297 replies to this topic

[Rough Carrigan]

There was a recent comment from Theo to the effect that for a couple years there the team signed a few guys for the sake of doing something.

[knucklecup]

If you're going to throw a lot of money at a player with off the field issues, you surely choose the ace pitcher in Greinke over the oft-injured corner outfielder who can be filled at $10 mil per - possibly less - for a guy like BJ Upton.

I'm beginning to go in a direction better suited for the other thread, but I don't feel as if Hamilton is the best way to allocate your now freed up money.

Edited by knucklecup, 07 October 2012 - 09:20 PM.

[SoxFanPJ]

Does MLB's Joint Drug Prevention and Treatmemt Program prevent teams for writing a contractual clause that would allow them to void Hamilton's contract if he relapsed with drug use?

"M. Exclusive Discipline
All authority to discipline Players for violations of the Program shall repose with the Commissioner’s Office. No Club may take any disciplinary or adverse action against a Player (including, but not limited to, a fine, suspension, or any adverse action pursuant to a Uniform Player’s Contract) because of a Player’s violation of the Program. Nothing in this Section 7.M is intended to address whether: (i) a Club may take adverse action in response to a Player’s failure to render his services due to a disability resulting directly from a physical injury or mental condition arising from his violation of the Program; or (ii) a Club may withhold salary from a Player for any period he is unavailable because of legal proceedings or incarceration arising from his violation of the Program." http://mlbplayers.ml.../pa/pdf/jda.pdf

It looks like it only addresses MLB administered tests and doesn't specify if the team/player can contract for their own private testing.

Having the ability to void Hamilton's contract probably in exchange for a no trade clause would be the only way I could rationalize signing him. I would be loath to imagine the MLBPA allowing that though. Of course that doesn't even address the issue of alcohol abuse or the knee problems.

Red flags galore. I think I'd be more interested in the likely cheaper Mike Napoli at 1B full time.

[Plympton91]

If he tested positive for any hard drugs, which would be the only way the Red Sox could enforce a termination clause, he'd also be suspended by the league, without pay, for 50 games on a first offense, 100 on a second, etc. So, they're effectively not paying him either way.

[gammoseditor]

I think they should make a run at him because he is the best bat that is going to hit free agency the next few years, and they have the money. I understand the red flags and because of them wouldn't go more than 4 years, unless a 5 year deal was very reasonable. But I don't see how a 4/100 deal would hurt them from going after anyone else they would want to. I don't get why some people would rather they reduce payroll by $40 million than "overpay" someone. You don't get to use that saved money on anything of value, and there's no one next offseason, or the one after, that spending the money is going to prevent you from aquiring.

[TomRicardo]

This isn't a yes or no question. Clearly if he wanted to come here for a League Minimum only a crazy person would say no. It is rather what is your salary pain threshold. Also what will be his market.

I really have no feel for his market right now. Could the Yankees or Phillies be in? Would the Nationals throw money at him. Does Texas want to invest in him again? San Francisco still need a bat?

The market is extremely hard to predict right now. Also I think that Cody Ross and Shane Victorino while being inferior talent will set the market because of Hamilton's red flags. It will be interesting to see who is spending now with the new CBA.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I don't get why some people would rather they reduce payroll by $40 million than "overpay" someone. You don't get to use that saved money on anything of value, and there's no one next offseason, or the one after, that spending the money is going to prevent you from aquiring.

Isn't that attitude (spend it, it won't hamstring us in the future) what led to the Crawford overpay, and the Gonzalez trade/extension, and the Lackey signing? And then they found themselves up against the luxury tax threshold and unable to really spend last off-season?

You overspend for the prime years of generational talents. Hamilton for the next four to five years is neither going to be in his prime nor a generational talent, and that's without factoring the red flags of his seeming inability to stay on the field and his past addiction issues.

A short term (2-3 years), high value contract might pan out for the team, but there's no way he settles for something like that in his first and hopefully only foray into the free agent market.

[gammoseditor]

Isn't that attitude (spend it, it won't hamstring us in the future) what led to the Crawford overpay, and the Gonzalez trade/extension, and the Lackey signing? And then they found themselves up against the luxury tax threshold and unable to really spend last off-season?

You overspend for the prime years of generational talents. Hamilton for the next four to five years is neither going to be in his prime nor a generational talent, and that's without factoring the red flags of his seeming inability to stay on the field and his past addiction issues.

A short term (2-3 years), high value contract might pan out for the team, but there's no way he settles for something like that in his first and hopefully only foray into the free agent market.

I would argue that both Crawford would have been a very worthwhile risk on a 4 year deal and Gonzalez would have been a bargain at 4 years. I would also argue that the Red Sox are in much better financial shape right now than they were when they signed both Crawford and Gonzalez, and if they had only signed one and not the other, they would not have been in financial trouble. Crawford's output in Boston was the worst case scenario, but every player is going to have risk when you sign them.

I agree that you should only give a mega-contract like Crawford and Gonzalez got on a generational talent, but what generational talent is going to be a free agent in the next 4 years? You say a 3 year contract might work out but there's no way he settle for that. I'm only one year beyond your opinion, and I think there's a chance he ends up with that, but it's a strong possibility he gets a better offer.

[Rudy Pemberton]

Crawford and Lackey weren't huge problems on their own (after all, the team won 90 games with them both struggling in '11). It was the combination of all of the players who underperformed (Sox spent ~$100MM on 0 WAR in '11, for example), the lack of replacements coming up to provide cheap production, while the last batch got more expensive, and several crappy trades which got the team in the situation they're in (and of course, bad luck). It's basically just lousy talent evaluation. I get that free agent signings and trades are risky, but you have to assume risk in order to build a contender, more so if you want to do it quickly. How else can they rebuild this club?

[TheGoldenGreek33]

As an aside: Hamilton swung and missed at 20% of pitches this year (4.5% more than the second highest).

[Plympton91]

Crawford and Lackey weren't huge problems on their own (after all, the team won 90 games with them both struggling in '11). It was the combination of all of the players who underperformed (Sox spent ~$100MM on 0 WAR in '11, for example), the lack of replacements coming up to provide cheap production, while the last batch got more expensive, and several crappy trades which got the team in the situation they're in (and of course, bad luck). It's basically just lousy talent evaluation. I get that free agent signings and trades are risky, but you have to assume risk in order to build a contender, more so if you want to do it quickly. How else can they rebuild this club?

Requoted for truth, especially the bolded part. The problem is not the extent to which they attempted to use free agency, trades, or building through the farm. The problem is that they've been giving away more money and more talent than they've been getting back in return. Does the A's heist in the Reddick and Head for Bailey and Sweeney trade mean they shouldn't make anymore trades? Anthony Ranaudo looks like a $4 million bust too, and Iglesias has 1 more season to learn how to make himself more valuable than Mario Mendoza before he becomes an $8 million bust. Does that mean they shouldn't take anymore high-ceiling, hard-sign amateurs?

It bears repeating that if they'd signed Matt Holliday, Adrian Beltre, and Jonathan Papelbon, nobody would be complaining about how little value they were getting from free agents. They didn't sign Lackey and Crawford and trade for Gonzalez because they had money burning a hole in their pockets; they signed them instead of signing other players that were plenty available to them. They didn't err in spending money, they erred in who they spent money to acquire.

Edited by Plympton91, 08 October 2012 - 03:17 PM.

[Toe Nash]

But you can overcome a $4 mil and $8 mil bust (over multiple years) relatively easily. You can't overcome the Crawford and Lackey deals without getting a once-in-a-lifetime trade and giving up a cornerstone piece in A-Gon. Therefore, it's a bigger risk, and yes you can easily say they shouldn't sign anymore even slightly risky free agents to long-term deals at market value.

If you're going to portion out blame for the team's problems the last couple years, Lackey and Crawford, as over a fifth of the payroll, are right up there if not at the top. Someone like Bailey not working out is way down the list.

[MoGator71]

Considering what their needs are and where they're likely to be competitiveness-wise I'd much rather they sign Melky Cabrera to a one-year reestablish-his-value deal like they did with Beltre. And obviously not for the dollars they gave Beltre. It's very low-risk, because he's not getting a big deal from anyone, and it's not as if they'd be torpedoing their WS chances if their starting LF gets dinged for a 100-game PED suspension. Far better than going long-term on a guy who's likely to break down.

I see the chances of a Melky signing as about 0% though. The PR situation being what it is there's no way they bring in a PED cheater. But I'd consider it, depending on what kind of other offers he gets.

[Plympton91]

But you can overcome a $4 mil and $8 mil bust (over multiple years) relatively easily. You can't overcome the Crawford and Lackey deals without getting a once-in-a-lifetime trade and giving up a cornerstone piece in A-Gon. Therefore, it's a bigger risk, and yes you can easily say they shouldn't sign anymore even slightly risky free agents to long-term deals at market value.

If you're going to portion out blame for the team's problems the last couple years, Lackey and Crawford, as over a fifth of the payroll, are right up there if not at the top. Someone like Bailey not working out is way down the list.

Suppose they'd signed Beltre instead of Lackey and Holliday instead of Crawford, passed on Gonzalez and then used the payroll flexibility created by Youkilis's below market contract and Rizzo's emergence to overpay for Paplebon. Would anyone be complaining? At all? Their problem was not that they signed free agents; their problem was that they signed the wrong free agents.

[maufman]

Suppose they'd signed Beltre instead of Lackey and Holliday instead of Crawford, passed on Gonzalez and then used the payroll flexibility created by Youkilis's below market contract and Rizzo's emergence to overpay for Paplebon. Would anyone be complaining? At all? Their problem was not that they signed free agents; their problem was that they signed the wrong free agents.

Beltre's deal looked as bad ex ante as Lackey's and Crawford's, no one anticipated Rizzo's emergence, and no one thought Papelbon wouldn't be worth the money his first year in Philly.

Sure, the Sox did badly, and perhaps that's more than just bad luck, but there are plenty of other examples in baseball that serve as cautionary tales about signing free agents to big, long-term contracts.

[Dogman2]

Suppose they'd signed Beltre instead of Lackey and Holliday instead of Crawford, passed on Gonzalez and then used the payroll flexibility created by Youkilis's below market contract and Rizzo's emergence to overpay for Paplebon. Would anyone be complaining? At all? Their problem was not that they signed free agents; their problem was that they signed the wrong free agents.

Using hindsight in this instance is foolish.

Comparing performance after the signings and using that information to say which players they should have signed, given that it did not work in the Sox favor, is pretty silly. Lackey and Crawford, like Beltre and Holiday, were both very good before coming to the Sox. Further, the concerns about all 4 players were well noted. Beltre had one good year out of 5 and Holiday had concerns hitting away from Coors. Likewise, Lackey had some decline peripherals and Crawford had questions about his defense being mitigated in LF in Fenway. So, using your conclusion, the team did not evaluate properly. Using your logic, can you tell me what evaluation methods should have been in practice given what we know now?

I think you will find a universal hatred for the Papelbon contract the Phillies threw at him. It's too long and for too much money for a 1 inning guy who only throws when the team is winning. Additionally, I think everyone thought the Rizzo, etc. for Gonzalez is a no brainer no matter the upside.

If you rephrase, you can use your last statement each year whenever a prospect flames out:
Their problem wasn't that they drafted guys, it's that they drafted the wrong guys.

Edited by Dogman2, 08 October 2012 - 06:39 PM.

[Captaincoop]

No one anticipated Rizzo's emergence? What point in time are you referencing? He was projected as a potential major league star at least as far back as when the Sox traded him. He was 23 this past year, so that's not an unlikely time for him to start breaking out.

edit: Not saying I have a problem with trading Rizzo in a Gonzo deal (I was ecstatic about it at the time), but that assertion seems to be false.

Edited by Captaincoop, 08 October 2012 - 06:12 PM.

[mikeford]

I honestly feel like a guy whos constantly at war with his alcohol and drug addictions coming to Boston means either "relapse" or "become total shut in", neither of which seem like healthy mental states for a guy you're planking down 20m+ a year for.

Pass.

[Toe Nash]

Suppose they'd signed Beltre instead of Lackey and Holliday instead of Crawford, passed on Gonzalez and then used the payroll flexibility created by Youkilis's below market contract and Rizzo's emergence to overpay for Paplebon. Would anyone be complaining? At all? Their problem was not that they signed free agents; their problem was that they signed the wrong free agents.

Certainly if they were 100% correct about everything then things would be hunky-dory. But that's not really the point because no team is that good. And even if they were, Beltre could get hit in the wrist and never be the same hitter. Ten misses on international signings is about as damaging, money-wise, as one Crawford.

There are teams that never sign long market-value free agents because they can't really afford them, and they do just as well as teams like the Sox. You can easily jettison that strategy.

[Plympton91]

Certainly if they were 100% correct about everything then things would be hunky-dory. But that's not really the point because no team is that good. And even if they were, Beltre could get hit in the wrist and never be the same hitter. Ten misses on international signings is about as damaging, money-wise, as one Crawford.

There are teams that never sign long market-value free agents because they can't really afford them, and they do just as well as teams like the Sox. You can easily jettison that strategy.

The Red Sox have made the playoffs in 9 of the past 17 years (post '94 strike that changed the financial landscape); they made it in 8 of the past 14 following the Pedro Martinez trade that marked the Red Sox return to "big market" status. Among those playoff appearances are 2 World Series titles (04, 07) and 3 other appearances in the League Championship Series (99, 03, 08). Which teams that never sign big-time free agents can match that record of sustained success over a similarly long time frame? The Rays of the past 5 years have a nice start with 3 playoff appearances and 1 world series loss; let's see if they can win 2 championship rounds and make it to the semifinals of the new postseason tournament twice more over the next decade without signing major free agents.

Using hindsight in this instance is foolish.

Why? GMs are paid to make the right decisions. When they get it wrong repeatedly over a sample of three seasons, you use hindsight to evaluate the judgments of your scouts and to recalibrate your age-progression models and state-of-the-art defensive metrics in order to not make the same mistakes again going forward. You don't just say, "Well, it made sense at the time; let's keep doing what we're doing!"

The Lackey signing was universally panned on SOSH by both statistical analysts and the more scouting-oriented among us. I would say that ex ante, 75 percent of SOSH was against that signing.

Further, at least one SOSH poster is on record at the time Texas completed the contract as saying the Red Sox would regret allowing him to leave. You're right that most liked the Gonzalez trade, but the Gonzalez trade was absolutely intertwined with the Beltre decision. They decided that Beltre, Rizzo, and Kelly were worth Gonzalez and two draft compensation picks.

But the pros and cons of the signings are not really my point. I'm fine with the "hindsight is 20/20" argument. However, several people have claimed that the Red Sox spent money on Lackey, Crawford, and Gonzalez because they "had money laying around and needed to spend it on somebody." My point is that such a conclusion is wrong. They had a lot of choices about how to spend that money. None of those signings was a result of throwing money at the last available option. They had options in every case. They chose the wrong option. For instance, in the winter of 2010-2011 It wasn't a case of "spending money just because it was there," it was a case of spending money and prospects on Gonzalez rather than just spending money on Beltre.

[soxfan121]

I honestly feel like a guy whos constantly at war with his alcohol and drug addictions coming to Boston means either "relapse" or "become total shut in", neither of which seem like healthy mental states for a guy you're planking down 20m+ a year for.

I concur. I am concerned that the Boston Market is a particularly bad place for a guy with any issues. So add Zach Greinke to the "Do Not Call" list, please.

Additionally, Tom Ricardo has the best summation of the primary factor in play with this question: if he wants to play in Boston for 1 or 2 years at the league minimum or something south of $25M/season, then the team would be stupid not to pursue it. But if Hamilton wants "market value", there is no way Boston should be involved. The pressures are too great, the market too harsh & unforgiving, and the team is not one player away.

[Gunfighter 09]

I concur. I am concerned that the Boston Market is a particularly bad place for a guy with any issues. So add Zach Greinke to the "Do Not Call" list, please.

Additionally, Tom Ricardo has the best summation of the primary factor in play with this question: if he wants to play in Boston for 1 or 2 years at the league minimum or something south of $25M/season, then the team would be stupid not to pursue it. But if Hamilton wants "market value", there is no way Boston should be involved. The pressures are too great, the market too harsh & unforgiving, and the team is not one player away.

I feel like this question is almost impossible to answer until we know who the manager is going to be next year. Put me in the "with the right manager, for less than $20M per and 4 years" category.

[Dogman2]

Why? GMs are paid to make the right decisions.

Agreed.

When they get it wrong repeatedly over a sample of three seasons

Nevermind the ridiculous hyperbole, this is incorrect. I don't recall you or anyone saying a single thing last season when the team was on pace for 100 wins. Answer me this, what did the GM get wrong there?

use hindsight to evaluate the judgments of your scouts and to recalibrate your age-progression models and state-of-the-art defensive metrics in order to not make the same mistakes again going forward. You don't just say, "Well, it made sense at the time; let's keep doing what we're doing!

I already pointed out that all four players we are talking about had their flaws prior to being signed so I'm not sure what you are talking about. We knew these flaws by our following the team based on stat based metrics we know the team uses. A recalibration would not have made these flaws of all 4 disappear or make the Sox sign the other guys. Moreover, they have not continued to make boneheaded spending moves or signed guys that couldn't defend. So, again, what are you talking about?
In any event, Lackey is a pitcher and, at the time, the rotation needed a pitcher and the team signed the best available that FA year. Nobody thought he would be as bad as he was prior to his injury.

The Lackey signing was universally panned on SOSH by both statistical analysts and the more scouting-oriented among us. I would say that ex ante, 75 percent of SOSH was against that signing.

I didn't like it either but there is no way anyone would think, based on his prior 3 years, he would be as bad as he was in 2011. All of us figured him to be 200 innings, 4.2-4.5 ERA. To say otherwise is dishonest.

Further, at least one SOSH poster is on record at the time Texas completed the contract as saying the Red Sox would regret allowing him to leave. You're right that most liked the Gonzalez trade, but the Gonzalez trade was absolutely intertwined with the Beltre decision. They decided that Beltre, Rizzo, and Kelly were worth Gonzalez and two draft compensation picks.

Not a single SoSHer was saying Beltre would not be worth a 3 year deal. In fact, most of wanted him for 3 years. You are basing your judgement on year 2 of his 5 year gig. It's the last 2 most of us were very worried about and rightfully so given his Seattle years, injury history and age. Let's wait for years 4 and 5 before judgment.

But the pros and cons of the signings are not really my point. I'm fine with the "hindsight is 20/20" argument. However, several people have claimed that the Red Sox spent money on Lackey, Crawford, and Gonzalez because they "had money laying around and needed to spend it on somebody." My point is that such a conclusion is wrong. They had a lot of choices about how to spend that money. None of those signings was a result of throwing money at the last available option. They had options in every case. They chose the wrong option. For instance, in the winter of 2010-2011 It wasn't a case of "spending money just because it was there," it was a case of spending money and prospects on Gonzalez rather than just spending money on Beltre.

Again, none of this supports your point that they evaluated poorly. All of the flaws of all 4 were known. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean they were poor choices at the time. Evaluations and predictions were based off of prior performances which suggested there was value in the signings and non-signings.

Either way, my point is that using hindsight in this case is foolish based on expectations of the signings at the time given their prior work and predictions.

Edited by Dogman2, 08 October 2012 - 10:29 PM.

[Bergs]

Good new piece on Grantland:


http://www.grantland...rint?id=8477213

The Story swallowed the man. Hamilton seems like a reasonably friendly, occasionally defensive guy who is teetering on the edge of sobriety, who is prone to inconvenient bouts of detachment, and who gets hurt a lot. When he goes to his next team, I hope a new story will start there. But I have a sinking feeling that every time he loses a fly ball, Hamilton will again be a prisoner of redemption, trapped in a tale too flawless for any man.

[Rough Carrigan]

I think you should have quoted the part where the Fort Worth Star Telegram says that now the Texas Rangers don't want Hamilton back even if it was for FREE.

That has to give one pause, doesn't it?

[Spacemans Bong]

I think you should have quoted the part where the Fort Worth Star Telegram says that now the Texas Rangers don't want Hamilton back even if it was for FREE.

That has to give one pause, doesn't it?

That strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Hamilton sucked, looked a little disinterested and we don't know what else went on for the last couple of weeks. But not wanting him back even if it was for free? Um, OK. Sure bro.

[MoGator71]

That strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Hamilton sucked, looked a little disinterested and we don't know what else went on for the last couple of weeks. But not wanting him back even if it was for free? Um, OK. Sure bro.

Probably a bit of hyperbole, but considering the Sox sent Manny to LA and paid the freight on him I think you could make the case that they didn't want him for free...I could easily see the Rangers feeling the same way about Hamilton.

[Rough Carrigan]

That strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bath water. Hamilton sucked, looked a little disinterested and we don't know what else went on for the last couple of weeks. But not wanting him back even if it was for free? Um, OK. Sure bro.

I was thinking of it more from the angle that they couldn't possibly think those grievances alone were worth giving up on him, so there must be something else about him that they really don't like.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I was thinking of it more from the angle that they couldn't possibly think those grievances alone were worth giving up on him, so there must be something else about him that they really don't like.

Well, Nolan Ryan's grumpy that Hamilton gave up chew in the middle of the season, so maybe it's just the accumulation of small things that's led them to this point.

[Corsi]

CHICAGO -- Could the Boston Red Sox become a player for Josh Hamilton?

While several less-monied teams have been speculated as players for the superstar outfielder, some suggest to keep an eye on the Red Sox.

"Boston wants to do something big and it wouldn't shock me if they became players for Josh Hamilton,'' one competing GM said.

Red Sox owner John Henry gave a succinct answer when asked what he'd like to do this winter.

"Improve the team,'' he said.

The Red Sox have all but ruled out Zack Greinke. They don't believe he's right for their market, though don't feel too sorry for Greinke, as he'll have the Angels, Dodgers, Rangers and many others pursuing him.

The Red Sox admit they are giving some thought to Hamilton. They need two outfielders, and the belief has been that they are more inclined to fill multiple holes with multiple medium-priced players than go for the big splash in the wake of the failure that was the Carl Crawford contract.

However, with Crawford dispatched (along with Adrian Gonalzez and Josh Beckett), they have a lot of money, and it is known they have at least checked in on free-agent outfieler Michael Bourn. The impression left at the GM meetings was that they were involved in more things than anyone else.

"We have a lot of flexibility,'' owner John Henry said.

Mariners president Chuck Armstrong said here that they are "looking at'' Hamilton. The Brewers, Orioles and maybe the Braves are seen as possibilities for Hamilton.

The Red Sox have the ability to beat all those teams in a bidding situation if they desire. And Henry suggested the dissolution of his investment business won't hurt the team. "It's had no impact on me financially,'' Henry said.

He didn't mention anything about Hamilton. But the speculation is just getting started.

http://www.cbssports...r-josh-hamilton

[RedOctober3829]

God no. Stay far, far away from Hamilton. You'll be paying for his declining years and he's injury prone.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I'd be more interested in Hamilton than Michael Bourn (with his career line of 272 / 339 / 365), but yeah, it certainly has the potential to be a disaster. But, that's kind of the way it goes. If you want to improve your team quickly, you're going to have to assume a lot of risk.

[CPT Neuron]

Not even with someone else's money........risk astornomical (health, behavioral, etc.) despite potential rewards (which are all predicated on complete absence of any risk arising)

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

If they went after Hamilton it would be the clearest sign yet that they learned nothing from the Crawford/Lackey contracts.

[greek_gawd_of_walks]

Hamilton has the luck and misfortune of Eeyore and Charlie Brown all rolled into one, but compounded by past hard drug and alcohol habits.

An unequivocal pass in my book.

[SoxScout]

Cherington said today they have checked in as due diligence. Seems like a good opportunity for the agent to spread the word the Red Sox are interested.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

This sounds like a writer throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it sticks so he can say he was out ahead of a story. The Red Sox have concerns about Boston not being a good market for Greinke but they're OK with pursuing Hamilton? How does that make sense?

I'm just going to assume there's nothing brewing here beyond the typical due diligence phone call to Hamilton's agent.

Edit: SoxScout beat me to it.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 15 November 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[SMU_Sox]

On our nightly walk my wife and I were talking about qualitative versus quantitative analysis last night and how sometimes you need to weigh one more than the other. In this situation I would take the numbers, great as they may be (even if Hamilton isn't a lock to stay healthy), and put them aside. Can Josh Hamilton, a man who has and is struggling with addiction, perform in the pressure cooker that is Boston? I wouldn't want to put someone with those characteristics here. The other thing is this: we'd be signing him for his 32-3X+ years (He turns 32 in May). Why take the risk? If he is someone who would get us to the playoffs again or be the final piece or two of the puzzle I could see the Sox taking the risk with him. But he isn't. No need to build your new foundation with such a risky investment. Pass for Boston.

[yecul]

Look at this board for all the evidence you need as to why this is going to happen. A large portion of the fanbase -- and we're supposed to be the smart diehard ones -- will stop paying attention if they do not rebound. Fans still expect 100 win seasons and super awesome rainbow bukkake scenes and when that doesn't happen the TV will be turned off.

The smart move would be to not sign Hamilton to a big/long deal. The splashy get attention and give the 100 win folks hope would be to get him on the 2013 roster.

We'll see where the priorities lie -- smart, long term focus or short term ratings. Lately they've either just made retarded calls or have prioritized the latter. Probably both.

[gammoseditor]

I was a Josh Hamilton person at the start of the offseason but I've come around to the popular opinion. fWAR might not be perfect but I think it's the best shorthand stat for overall performence, and Hamilton the last two years has not been a superstar. He's averaged 4.2 a year for the last two years. He's also averaged 135 games, so even if you project to a full healthy season with normal rest, he doesn't look like a superstar. I still believe he's a very good player, but he's looking for MVP money.

All that being said, John Henry is quoted above saying, "We have a lot of flexibility." They have a ton of money to spend and no obvious places to spend it on. It's going to be a very interesting offseason.

[sachilles]

Past substance abuse aside, I think he's a poor fit. His age and injury history is what gives me pause. Pay out for a one or two year deal, but nothing longer than that. However, I don't think a one or two year deal gets it done for him. Someone else will give him a longer deal and he'd be foolish not to take it.
Dealing with the past substance abuse stuff would be a distraction, but I think that is a known quantity. I don't think the environment in Boston would be any worse for him than Texas. Half the games are on the road. It's hard to be anonymous in Boston, as serious as the town is about baseball, I don't see him gaining enough space to go on a bender. He'd be snitched on before he has a chance to get any thrills.

[reggiecleveland]

The devil is in the details. I see no harm in the Sox hanging around to see if his price drops. Every team, including the team he just played for has reservations about him. I don't see a 7/180 out there for him. Maybe a better question than the poll is at what terms would you take him?

4/80? 5/90? 3/60?

[maufman]

The devil is in the details. I see no harm in the Sox hanging around to see if his price drops. Every team, including the team he just played for has reservations about him. I don't see a 7/180 out there for him. Maybe a better question than the poll is at what terms would you take him?

4/80? 5/90? 3/60?

Agreed. Hamilton is not going to get Prince Fielder money. He is, however, a 4-win player at a position of need (albeit not a hard position to fill).

In the unlikely event his price dropped to 5/80, I'd be interested.

[glennhoffmania]

On our nightly walk my wife and I were talking about qualitative versus quantitative analysis last night and how sometimes you need to weigh one more than the other. In this situation I would take the numbers, great as they may be (even if Hamilton isn't a lock to stay healthy), and put them aside. Can Josh Hamilton, a man who has and is struggling with addiction, perform in the pressure cooker that is Boston? I wouldn't want to put someone with those characteristics here. The other thing is this: we'd be signing him for his 32-3X+ years (He turns 32 in May). Why take the risk? If he is someone who would get us to the playoffs again or be the final piece or two of the puzzle I could see the Sox taking the risk with him. But he isn't. No need to build your new foundation with such a risky investment. Pass for Boston.

More importantly, what did Mrs. L think?

I'm going to give Ben the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's only kicking the tires to drive up the price for whoever ends up with him.

[Rovin Romine]

All that being said, John Henry is quoted above saying, "We have a lot of flexibility." They have a ton of money to spend and no obvious places to spend it on. It's going to be a very interesting offseason.

Overspending on Meh free agents won't get you anywhere. I suspect we see at least one trade with a team for their salary relief. Sox send fringe prospect(s), get 1) promising young player, 2) older player with bad contract (who can hopefully be marginalized or released.) It would essentially be converting cash into a good young player prior to their free agency. Trick is finding a trade partner that feels compelled to go that route. (I don't think the Marlins fall in that box at this point.)

As to the thread topic, "No" on Hamilton. Unless it's some kind of funky deal with a buyout option if he has a resurgence of his addiction issues. You're spending money on a time bomb who may be trending downward anyway.

[Worst Trade Evah]

At the right money I'd definitely be interested in Hamilton. If he's out there for something like 4/60, I would probably do that. He lost some strike zone command last year (down @10% in his contact rates), but was reasonably consistent before last year (that is, there doesn't seem to be a multi-year downward trend in his contact rates, though he was markedly down last year). He's a pretty exciting player with a ton of power, and the Red Sox could use an infusion of talent. Obviously, he's pretty high risk, but the age and injuries bother me more than the drugs at this point -- he's been back in baseball 5 or more years now and hasn't spiraled out of control yet. They have bars everywhere and all pro baseball is stressful, so I'm not sure I buy that Boston is all that much higher risk for him than other places.

I think people are taking the Crawford-Lackey contracts too strongly to heart.

edit: revised my numbers -- I would be disinclined to go more than $15 million a year for more than 4 years, so 4/60 would probably be my top end offer for Hamilton. That's probably a lot lower than what he'll end up getting from someone else.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 15 November 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'm going to give Ben the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's only kicking the tires to drive up the price for whoever ends up with him.

I agree. Cherington is going to do his due diligence on every free agent that might fit a need on this team, doesn't mean there's genuine or serious interest. And given the Red Sox position financially (lots of money to spend), there won't be a single free agent that won't be rumored to be talking to the Red Sox, even if it's just to try to scare another team into making a bigger offer. It's going to be hard to take any rumors or speculation regarding the Red Sox as hard truth this winter.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

It's more the years than the money that scares me with Hamilton. I have a hard time picturing him being an every day player in five years. I'd pay 20+ million on a short deal (2 or 3 years) with the hope that he holds out that long, but I have no illusions about him accepting such an offer.

[502 to Right]

On our nightly walk my wife and I were talking about qualitative versus quantitative analysis last night and how sometimes you need to weigh one more than the other.

I'm willing to bet these words have never before appeared consecutively in the history of the English language.

Edited by 502 to Right, 15 November 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Ted Cox 4 president]

Certainly not on SoSH.