. None of these players are as good as Hamilton. And a combo of them won't be. If it were me, I'd sign Hamilton, and sign a guy like Marcum for the rotation and/or see if a Salty for Floyd deal could be done. That would pretty much complete my team. I'd see if I can get Drew cheaply enough. If not I give Iglesias a shot and see what's available by 7/31. Who knows, by then Bogaerts could be the best option.
|
|
|
Post by beasleyrockah on Dec 6, 2012 19:58:08 GMT -5
Who are these lots of other guys? Drew is an upgrade over Iglesias, but he's hardly great himself. The Sox aren't going to fork over a six year contract for a pitcher like Anibal. Swisher costs a draft pick and more likely would be a longer contract. None of these players are as good as Hamilton. And a combo of them won't be. If it were me, I'd sign Hamilton, and sign a guy like Marcum for the rotation and/or see if a Salty for Floyd deal could be done. That would pretty much complete my team. I'd see if I can get Drew cheaply enough. If not I give Iglesias a shot and see what's available by 7/31. Who knows, by then Bogaerts could be the best option. Swisher and Hamilton both cost draft picks, for the sake of argument let's make it a sunk cost and write that off. Swisher isn't Hamilton, but he's a damn good player and would be a big upgrade for this team. He also will cost a lot less, the "years" argument is pure semantics, if the Red Sox can overpay on AAV to keep Hamilton's deal short they could do the same thing with Swisher...Hamilton will be paid significantly more money, possibly more than the difference in their performance. The leftover difference could also be invested in pitching, possibly Edwin Jackson or on the trade market. Or, they could ignore Swisher and use that money in the trade market or many other avenues. The point is that money doesn't turn into a pumpkin if it isn't spent on Hamilton. Adding one elite talent is not always best way to spend $25m per season, and it's not the safest method either, it's why there is a debate here. Once you spend it on Hamilton you don't get it back, you lose that flexibility. We can debate whether or not it's efficient/smart spending, but acting like the Red Sox can only improve themselves with Hamilton just isn't true. Any team can dramatically improve themselves on paper by spending the money it would take to land Hamilton.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 6, 2012 21:15:09 GMT -5
There is a huge different between a 4 and 5 year contract in this instance that goes well beyond the extra 5M dollars. It's not as simple as "hey the Sox get Hamilton for 5M in year 5, lets do it". It's all about payroll flexibility and putting a competitive team on the field while staying within a certain luxury tax budget. If Hamilton is junk during that 5th year, then you have a $25M salary slot going towards a below average player. It's a huge concern that this front office is really starting to pay attention to. Huh? Read the original conversation, you took away all context. He advocated paying $120m over four years to "avoid" paying the fifth year. If the common thought is 5X25 would be necessary to land Hamilton, he is essentially drawing the line at paying $5m for 2017, and I was asking why. As for the tax stuff, paying 4/120 instead of 5/125 gives a clean slate in 2017 (yay) but adds an additional $5m to the lux tax from 2013-2016. I don't want either deal for the record, I just found the logic interesting and was asking a question about it. Honestly, I think I'm right inside the context. I don't think I'm saying anythign different than you. He's not drawing the line at paying him 5M in 2017; he's drawing the line at not having him clogging up that extra year with a high salary, by paying extra during his more productive years. Whether your or I think that's more important than a "clean slate in 2017" or not is irrelevant. The only way it makes sense to pay 120M over 4 years vs 125 over 5 is because you are extremely concerned about that player not being worth much in year 5 and honestly, you probably think he may be about average in year 4. I do want to point out that the who cares about 2017 attitude is something that will get teams into a lot of trouble contract wise. It's important for a GM to project out and do the best he can to figure out what money will be coming on and off the books as far out as possible. When you are talking those high dollar amounts; it's all the more important.
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Dec 6, 2012 21:36:40 GMT -5
I would not offer one cent more than the Mariners. If he wants to try to hit in that ball park (even with the fences moved in), good luck to him. SafeCo is actually quite a bit better to hit home runs in than Fenway if you're a lefty, although Fenway is significantly better for them to hit doubles and triples in. I agree that $30M is an overpay, and while I'd be willing to overpay in AAV to get him on a three year deal I don't think you need to beat the Mariners by that much, but I do think you need to beat them - I don't think you can just match their deal and assume he'll choose Boston.
|
|
|
Post by lancect on Dec 6, 2012 22:14:12 GMT -5
I wonder if the Rangers sign Greinke and the only big offer out there is the Mariners for Hamilton. Maybe he takes a one year contract like Beltre to prove he can play in a market like Boston and then cashes in one year later
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Dec 6, 2012 22:33:11 GMT -5
Ben Cherington and John Farrell personally met with Hamilton in Houston. That's as strong of an objective indicator of interest as I can imagine. Has me checking online with OBD... obsessive baseball disorder. Have to admit to myself that we could emerge as dark horses... exciting prospect if his unrealistic demands came down.
|
|
|
Post by patrmac04 on Dec 6, 2012 22:41:24 GMT -5
I wonder if the Rangers sign Greinke and the only big offer out there is the Mariners for Hamilton. Maybe he takes a one year contract like Beltre to prove he can play in a market like Boston and then cashes in one year later I am thinking 3
|
|
|
Post by bsout2 on Dec 6, 2012 22:51:50 GMT -5
I just have this feeling someone comes out of no where and signs him. For some reason I keep thinking the Cubs. They are rebuilding but still need to sale seats and he is the kind of player who does that.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 6, 2012 22:53:58 GMT -5
Who are these lots of other guys? Drew is an upgrade over Iglesias, but he's hardly great himself. The Sox aren't going to fork over a six year contract for a pitcher like Anibal. Swisher costs a draft pick and more likely would be a longer contract. None of these players are as good as Hamilton. And a combo of them won't be. If it were me, I'd sign Hamilton, and sign a guy like Marcum for the rotation and/or see if a Salty for Floyd deal could be done. That would pretty much complete my team. I'd see if I can get Drew cheaply enough. If not I give Iglesias a shot and see what's available by 7/31. Who knows, by then Bogaerts could be the best option. Swisher and Hamilton both cost draft picks, for the sake of argument let's make it a sunk cost and write that off. Swisher isn't Hamilton, but he's a damn good player and would be a big upgrade for this team. He also will cost a lot less, the "years" argument is pure semantics, if the Red Sox can overpay on AAV to keep Hamilton's deal short they could do the same thing with Swisher...Hamilton will be paid significantly more money, possibly more than the difference in their performance. The leftover difference could also be invested in pitching, possibly Edwin Jackson or on the trade market. Or, they could ignore Swisher and use that money in the trade market or many other avenues. The point is that money doesn't turn into a pumpkin if it isn't spent on Hamilton. Adding one elite talent is not always best way to spend $25m per season, and it's not the safest method either, it's why there is a debate here. Once you spend it on Hamilton you don't get it back, you lose that flexibility. We can debate whether or not it's efficient/smart spending, but acting like the Red Sox can only improve themselves with Hamilton just isn't true. Any team can dramatically improve themselves on paper by spending the money it would take to land Hamilton. It is an interesting debate and you make your point very well. From my point of view I look realistically at what's out there with the realization that the free agent market is overpriced and the talent is pretty thin. I also think the trade market, as far as trading for impact goes, is limited because the Sox are loathe to deal their prospects and I can't blame them for that. The Sox #1 need is pitching. They're not getting Greinke, and for the price he'll cost, that's fine with me. They're not getting Sanchez, and honestly, given the number of years and the likely annual $ value, that's fine with me too - I have no problem with the Sox not wanting to lock into a long-term deal with a player (5+ years) - especially if a player is merely good, and not much more. That means there is very little they can do to impact their starting pitching. If the Sox want to win, they can help their starting pitching with small moves, and they obviously need bounceback years from Lester and Buchholz. But to have a chance, the Sox need to be able to score a lot of runs. Right now as their lineup stands, that's highly unlikely. The Sox could give Swisher 4 years, lose a pick, and sign the one viable SS left - Drew, but rumors are that Drew is headed back to Oakland. There is no greater talent that Hamilton, and I don't think in this case there's a combo of talent that's going to equal to Hamilton. Ross+Gomes+Victorino isn't as good as Hamilton. The Sox lack impact LH bats in the heart of the lineup other than Big Papi. Victorino isn't there for his bat, and Gomes is a huge question mark against righties and his defense leaves a lot to be desired. That doesn't leave much to help the Sox. Hamilton is the one guy that does make sense. If the bidding got beyond 4 years, I'd say - OK that's too rich for the Sox - walk away. Again, the problem isn't necessarily $/year, but rather how many years they're willing to go. If the bidding for Hamilton is 3 years and the Sox don't use their annual value advantage, then it's a waste. This is not a Carl Crawford albatross contract - this is an expensive short-term deal that doesn't cripple the future. I figure SS is a blackhole, but I think it's easier to upgrade it to mediocre cheaply so I don't think the Sox need to sell out on the upgrade in LF to Hamilton from Gomes, which is what they have now. In another free agent market, in a different circumstance, I'd probably feel different about it.
|
|
|
Post by polarbear91 on Dec 6, 2012 23:26:27 GMT -5
Since I am on my iPad I can't figure out how to provide the link but Rosenthal is reporting that the Mariners are talking 3 years with Hamilton for $20 to $25 million per.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 7, 2012 9:38:04 GMT -5
I don't think a 1year Beltre type contract fits here - Beltre was trying to prove his worth on the field. Hamilton's questions only grow, even if he puts up monster numbers since he'll be a year older. He should take the biggest deal he can get.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Dec 7, 2012 9:47:16 GMT -5
I don't think a 1year Beltre type contract fits here - Beltre was trying to prove his worth on the field. Hamilton's questions only grow, even if he puts up monster numbers since he'll be a year older. He should take the biggest deal he can get. I a have to agree. Hamilton is not trying to restore his value following a down year/injury. Moreover, its not like there will be new teams in the market next offseason: the Yankees will have to try to resign Cano; the Dodgers will still have a crowded outfield; the Rangers will have made a decision about their future, ect...
|
|
|
Post by leo on Dec 7, 2012 10:15:20 GMT -5
Swisher and Hamilton both cost draft picks, for the sake of argument let's make it a sunk cost and write that off. Swisher isn't Hamilton, but he's a damn good player and would be a big upgrade for this team. He also will cost a lot less, the "years" argument is pure semantics, if the Red Sox can overpay on AAV to keep Hamilton's deal short they could do the same thing with Swisher...Hamilton will be paid significantly more money, possibly more than the difference in their performance. The leftover difference could also be invested in pitching, possibly Edwin Jackson or on the trade market. Or, they could ignore Swisher and use that money in the trade market or many other avenues. The point is that money doesn't turn into a pumpkin if it isn't spent on Hamilton. Adding one elite talent is not always best way to spend $25m per season, and it's not the safest method either, it's why there is a debate here. Once you spend it on Hamilton you don't get it back, you lose that flexibility. We can debate whether or not it's efficient/smart spending, but acting like the Red Sox can only improve themselves with Hamilton just isn't true. Any team can dramatically improve themselves on paper by spending the money it would take to land Hamilton. It is an interesting debate and you make your point very well. From my point of view I look realistically at what's out there with the realization that the free agent market is overpriced and the talent is pretty thin. I also think the trade market, as far as trading for impact goes, is limited because the Sox are loathe to deal their prospects and I can't blame them for that. The Sox #1 need is pitching. They're not getting Greinke, and for the price he'll cost, that's fine with me. They're not getting Sanchez, and honestly, given the number of years and the likely annual $ value, that's fine with me too - I have no problem with the Sox not wanting to lock into a long-term deal with a player (5+ years) - especially if a player is merely good, and not much more. That means there is very little they can do to impact their starting pitching. If the Sox want to win, they can help their starting pitching with small moves, and they obviously need bounceback years from Lester and Buchholz. But to have a chance, the Sox need to be able to score a lot of runs. Right now as their lineup stands, that's highly unlikely. The Sox could give Swisher 4 years, lose a pick, and sign the one viable SS left - Drew, but rumors are that Drew is headed back to Oakland. There is no greater talent that Hamilton, and I don't think in this case there's a combo of talent that's going to equal to Hamilton. Ross+Gomes+Victorino isn't as good as Hamilton. The Sox lack impact LH bats in the heart of the lineup other than Big Papi. Victorino isn't there for his bat, and Gomes is a huge question mark against righties and his defense leaves a lot to be desired. That doesn't leave much to help the Sox. Hamilton is the one guy that does make sense. If the bidding got beyond 4 years, I'd say - OK that's too rich for the Sox - walk away. Again, the problem isn't necessarily $/year, but rather how many years they're willing to go. If the bidding for Hamilton is 3 years and the Sox don't use their annual value advantage, then it's a waste. This is not a Carl Crawford albatross contract - this is an expensive short-term deal that doesn't cripple the future. I figure SS is a blackhole, but I think it's easier to upgrade it to mediocre cheaply so I don't think the Sox need to sell out on the upgrade in LF to Hamilton from Gomes, which is what they have now. In another free agent market, in a different circumstance, I'd probably feel different about it. Agreed. You can improve the roster by either paying with prospects (mostly trades) or money (free agency). The Red Sox have money and don't want to give up prospects. Hamilton cost the Red Sox mostly money, his bat would be a huge addition to the lineup, and he would allow the Red Sox to go with Iglesias at short for now, vs. overpaying for someone like Drew. Something that always needs to be considered in this deals as well is the impacts on merchandising etc. Hamilton is an electrifying players, he will certainly boost media exposure, ticket sales etc. I would love to come to the ballpark with Hamilton tearing the cover off the ball. He's electrifying. I wouldn't be surprised to see him slug .700 if things come together in one season. If there is a surplus in the OF anytime soon (Brentz, Kalish, JBJ coming up), then the money can be turned into prospects via trades.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 7, 2012 11:40:28 GMT -5
The overall direction is puzzling to me. I still don't understand why Ben would reportedly turn down Myers for Lester. He talks about building the next great Red Sox team. Wouldn't that team include an impact cleanup outfielder like Myers? It wouldn't include a Jon Lester about to hit free agency would it? It's not like the Sox are loaded with a ton of top prospects. They have good depth, but they're not overly loaded with power hitting and corner outfielders, so why wouldn't they make the deal?
It would be because they're trying to win this year? If so, then why wouldn't the Sox go all out on a short-term 3 or 4 year deal for Hamilton? They were certainly willing to overpay for modest talents like Gomes and Victorino. The market doesn't have any impact starting pitching that will wind up with the Sox and there isn't a bat like that elsewhere in the market, there's a clear need, and trading prospects who are to be on the "next great Red Sox team" for now guys isn't what they're trying to do, so how can they markedly improve themselves?
So again is the goal to build the best team for 2015? And wouldn't Myers be key to that? If so, Lester isn't needed. If the goal is to win now, then wouldn't Hamilton be key with Lester remaining? It makes more sense to me than not getting Hamilton and trying to win now or thinking you're going to have an awesome core in the future but declining to add a crucial piece to that core in Myers when you get the chance.
As it is, unless the Sox make drastic improvements, this is pretty much a .500 team, nowhere near the realm of what they were last decade, and if the minor league core, which is good, but doesn't get improved upon with a topnotch talent like Myers, then wouldn't we be looking at more of the 85 type win talent again? It means competitiveness in this day and age, but isn't the goal the build the type of 95 win machine that they were last decade and get to the playoffs often and not have to necessarily catch lightning in a bottle to win the Series?
|
|
|