Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Josh Hamilton: Yes or No?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
297 replies to this topic

Poll: Josh Hamilton: Yes or No? (515 member(s) have cast votes)

Should Boston make a run at him despite his age/issues?

  1. yes (114 votes [22.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 22.18%

  2. no (400 votes [77.82%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 77.82%

What is your maximum you'd like Boston to offer?

  1. 3 years/about $82 mil (94 votes [18.29%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 18.29%

  2. 4 years/about $88 mil (65 votes [12.65%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 12.65%

  3. 5 years/ about $105 mil (15 votes [2.92%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.92%

  4. 6 years/ about $120 mil. (5 votes [0.97%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 0.97%

  5. I wouldn't want him for market value for any multi-year contract (335 votes [65.18%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 65.18%

Vote

#1 koufax32


  • He'll cry if he wants to...


  • 3371 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 01:33 PM

I was surprised to see things end kind of poorly for him last night. I was very surprised by the tone in this link: http://espn.go.com/d...er-boy-collapse
Obviously this doesn't automatically mean he is done in Texas. Maybe, though, he'll be a little more willing to go elsewhere.

So what do SoSH think about him? Go for it or thanks, but no thanks? In the attached poll I tried to make a realistic assumption about contract length and value. Feel free to amend your votes with problems you may have with the dollars and years. I will admit that, at the very least, I am a little intrigued at the idea of potentially looking at him to be a LFer and DH (after Papi goes). But will some other team make some way out there,Carl Crawford offer?

Have at it ladies and gents.

#2 Soxfan in Fla


  • SoSH Member


  • 5475 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

Too much risk off the field plus getting older and more injuries. I say no thanks.

#3 NHbeau


  • hates latinos/bay staters


  • 579 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 01:41 PM

Hamilton is a perfect storm of a terrible FA signing. Age, off the field issues that are huge, going to want a massive payday. I just simply wouldn't want him on my team, in this market for anything that will resemble market value. I am overly risk adverse when it comes to FA signings as a whole, but Hamilton is about as dumb a move some team is going to make. I hope and pray it isn't the Sox and they simply do perfunctory tire kicking and run in the other direction.

#4 genivive

  • 817 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 01:45 PM

I think he is better off staying in Texas for his sake

#5 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16426 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:05 PM

I'm not that worried about Hamilton signing with a new team and ending up photographed with a crack pipe 2 days later. But his knees suck, he can't play CF competently anymore, and he is a very good bet to miss time every year. He's going to be 32 next May, so you are pretty likely to be paying for his decline years.

If the market was so depressed that you could get him with a 3 year deal then I'd think about it, but anything behind that is a horrible idea.

#6 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:12 PM

I voted "no" and 4/88. Meaning, I'd rather they didn't sign him at all, but if they were to get him for no more than 4 years at right around $20M/year--which seems unlikely--they would have at least an outside chance of getting reasonable return on their investment.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that Boston would be worse for him in terms of the off-field issues. Sure, the media scrutiny is harsher here, but are we sure that would be a bad thing? Maybe it would make him more careful. Certainly it's not like they don't have clubs in Dallas.

But overall, yeah, not the direction I'd prefer they go in.

#7 MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

  • 3986 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:35 PM

For a former MVP and a guy thought of as a truly elite hitter, his lifetime numbers aren't that great: 304/363/549/913. Obviously, I wouldn't kick those slash stats out of bed, but if you pull out his MVP year, things change quite a bit.

Look at his OPS: 922/901/741/1044/882/930.

One truly elite year, the rest very good when reasonably healthy. Add that to his games played per year (90/156/89/133/121/148) and you've got a very good player with a history of having trouble staying on the field. His highest walk total is 64, and his strikeouts exploded to 162 this year.

You've also got to wonder about his performance under pressure. His playoff line isn't very good in a decent chunk of sample size (149 PA) - 227/295/424 - and he really only had the one good series against the Yankees in 2010 where he very much lit the world on fire for a few games. Pull that series out and his stats are really woeful. His .558 OPS in the two World Series is probably directly responsible for the Rangers coming up short. If he hits at all, they probably win one of those.

Maybe the second half of this year is an anomaly, what with the quitting chewing tobacco thing and the caffeine, but there are enough red flags here that you don't give him seven years or something crazy like that unless there's a gun to your head.

I think the off the field stuff might be a little overblown at this point, as he's got six years of staying basically (basically) trouble free under his belt. It's the injuries, a seeming quailing in the spotlight, and possibly declining skills that would scare me off.

#8 glennhoffmania


  • Miracle Whipper


  • 8383610 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:35 PM

No, but if it was 3/60 or less I'd be ok with it. Too much risk of injury and/or off the field stuff to commit a lot of years or dollars.

#9 Hendu's Gait


  • 3/5's member


  • PipPipPip
  • 7918 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 02:37 PM

I would like to see a one year overpay, or a 2 year deal at market value, just to see how he can hit here, but no way do I want to give him 3+ years without the support system.

#10 Average Reds


  • SoSH Member


  • 10161 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:31 PM

This notion that's taken hold that Hamilton somehow "needs" to be in Dallas or the wheels will come off and he'll go on a drug/alcohol fueled binge is silly. More to the point, only someone who has never spent an appreciable amount of time in Dallas could think that it's a "safe" environment for people with addictive tendencies.

To me, the risk with Hamilton isn't his drug/alcohol past - that can be managed by handlers - and it's not that he came up small down the stretch this year or in past years. It's that he only seems able to play about half the schedule in peak condition each year and he's not going to be worth the money or years that he'll be able to pull down given his age.

I said this in the earlier thread we had about Hamilton - in a world where 29 year old Joey Votto has just over $251 million coming to him for the next 12 years, I'd be shocked to see anyone sign Josh Hamilton for the years and dollars that we're talking about here. Which means that I can't see it happening for the Sox.

#11 fineyoungarm


  • ask me how to be redundant!


  • 3797 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:41 PM

This notion that's taken hold that Hamilton somehow "needs" to be in Dallas or the wheels will come off and he'll go on a drug/alcohol fueled binge is silly. More to the point, only someone who has never spent an appreciable amount of time in Dallas could think that it's a "safe" environment for people with addictive tendencies.

To me, the risk with Hamilton isn't his drug/alcohol past - that can be managed by handlers - and it's not that he came up small down the stretch this year or in past years. It's that he only seems able to play about half the schedule in peak condition each year and he's not going to be worth the money or years that he'll be able to pull down given his age.

I said this in the earlier thread we had about Hamilton - in a world where 29 year old Joey Votto has just over $251 million coming to him for the next 12 years, I'd be shocked to see anyone sign Josh Hamilton for the years and dollars that we're talking about here. Which means that I can't see it happening for the Sox.


It's not that it's Dallas - it's where his support is - sponser, AA groups, church, docs, etc. All the money in the world does not make those easily transferable. Not impossible - but risky.

#12 SumnerH


  • Malt Liquor Picker


  • 14698 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

For a former MVP and a guy thought of as a truly elite hitter, his lifetime numbers aren't that great: 304/363/549/913. Obviously, I wouldn't kick those slash stats out of bed, but if you pull out his MVP year, things change quite a bit.

Look at his OPS: 922/901/741/1044/882/930.

One truly elite year, the rest very good when reasonably healthy.


How can you look at those stats and come to that conclusion? 1.044 is beyond elite, its MVP/best in the majors. A .900 OPS makes you a top 10 hitter in the AL in 5 of the last 6 years. Even that .882 was good for 11th in the league.

That seems like a pretty elite hitter to me.

#13 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 38085 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 03:47 PM

The 3/82 poll choice ($27.33M/yr) looks oddly juxtaposed with the 4/88 below it ($22M/yr). Did you mean 3/72, or $24M? Because while I still wouldn't want to spend that kind of dough on him, it's a far more reasonable number.

#14 StuckOnYouk

  • 2023 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 04:23 PM

Second half OPS this year was 833. His UZR/150 the last 3 years in LF and CF have been trending down, especially CF. Not to mention the bitching about day games, the strange plays in the field the potential drug OD on any given day...

I'd go 2/50 max which he probably wouldn't take, but 3 years to me is a big no-no.

#15 Plympton91


  • loves a good bowl haircut


  • 6326 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:09 PM

Looking just at injury history and age, lot of the arguments against Hamilton are very similar to the arguments against Beltran last winter. Beltran worked out great for St. Louis.

Hamilton is younger and substantially better than circa 2011 Beltran when healthy, but comes with character issues that go the other way with Beltran. I find it hard to believe that only SOSH posters know about the dangers of offering Josh Hamilton a long-term big money contract. I think most front offices will approach with suitable caution and so I expect the market to be reasonable.

For that reason, I voted yes; I want the Red Sox to show significant interest, at least in the early stages of the dog and pony show. I would be fine with either a 3-year, $75 million deal or a 4-year, $88 million deal. You're basically replacing what you'd have been paying Adrian Gonzalez, but paying it for half as long and to a Fenway rightfielder instead of a firstbaseman (he played LF in TX because that's the big field there, not because his defense was subpar). Couple it with a 2-year deal for Ortiz. If Hamilton's knee deteriorates, then in year 3, he becomes the DH. You'd still have the Crawford and Beckett money to spread around on more diversified risks and to re-sign our own free agents if necessary.

#16 crystalline

  • 2152 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:11 PM

How can you look at those stats and come to that conclusion? 1.044 is beyond elite, its MVP/best in the majors. A .900 OPS makes you a top 10 hitter in the AL in 5 of the last 6 years. Even that .882 was good for 11th in the league.


Maybe because we've been spoiled in the last ten years by Manny and Ortiz?

Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Manny .878 .960 .981 .953 .976 1.105 1.154 1.014 1.097 1.014 1.009 .982 1.058 .881 1.031 .949 .870
Ortiz .802 .817 .200 .810 .799 .839 .961 .983 1.001 1.049 1.066 .877 .794 .899 .953 1.026


"yeah our guys were good for a 1000 OPS 10 times in the last ten years"

(yes I know it's a different run-scoring environment now. But damn those are some big numbers)

edit: fix table

Edited by crystalline, 06 October 2012 - 05:15 PM.


#17 jacklamabe65


  • A New Frontier butt boy


  • 6011 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:15 PM

No, no, no.

#18 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 12116 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:28 PM

Both of this year's marquee free agents (Hamilton and Greinke) play positions of acute need for the Sox. Unfortunately, both come with big red flags.

I think Hamilton is the lesser risk of the two. For one thing, hitters are less risky than pitchers. For another, if Greinke's mental-health issues return, you have to pay him; if Hamilton goes off the deep end with drugs, you don't. That said, Greinke has the bigger upside -- there are only about a dozen true aces in The Show at any given time, and he's one of them. Unless you think Hamilton has two more seasons in him on par with his MVP campaign, he can't touch Greinke's upside.

I think the Sox should be in the mix on both guys, but they should bow out unless off-field concerns push the market rate for those guys down to 4/75 or thereabouts.

#19 Doctor G

  • 1887 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:30 PM

It's not that it's Dallas - it's where his support is - sponser, AA groups, church, docs, etc. All the money in the world does not make those easily transferable. Not impossible - but risky.

There is a very strong AA presence in Boston. The FO knows this. This would not be a significant concern regarding Hamilton.

#20 MoGator71

  • 4963 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:34 PM

No, no, no.


I'd add a healthy "hell no". Can't stay on the field, likely can't play CF (or RF at Fenway) moving forward, and the off-field stuff. Not to mention the various incidents (complaining about day games, throwing everybody under the bus about that slide where he got hurt in Detroit, hammering Melky after the crap he's put in his own body) has me thinking he very well might be an epic douche. And after what's gone on with this team the last thing they need is another high-profile diva.

#21 bob burda

  • 591 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:35 PM

Loses 100 points of OPS away from home (only 1 yr is in Cinci), after playing in Coors Lite at home. Buying into the decline phase of his career with his off-field issues. Absolutely not.

#22 MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

  • 3986 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 05:48 PM

How can you look at those stats and come to that conclusion? 1.044 is beyond elite, its MVP/best in the majors. A .900 OPS makes you a top 10 hitter in the AL in 5 of the last 6 years. Even that .882 was good for 11th in the league.

That seems like a pretty elite hitter to me.


I guess I'm saying elite is top three or four, who are the hitters i think should get 20m+. I will never, ever understand the Crawford contract, so don't throw that back at me.

I'm assuming he'll end up with a 20m AAV, and i don't think he's worth that. If the Sox could get him for three and $14m per, well then sure.

#23 Phil Plantier

  • 1963 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 07:00 PM

if Greinke's mental-health issues return, you have to pay him; if Hamilton goes off the deep end with drugs, you don't.


Apologies if I missed this someplace, but why would Hamilton's agents agree to this? Wouldn't it be their duty to get him money even if he relapses?

#24 Lose Remerswaal


  • Leaves after the 8th inning


  • 22339 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 07:19 PM

No option for an Adrian Beltre type deal? 1 year, $15 million?

Considering his issues and his lack of performance in the last couple weeks, he might have to reestablish himself with a deal like that. And I'd be happy for the Sox to give him $15 million for one year.

Not an option above, so I did not vote.

#25 NDame616


  • will bailey


  • 983 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 08:39 PM

For a former MVP and a guy thought of as a truly elite hitter, his lifetime numbers aren't that great: 304/363/549/913. Obviously, I wouldn't kick those slash stats out of bed, but if you pull out his MVP year, things change quite a bit. Look at his OPS: 922/901/741/1044/882/930. One truly elite year, the rest very good when reasonably healthy. Add that to his games played per year (90/156/89/133/121/148) and you've got a very good player with a history of having trouble staying on the field. His highest walk total is 64, and his strikeouts exploded to 162 this year. You've also got to wonder about his performance under pressure. His playoff line isn't very good in a decent chunk of sample size (149 PA) - 227/295/424 - and he really only had the one good series against the Yankees in 2010 where he very much lit the world on fire for a few games. Pull that series out and his stats are really woeful. His .558 OPS in the two World Series is probably directly responsible for the Rangers coming up short. If he hits at all, they probably win one of those. Maybe the second half of this year is an anomaly, what with the quitting chewing tobacco thing and the caffeine, but there are enough red flags here that you don't give him seven years or something crazy like that unless there's a gun to your head. I think the off the field stuff might be a little overblown at this point, as he's got six years of staying basically (basically) trouble free under his belt. It's the injuries, a seeming quailing in the spotlight, and possibly declining skills that would scare me off.


Some would argue you're cherry picking his stats here a little.....

#26 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12152 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 10:02 PM

Absolutely not in Boston. No, no, no. They will have learned nothing if they sign him.

#27 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7689 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 10:07 PM

How can you look at those stats and come to that conclusion? 1.044 is beyond elite, its MVP/best in the majors. A .900 OPS makes you a top 10 hitter in the AL in 5 of the last 6 years. Even that .882 was good for 11th in the league.

That seems like a pretty elite hitter to me.


Completely agree. There are a ton of reasons not want to sign Hamilton to a big FA contract, but looking at those stats and coming to the conclusion that he has "not been that great" of a hitter is absurd. Hamilton's .930 OPS this year trailed only Braun, Trout, and McCutchen in the majors this season among outfielders. Thats pretty damn elite. His .913 career OPS is elite for an OF.



I guess I'm saying elite is top three or four, who are the hitters i think should get 20m+. I will never, ever understand the Crawford contract, so don't throw that back at me.

I'm assuming he'll end up with a 20m AAV, and i don't think he's worth that. If the Sox could get him for three and $14m per, well then sure.


But you're using his past hitting stats as the main argument that he shouldn't get 20M+. His past hitting stats are absolutely worth 20M+/year. Over the past 3 seasons, there have been on average 13 players/season with an OPS above .900. Hamiltons career OPS puts him in the group of elite hitters every season. I think people forget just how good a 900 OPS is, especially over the last couple of seasons. The guy has been a great hitter.

The superior arguments against Hamilton (and there are many) include age, declining defense, checkered past, recent injuries, etc. You picked out the elite offensive stats, and then said they aren't that good. Thats the only thing Hamilton has going for him, and what his agents will be pointing to when they are saying he is worth 20M+/year.

I wouldn't sign him unless he gets absurdly undervalued based on his recent slump, but a retrospective look at his career as a hitter to this point can only result in 1 conclusion. The guy has been a beast.

Edited by radsoxfan, 06 October 2012 - 10:45 PM.


#28 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 12489 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 10:41 PM

No option for an Adrian Beltre type deal? 1 year, $15 million?

Considering his issues and his lack of performance in the last couple weeks, he might have to reestablish himself with a deal like that. And I'd be happy for the Sox to give him $15 million for one year.

Not an option above, so I did not vote.


No offense, but you're out of your mind. 1-year deal? The question is whether he gets a huge contract or a superduperstar contract. The shine is off a bit with his recent struggles and combined with the obvious red flags I'd say he's looking at a JD Drew contract, but A 1-year offer doesn't even get you past the agency firm's receptionist.

#29 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 06 October 2012 - 11:31 PM

They will have learned nothing if they sign him.


Regardless of the terms of the deal? Really? What is it that they are supposed to have learned, exactly, that would preclude signing Hamilton to any deal under any circumstances?

#30 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16556 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 12:02 AM

I voted no and I would justify that choice with two words. "Addictions" and "Synvisc".
He got two injections of Synvisc into one or both (I don't know) knees this year, in April and then in early September. How well does that augur for his future health as a baseball player?

Edited by Rough Carrigan, 07 October 2012 - 12:05 AM.


#31 brs3


  • sings praises of pinstripes


  • 3552 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 12:33 AM

" I'm a firm believer that God has a plan and it wasn't in his plan for us to move forward." - Adrian Gonzalez


"With prayer, where God says so. With prayer, where God says so. And with prayer, where God says so. Period. He's always led me to the right places." - Josh Hamilton


I mean no disrespect to religious members. Hell, I am a Catholic, but I'm a firm believer that this may not be a good fit.

#32 JimBoSox9


  • will you be my friend?


  • 12489 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:28 AM

I mean no disrespect to religious members. Hell, I am a Catholic, but I'm a firm believer that this may not be a good fit.


"tonight was God's work on the mound"

-Curt Schilling, 10/19/2004.


I forget the full list, but there were a not-insignificant number of players on the 2004 squad that self-identified as born-again Christians. Mueller, Timlin are the names that stuck.

I guess what I'm saying is, religious fervor is a factor you consider when evaluating free agents? Seriously?

Are there any other metrics you evaluate this with besides (quotes mentioning God)/(quotes) * 100?

Do you worry about the fit when an an athiest goes to play in Colorado?

The questions abound.

Edited by JimBoSox9, 07 October 2012 - 01:33 AM.


#33 P'tucket, rhymes with...


  • SoSH Member


  • 7917 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:51 AM

And with prayer, where God says so. Period. He's always led me to the right places." - Josh Hamilton.


That must have been tremendously comforting to him on all those mornings he woke up and had no idea where he was.

#34 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 07:56 AM

I guess what I'm saying is, religious fervor is a factor you consider when evaluating free agents? Seriously?


I agree. I am personally about as uncomfortable with athletic evangelicalism as it's possible to be--one of the reasons why I'm hoping they don't go near Mueller for manager is that I dread the obligatory "first I want to give credit to Jesus Christ" introduction to every post-victory press session--but just because that stuff would make Hamilton a harder guy for some of us to root for, that doesn't mean it would make him a bad fit in the clubhouse, which is what the Sox should be concerned about. (Not that there might not be other reasons to worry about that, of course.)

#35 Seabass177


  • has an efficient neck


  • 4144 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:09 AM

I don't really care about the past drug issues of Hamilton - he's shown at this point that he can stay clean and perform at an elite level. As most have said here, my concerns are that the Sox would be paying for his decline years and that it will cost over $100M for them. Further, I don't know what hard boozing and drug use does to an athlete's body, but it can't have a positive effect. His decline could be steep and immediate.

The numbers being bandied about in this thread are bordering on absurd. Hamilton's not signing a two or three year deal this offseason, since this is the only huge payday he's going to get. Someone will give him five or six years at $20M or more per season. Revenues in baseball are skyrocketing, and there will be a team that will pay him. I highly doubt it will be the Sox.

#36 Seels

  • 1492 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:32 AM

Easy no, even on a good deal.

His early years will be wasted on a team that won't contend.

The later years he'll be overpaid, and taking a valuable corner outfield spot that can almost certainly go to a cheaper and / or better player.

No need for him.

#37 Trlicek's Whip

  • 2956 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:45 AM

Look at his OPS: 922/901/741/1044/882/930.

One truly elite year, the rest very good when reasonably healthy. Add that to his games played per year (90/156/89/133/121/148) and you've got a very good player with a history of having trouble staying on the field. His highest walk total is 64, and his strikeouts exploded to 162 this year.


This gets to the heart of it. For laughs:

JD Drew - Games Played with BOS
Age 31 = 140
Age 32 = 109
Age 33 = 137
Age 34 = 139
Age 35 = 81

Hamilton is 32 next May. Will the same fan base that watched JD Drew want to sign a guy who's just as fragile? Not to mention the emotional arguments if Hamilton has any off-the-field issues or relapses in BOS. Or heaven forbid he goes through a patented cold streak or suffers another series of brain cramps, which would start up the "Josh Hamilton Does Not Care" threads in earnest.

[WARNING: total uninformed anecdotal speculation]: In addition, to quote Indiana Jones, it's not the years, it's the mileage.

His lost years with TAM while he was battling with drug and alcohol abuse could potentially speed the collapse of his skills or physical ability. Hamilton at age 32 isn't like every other MLB player at age 32, because of the added environmental damage already done to his body.

Edited by Trlicek's Whip, 07 October 2012 - 09:47 AM.


#38 C4CRVT

  • 2404 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:47 AM

I would be a really unconventional GM for a team like the Red Sox. I would typically offer really short year, really high AAV deals. I despise the idea of "saving" 4 mil. a year and locking into long term years all at big dollar values for 6 or 7 years. I'd essentially be offering the players a chance to make more in the long run by betting on themselves.

I would offer a 3 year/90 mil. with an option/buyout for a 4th year. If he believes in himself, and wants to lower his total potential income by signing a long term year to be a bloated waste of money into his 40s (Hey A-Rod!!), so be it. I think he'd look really good in the lineup for 3 years.

#39 Trlicek's Whip

  • 2956 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 09:50 AM

The only other caveat - which should be struck down immediately - would be Josh Hamilton as a full-time DH.

Because 1) you don't want to worry about your DH position when you still likely have one of the better DH's in-house with Ortiz, and 2) you wouldn't want to pay $20 million for Hamilton if you can't be certain his knees would hold up even after you take his glove away.

#40 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16556 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:15 AM

He's always led me to the right places. - Josh Hamilton

Why do I feel so certain god's going to lead Josh to the place that offers the most money?

#41 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6959 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:22 AM

I lean no but would be willing to jump on board if they were able to get a deal of 4 years or less. Players of that talent level so rarely become available, baggage notwithstanding, that I think you have to kick the tires on it.

I think the right manager could keep him grounded.

#42 Toe Nash

  • 3046 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 10:54 AM

Looking just at injury history and age, lot of the arguments against Hamilton are very similar to the arguments against Beltran last winter. Beltran worked out great for St. Louis.

Beltran was three years older, and that plus his injuries led to him signing a 2-year deal for $26 mil which is way, way less than Hamilton will get. Not a good comparison.

Drew's contact was also way less AAV than Hamilton will get (even adjusting for inflation), plus he could play a good defensive RF in Fenway up until his last year. I think the consensus on SoSH isn't that the Drew deal was a fantastic deal for the Sox, but that it was way better than most WEEI callers think it was.

If every team is so scared of Hamilton that he has to sign a 2-year deal then that's a great option for the Sox. But he's getting at least 4 from someone and the chances aren't good for that deal to be worth it.

#43 radsoxfan


  • SoSH Member


  • 7689 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:35 AM

I would be a really unconventional GM for a team like the Red Sox. I would typically offer really short year, really high AAV deals. I despise the idea of "saving" 4 mil. a year and locking into long term years all at big dollar values for 6 or 7 years. I'd essentially be offering the players a chance to make more in the long run by betting on themselves.

I would offer a 3 year/90 mil. with an option/buyout for a 4th year. If he believes in himself, and wants to lower his total potential income by signing a long term year to be a bloated waste of money into his 40s (Hey A-Rod!!), so be it. I think he'd look really good in the lineup for 3 years.


I generally support your goal of shorter term contracts with a slightly higher AAV. But 30M/season for Hamilton goes way overboard in my opinion. He hasn't been worth that in most of his prime years, and almost assuredly will not live up to that contract in his age 32-34 seasons.

Limiting the years is a nice goal, and prevents an albatross down the road. But when you go that high on AAV, you pretty much lose all the benefit. I wouldn't sign Hamilton at all, but if given the choice I still would rather sign him for 5/100 than 3/90 (maybe you would too?). The total money is very close, and you are getting 2 more years out of him. There is a pretty decent chance his age 35 and 36 seasons will be worth 5M/season, even as a DH.

Edited by radsoxfan, 07 October 2012 - 08:02 PM.


#44 lexrageorge

  • 3043 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 11:35 AM

If there is one way to guarantee yourself to look like an idiot, it is to bring up the JD Drew contract in a manner that makes it seem like it was an all time fiasco. The Sox got exactly what they needed from Drew; maybe it was a couple of million more than what he was worth, but that was a hardly a problem for the team.

Hamilton's substance abuse history screams "Stay away from long term deal". Some GM will ignore that; let's all hope it's not Cherington.

#45 dbn

  • 3171 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 12:39 PM

Depends. Can he still eat fried chicken?

#46 YTF

  • 3616 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:04 PM

Boston is a city that may well test his religion and his sobriety. He's a great talent for sure, but he's 32 and is starting to get banged up. If the Sox pay him big bucks and he fails like some of the recent FA signings I can well imagine the field day the local media will have given the past two seasons. They'll be in frenzy mode, how could they not be? And if that happens you have to wonder where Hamilton will find his greatest comfort, in God or in his addictions? He's had a couple of stumbles in Texas in an atmosphere that most might think is less hostile than Boston. Honestly I would have concerns if it were my money.

#47 bob burda

  • 591 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:16 PM

Why do I feel so certain god's going to lead Josh to the place that offers the most money?

Because the Lord has also been known to work in obvious as well as mysterious ways?

There's a Groening "LIfe in Hell" comic along these lines, with the two characters who wear a Fez - though in the one I'm thinking of one of them is wearing a Turban and is posing as a guru, and the other is without any head wear. They go back and forth, with the one character giving the guru a $20 bill from a stack of 20s in every few frames and continually asking whether he has achieved enlightenment. In the final frames the guy hands over his last $20, and the guru gets up to depart saying "thank you, you have now achieved enlightenment."

The organization that signs Hamilton will be similarly blessed. My thinking is the Red Sox have already achieved enlightenment on this issue (evidence: the Punto Trade) and no longer need to pay for the privilege.

#48 dcmissle


  • SoSH Member


  • 12152 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:17 PM

Regardless of the terms of the deal? Really? What is it that they are supposed to have learned, exactly, that would preclude signing Hamilton to any deal under any circumstances?


Oh, not to spend big money like it's burning a hole in your pocket because "we just have to do SOMETHING". Lackey is Exhibit A, Crawford Exhibit B and somebody will be foolish enough to pay him big money. After all, somebody was foolish enough to assume the Crawford contract.

#49 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 11446 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 01:56 PM

Oh, not to spend big money like it's burning a hole in your pocket because "we just have to do SOMETHING". Lackey is Exhibit A, Crawford Exhibit B and somebody will be foolish enough to pay him big money. After all, somebody was foolish enough to assume the Crawford contract.


OK, so what I'm hearing is that by "if they sign him" you meant "if they give him the $100M+ deal that he's certainly gonna get from somebody." And I agree, if they go that big with him they haven't learned from their mistakes. You only go there (if at all) for the absolute sure things. And he is not one.

#50 Plympton91


  • loves a good bowl haircut


  • 6326 posts

Posted 07 October 2012 - 04:20 PM

Oh, not to spend big money like it's burning a hole in your pocket because "we just have to do SOMETHING". Lackey is Exhibit A, Crawford Exhibit B and somebody will be foolish enough to pay him big money. After all, somebody was foolish enough to assume the Crawford contract.


Why do you see the Lackey and Crawford deals as ones that were justified based on "We just have to do SOMETHING!" They affirmatively chose to pass on Matt Holliday and pay John Lackey and Mike Cameron basically the same amount of money. Given how aggressively they went after Crawford, and how generally well-prepared they were, one might surmise that the decision to pass on Holliday and go after Lackey instead was linked to the desire to chase after Crawford the following offseason. Everything about the Crawford signing suggests that it was highly deliberate, and based on what they thought were state of the art defensive metrics that would give them an advantage over other teams. Likewise, they affirmatively chose to let Beltre walk, trade for Gonzalez, and give the latter a massive contract. The affirmatively chose to let Papelbon walk and then trade Reddick for Bailey and Lowrie for Melancon. So, in the end, the problem is not that the Red Sox spent too much money, it is that they spent too much money on the wrong players. If they'd signed Holliday and Beltre and Papelbon instead of Lackey, Crawford, and Gonzalez, then nobody would be complaining about the Red Sox forays into the big-ticket free-agent/trade-and-sign market over the past 3 seasons.

Sunk costs should not influence current decisions, and past-performance is no guarantee of future results--good or bad. Every decision should be evaluated solely on the basis of facts specific to that case. The Red Sox need a rightfielder who can hit in the middle of the lineup. Josh Hamilton is available. He has warts. He has things to recommend. It all comes down to the years and the dollars for his specific contract. What happened with previous contracts should have no bearing whatsoever, except in so much as it causes them to reevaluate the quality of their internal defensive metrics or if a season without a closer causes them to remember that baseball teams have to perform on the field and not in a computer simulation where you can pick up a player from a different city or from a different role and have them perform the same way.

Edited by Plympton91, 07 October 2012 - 04:24 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users