297 replies to this topic

[TomRicardo]

I would prefer 60/3 to 80/5. Hell do 66/3. If you can pay him upfront short years, you do it and run. No one else is available and you have budget flexibility.

You do not give him more than 4 years however. Try to keep it to three.

[Gash Prex]

I really don't see a huge downside to a deal that would minimize the risk to the Sox if he gets hurt or has off the field issues. They made such a deal for Lackey, and I am sure that if Josh wants to maximize his value,there would be a creative deal that would meet the goals of both sides.

[gammoseditor]

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.

I don't think I said anywhere that overpaying "meh" free agents was the way to go, and your approach sounds great in practice, but as you admit the trick is finding a trading partner. Beyond finding a trading partner, the devil is in the details. How good is the young player and how bad is the contract?

[Rovin Romine]

I don't think I said anywhere that overpaying "meh" free agents was the way to go. . .

Sorry if I implied that you did - I was thinking about your point about having lots of money and no obvious target to spend it on. Hence the "meh" comment, which agrees with what you wrote - no obvious targets.

[Lose Remerswaal]

it's too bad the poll is limited in the contract offering options, as I'd be interested, but not under those parameters.

[maufman]

it's too bad the poll is limited in the contract offering options, as I'd be interested, but not under those parameters.

Ideally, it would be written in terms of overall guaranteed dollars, as that's probably how Hamilton will make his decision (e.g., 3/60 isn't going to get it done, because even if his market tanks, someone will offer 5/80).

[allaboutthesox]

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.

I am in this camp as well. It might be better for the Sox to sit back and let other teams try to set the market rather than the Red Sox. The Red Sox have the money to beat just about anyone for his services. The question becomes how many years will it take to get it done. IF the Red Sox should persue Hamilton, I really hope they do not go more than 4 years.

[C4CRVT]

What's a reasonable expectation for his performance over the next 3 years? His career avg is roughly.300/.360/.550 and he'll be sick defensively in RF. Who's else can provide that? I just don't see him falling off a cliff at age 32. I'm as unexcited as anyone to go 5 years at 20m plus

If Hamilton gets plugged into the lineup, doesn't that help offset the offensive black hole at SS in 2013? You're essentially picking him over extending Ellsbury and hoping that Brentz and Bradley (and maybe to a lesser extent Kalish and Sands) develop into the other 2/3 of the starting OF 2014 and beyond.(Edit- I guess I'm saying that Bradley/Brentz help pay for the later years of the Hamilton contract- the OF as a whole will still be in line cost wise and hopefully very productive).

Does signing Hamilton prevent us from signing Anibal Sanchez? Doesn't seem like it would.The long term prospects for the rotation worry me but that's a subject for another thread.

Edited by C4CRVT, 15 November 2012 - 04:55 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

The more I look at Hamilton, the more I think MDLTG got it right in post #7 of the thread. The real issue is not his addiction issues, nor his age, nor his injury-proneness. It's that he's not quite as elite a player as the conversation around him would suggest. Close, but not quite.

He's a very, very good hitter--even an outstanding hitter. But he's no Pujols or Cabrera. He hits the bejeezus out of the ball when he connects with it, but having said that, you've pretty much summed up his offensive bag of tricks. Over the six years he's been in the majors, Hamilton ranks 15th in wRC+ out of 100 players with 3000+ PA. Not even in the top 10%. Remove the shortened 2007 from the mix, and zoom in just on the five years in Texas, and he ranks 12th out of 103 players with 2500+ PA. Again, very very good. But not elite.

And defensively, he's either a pretty good LF or a mediocre CF. I think perceptions of him are goosed slightly by the idea that he's a CF, but really, he isn't. Or at least, you don't want him to be.

In short, he's probably only about a 6/$100M player even if there were no injury or addiction red flags. Given those issues, and his age, something like 4/$70M is probably right. And it seems highly likely that someone will give him more than that.

[allaboutthesox]

The more I look at Hamilton, the more I think MDLTG got it right in post #7 of the thread. The real issue is not his addiction issues, nor his age, nor his injury-proneness. It's that he's not quite as elite a player as the conversation around him would suggest. Close, but not quite.

He's a very, very good hitter--even an outstanding hitter. But he's no Pujols or Cabrera. He hits the bejeezus out of the ball when he connects with it, but having said that, you've pretty much summed up his offensive bag of tricks. Over the six years he's been in the majors, Hamilton ranks 15th in wRC+ out of 100 players with 3000+ PA. Not even in the top 10%. Remove the shortened 2007 from the mix, and zoom in just on the five years in Texas, and he ranks 12th out of 103 players with 2500+ PA. Again, very very good. But not elite.

And defensively, he's either a pretty good LF or a mediocre CF. I think perceptions of him are goosed slightly by the idea that he's a CF, but really, he isn't. Or at least, you don't want him to be.

In short, he's probably only about a 6/$100M player even if there were no injury or addiction red flags. Given those issues, and his age, something like 4/$70M is probably right. And it seems highly likely that someone will give him more than that.

That number seems a bit low (4/$70M) even though he might not be considered "elite" based on the numbers you listed. I am wondering that other players with similar numbers over the past 5 years have a much higher AAV on their contracts. (Not that I am saying the Red Sox should base said potential contract on those numbers either)

Edited by allaboutthesox, 15 November 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

4/70 is $17.5M a year for the age 32-35 seasons of a guy who has averaged .291/.350/.558 over the past two years--basically, Adrian Beltre offense. And Beltre signed for 5/$80 at exactly the same age Hamilton is now. I think it's reasonable to say that Hamilton is a less attractive candidate to go 5 years on than Beltre was; go a year less, spike the AAV a bit to compensate, and voila 4/70.

Admittedly, by just focusing on the past two years I'm ignoring Hamilton's fabulous 2010. But it's hard for me to see a reason not to ignore it for purposes of calculating his likely future value. He has established a pretty stable offensive level over most of his career; he's a 130-to-140 OPS+ guy. 2010, in that context, is a career year that doesn't seem likely to be repeated.

[SMU_Sox]

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

It was an interesting conversation and didn't start with sports. Josh got the Dez Bryant treatment down here (or maybe I should say Dez got the Josh Hamilton treatment). He needs someone to be with him at all time to make sure he stays out of trouble. I usually agree with SH. His numerical analysis is correct in that Hamilton is a very good 4+ fWAR (fwiw) player but someone who is not worth huge money. I disagree though that you shouldn't focus on his makeup. The guy didn't play baseball from 2004-2006. He slumped this year because he was dealing with quitting chew for religious reasons. This is a recovering addict who is still struggling with it. Is Boston a place where a person with this profile can succeed for the Sox? I'm skeptical. Every free agent has risk. With Hamilton you have mental health risks, physical risks, and age risks. Will his years of drug abuse cause him to age even quicker? Just so many question marks. And for a team that is rebuilding I don't see him being worth that risk.

On a personal note, I like Hamilton. It's great to see someone pull himself up from the bottom and succeed. He has that old school Charlie Hustle it.

[SoxLegacy]

While I think it's great that Hamilton has turned his life around, I really don't want to see him on the Sox. To me, he just isn't worth the risk for a variety of reasons as enumerated by many above. I also think that the Red Sox would be somewhat foolish to sign what well could turn out to be a PR problem--not so much Hamilton himself, but the press would be all over him and the organization--almost as if waiting for something bad to happen.

[Rasputin]

He slumped this year because he was dealing with quitting chew for religious reasons.

Wait, what?

I don't know what confuses me more, the notion that there is a religious reason to not chew tobacco, or that it's stronger than the idea of losing your face to cancer.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I don't know what confuses me more, the notion that there is a religious reason to not chew tobacco, or that it's stronger than the idea of losing your face to cancer.

Remember, you don't need an actual tongue to speak in tongues.

[allaboutthesox]

4/70 is $17.5M a year for the age 32-35 seasons of a guy who has averaged .291/.350/.558 over the past two years--basically, Adrian Beltre offense. And Beltre signed for 5/$80 at exactly the same age Hamilton is now. I think it's reasonable to say that Hamilton is a less attractive candidate to go 5 years on than Beltre was; go a year less, spike the AAV a bit to compensate, and voila 4/70.

Admittedly, by just focusing on the past two years I'm ignoring Hamilton's fabulous 2010. But it's hard for me to see a reason not to ignore it for purposes of calculating his likely future value. He has established a pretty stable offensive level over most of his career; he's a 130-to-140 OPS+ guy. 2010, in that context, is a career year that doesn't seem likely to be repeated.

Not that I didn't believe you but I ran some numbers and Beltre was a good comparison in regards to the age and numbers the two years leading into their FA year. The only difference is the number of HR, RBI, OBP, and SLG between the two with Hamilton having the better numbers in that same time span. I am assuming that you factored that into your 4/$70M number as well.

I will even go a bit further and even say that 4/70 might be a bit of an overpay. Especially when one considers dWAR for Beltre as compared to Hamilton (2.2, 2.4 Beltre and -0.2, -1.4 Hamilton). Hopefully, this post didn't come off snarky as I am in agreement with you.

[MikeM]

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.

Same. although i personally wouldn't blink much at going a little longer. As beyond the endless stream of overly-optimistic and hypothetical possibilities that are going to be presented all winter (and have little to no chance of happening), i just don't see much else in the form of an "impact" option realistically being out there for us atm.

These claims of Hamilton not being "elite" enough for a 4 year contract at big money, in this modern day era of free agency no less, borders on the absurd as well imo. It also conveniently skims over the fact that

A. We are not exactly looking like a destination of choice these days in any potential "we'll offer you the same amount as the next team is" pitch to get elite vets to come play here

B. The truly elite rarely become available in the first place, and if/when they do, it's for lifetime contracts nowadays.

C. Attempting to comp him to Beltre really doesn't work, as at the core he got that 5/$80m with a single established season of production behind it, and is arguably playing out to be more of an exception in the hunt for value in free agency rather then the some standard we can reasonably measure others against.

As far as impact FA bats go nowadays, Hamilton is essentially as good as you are going to find out of a non-1B FA option now or in the near future. Not to mention he represents a gigantic upgrade in our hope to have fighting chance these next few seasons, and would go a long ways towards stabilizing the current lineup. If the opportunity ends up being there to grab/add that kind talent to the mix on a 4 year commitment, Ben would be rather foolish not to jump at it.

[DanoooME]

It's a slightly outdated comparison, but what about the Sox' last big ticket OF, J.D. Drew?

Drew age 26-30 OPS+ - 106, 132, 157, 145, 126 age 31-35 with Sox - 105, 138, 134. 109, 68
Hamilton age 27-31 OPS+ - 135, 90, 170, 130, 139

As mentioned above, Hamilton is a good LF, meh in CF, probably slightly above average in RF, even Fenway's RF (even though he only has 70 career games there). Drew was a good RF.

Drew was worth his 5/$70M, despite that last year. As argued above, I think Hamilton would be worth 4/$70M. The problem is Hamilton's going to get at least $100M from somebody. And i could easily see it being as high as 6/$120M or 7/$140M if there's a bidding war. The other factor in this is the new national TV deals that will start adding $25M per team to revenue starting in 2014. So I could see someone getting a little creative and keeping the 2013 salary relatively low (say $14M) and adding a couple of million to the rest of the years ($22M for 5 remaining years), for a total contract of 6/$124M.

Hopefully, the lesson of the Crawford deal has sunk into the collective head of this front office and this doesn't happen here.

[Savin Hillbilly]

These claims of Hamilton not being "elite" enough for a 4 year contract at big money, in this modern day era of free agency no less, borders on the absurd as well imo.

I think that all depends on how you define "big money." What I said was that I didn't think he was as elite as some people seem to be suggesting. He's not quite as good, for instance, as Matt Holliday. But even if you regard him as equally good, Holliday got a 7/120 contract heading into his age-30 season, two years younger than Hamilton is now. The exact pro-rated equivalent would be 5/85....and if you lop off a year to account for the durability/stability questions, you get 4/68. Add a little sweetener for the shorter length and you get....voila, 4/70. That's just a realistic estimate of what he's worth, I think. Anyone who pays significantly more in AAV or years is overpaying. It hopefully will not be us.

We are not exactly looking like a destination of choice these days in any potential "we'll offer you the same amount as the next team is" pitch to get elite vets to come play here

Then we should stay out of the big-ticket FA market until we've fixed that, not overpay to compensate for it.

Attempting to comp him to Beltre really doesn't work, as at the core he got that 5/$80m with a single established season of production behind it, and is arguably playing out to be more of an exception in the hunt for value in free agency rather then the some standard we can reasonably measure others against.

Yes and no. Yes, Beltre hadn't had an offensive year that good since his LA days, but OTOH his production had been suppressed by his park in fairly specific ways that caused many of us to predict that he'd have the kind of year he did in Boston. (His road numbers through the Seattle years remained very solid, especially considering Safeco wasn't the only bad hitter's park he spent a lot of time in.) So the Rangers weren't paying him for an out-of-the-blue one-year performance. They were paying him for a one-year performance that confirmed the promise that was masked by his home park in previous years.

As far as impact FA bats go nowadays, Hamilton is essentially as good as you are going to find out of a non-1B FA option now or in the near future.

To me, this is a perfect one-sentence summary of the way I hope the Sox have stopped thinking once and for all. "As good as you are going to find" is not a good enough reason for a ginormous overpay. If those are your choices, you bide your time and come up with a creative jury-rig for the present.

[OttoC]

If you grossly overpay a player for one season then later decide you want to keep that player around for a few more years, haven't you put yourself in a deep hole?

[Ramon AC]

Hamilton looks a lot like JD Drew to me. A year older than when Drew signed his 5-year contract in 2007, slightly more SLG, slightly less OBP, often injured, excellent RF defense, questions about the personality fit in Boston, and a similar career trajectory: seriously hyped prospect, one enormous year (Hamilton in 2010 at age 29, Drew in 2004 at age 28) followed by very good but not MVP quality years in the range of 125-145 OPS+.

If you can get Hamilton for 3 years and get approximations of Drew's ages 32-34 year seasons, you're doing okay at ~$17.5M. That's probably not going to happen.

[MikeM]

I think that all depends on how you define "big money." What I said was that I didn't think he was as elite as some people seem to be suggesting. He's not quite as good, for instance, as Matt Holliday. But even if you regard him as equally good, Holliday got a 7/120 contract heading into his age-30 season, two years younger than Hamilton is now. The exact pro-rated equivalent would be 5/85....and if you lop off a year to account for the durability/stability questions, you get 4/68. Add a little sweetener for the shorter length and you get....voila, 4/70. That's just a realistic estimate of what he's worth, I think. Anyone who pays significantly more in AAV or years is overpaying. It hopefully will not be us.

Matt Holliday signed that contract going on 3 winters ago, and what surrounding circumstances applied then does not necessarily apply in the same exact manner now. Teams may have started being a little more conservative with their free agency spending these last few years, as a competitive whole, but the money on the big ticket guys seems to have trended upward. Carl Crawford got more then that since Holliday signed his contract, and last winter alone saw two 9+ years contracts at it's top end and Jose Reyes get 6/$106m. Seen the money being speculated around Michael freaking Bourne lately?......yeah.

Overall point there being that you can't just cherry pick a best case scenario signing, that happened 3 years ago no less, and simply narrow it down to being Hamilton's comparative value on an open market now. Generally speaking, it's just not that simple, and doing so by default tends to ignore quite a few variables that should be addressed in the process. First and foremost on my list being the how much "extra" is Hamilton worth to us atm in the event we can go shorter years while stills securing his services.

Then we should stay out of the big-ticket FA market until we've fixed that, not overpay to compensate for it.

...and in the meantime the alternative is what exactly? Chase down phantom trade options that satisfy some need to appear more "ideal" on paper? Spend $10m/per on a guy that's half the player? Mark Sweeney? Shall we simply resign to a fate of trotting out subpar/mediocre options until the day comes when we are once again perennial paper favorites, even if the money/flexibility is there to potentially field better?

Sometimes one needs to play with the cards they are dealt, and not just fold every hand that isn't looking picture perfect.

Yes and no. Yes, Beltre hadn't had an offensive year that good since his LA days, but OTOH his production had been suppressed by his park in fairly specific ways that caused many of us to predict that he'd have the kind of year he did in Boston. (His road numbers through the Seattle years remained very solid, especially considering Safeco wasn't the only bad hitter's park he spent a lot of time in.) So the Rangers weren't paying him for an out-of-the-blue one-year performance. They were paying him for a one-year performance that confirmed the promise that was masked by his home park in previous years.

Yet we are still talking about a scenario where the guy was getting paid based on that one substantiated season, with one reported team stepping up to the plate to do it. Had Beltre hit free agency even a year latter, that 5/80 almost certainly goes out the window, and with it the baseline comp there you are attempting to apply to Hamilton now. Leaving any surface claim that we shouldn't sign Hamilton at $20m/per, based on a logic that we could alternatively go out and sign an Adrian Beltre at $16m/per, a misleading one at best imo.

To me, this is a perfect one-sentence summary of the way I hope the Sox have stopped thinking once and for all. "As good as you are going to find" is not a good enough reason for a ginormous overpay. If those are your choices, you bide your time and come up with a creative jury-rig for the present.

So what, we take a GFIN 100 win team on paper or bust in our approach going forward? We can't sign a big ticket free agent, that fills a massive hole no less, just because we may have to overpay a bit in the process?

Again man, we are talking about a hypothetical short year deal scenario here, and there's certainly worse and with less upside ways we can spend that $20m/per atm/imo. Heck, more then half this board seems to view spending almost half that alone on Cody Ross (at 3 years no less) as a viable alternative. I don't. I also tend to prefer enjoying the games i watch, and don't quite buy into the commonly presented theory that 2013 should be deemed hopeless, and/or that we shouldn't give our team every chance to succeed if/when the reasonably opportunity presents itself. Hamilton on short years being just such an opportunity, imo.

Of course, in all this it's also worth noting that this whole hypothetical debate will likely be a moot one soon enough, as i have an extremely hard time seeing the scenario emerge where a 6 year deal does not materialize from somewhere.

[seantoo]

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.

As yourself this, is that even possible? in regards to " yes you can easily say they shouldn't sign anymore even slightly risky free agents to long-term deals at market value". Some risk is inevitable. That is if you care to contend, especially in the AL-EAST. The less years to a deal obviously the more $/yr is easier to manage. Whether or not they should go all in in regards to to the team talent vs. the talent of the division is debateable but that statement you made is not, not really.

[TheYaz67]

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.

Well, I very seriously doubt he is actually going to get a bidding war going at something like a 5 or 6 year contract - too many of the big money teams are not going to be in on the bidding - I suspect he goes late into the spring unsigned, and eventually inks a 3 or 4 year deal. I might do a 3 year deal at that money also, but that would be it. Be worried if the Sox keep missing on various free agents and Hamilton is one of the few good ones left standing....

[MikeM]

Well, I very seriously doubt he is actually going to get a bidding war going at something like a 5 or 6 year contract - too many of the big money teams are not going to be in on the bidding - I suspect he goes late into the spring unsigned, and eventually inks a 3 or 4 year deal.

I might be able to buy more into that theory, but there's just not any other legitimate/big ticket options out there for a team looking to add an impact bat. The FA list begins and ends right there, imo. There's value in that alone, especially given the increased field of potential wanna-be contenders a second wild card slot creates.

I mean i understand and won't deny the guy has his warts, but let's not confuse Josh Hamilton with a fluffy'd up Carl "i learned my lesson" Crawford here either. If one can rationalize looking past those warts, there's a legit middle of the batting order/solid corner outfielder option to be had here. Somebody is going to jump on that, even if it ultimately does not end up translating into some crazy 7/$175m contract demand.

[dylanmarsh]

I would not be surprised if he signs with the Rockies for the contract he is looking for. O'Dowd should have the upper hand with the club's strong Christianity presence and the fact that Denver is relatively quiet MLB outpost. Josh could go about his business, have the support he needs, and settle in behind Cargo or Tulo in the lineup. Baseball's version of the big three. It just makes too much sense for it not to happen.

[BosRedSox5]

Am I the only one who thinks a major media market would actually benefit Hamilton? If he goes to Milwaukee (which I read a prediction for on ESPN.com) he'd be able to blend in. In a place like Boston, the Red Sox are king. Practically every barfly and bartender in New England would recognize him... thus, falling off the wagon becomes more difficult. He'd have a ton of oversight.

[E5 Yaz]

Practically every barfly and bartender in New England would recognize him... thus, falling off the wagon becomes more difficult.

Because there are nothing but conscientious Red Sox fans getting plastered in local taverns?

Edited by E5 Yaz, 18 November 2012 - 02:36 PM.

[gammoseditor]

Am I the only one who thinks a major media market would actually benefit Hamilton? If he goes to Milwaukee (which I read a prediction for on ESPN.com) he'd be able to blend in. In a place like Boston, the Red Sox are king. Practically every barfly and bartender in New England would recognize him... thus, falling off the wagon becomes more difficult. He'd have a ton of oversight.

He's a recovering addict, and that adds to the risk, but it's not the only concern. I think most people are at least as concerned about his age and the length of the contract he's looking for.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

They still have liquor stores in Boston, don't they?

(null)

[LeoCarrillo]

They still have liquor stores in Boston, don't they?

The indigineous peoples call them "packies."

[JimBoSox9]

They still have liquor stores in Boston, don't they?

(null)

To be fair, it's harder to get booze in a MA liquor store than anywhere else in the county, except possibly Pennsylvania. Higher barrier of acquisition = staying on wagon! Genius!

[ScubaSteveAvery]

Lucchino says the Sox are "in" on Hamilton:

Lucchino told us they are "in" on Hamilton but not looking for long term free agency type signings they're not going 6,7,or 8 yrs

Link

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Lucchino says the Sox are "in" on Hamilton:

Link

This comment leaves the door open for up to a 5 year contract. Seems like SoSH is pretty well in agreement that 5 years or more would not be a good idea (15 of 466 total votes came in in favor of a 5 year contract or longer above). I hope Ben isn't willing to go 5. Even 4 would be hard to swallow, though I can't imagine Hamilton not finding at least a 5 year contract out there somewhere.

[MoGator71]

This better not happen. I'd rather undo the Punto trade than end up with Hamilton on this team.

[Pearl Wilson]

Am I the only one who thinks a major media market would actually benefit Hamilton? If he goes to Milwaukee (which I read a prediction for on ESPN.com) he'd be able to blend in. In a place like Boston, the Red Sox are king. Practically every barfly and bartender in New England would recognize him... thus, falling off the wagon becomes more difficult. He'd have a ton of oversight.

I'm not so sure it would be helpful. We had a lively debate about this once here. What is the correct course of action to take if you are a bartender and a player on your favorite team is in your bar and in the process of falling off the wagon? To my recollection, many posters would have continued to serve the guy. Plus, what about servers who are mfy fans?

Edited by Pearl Wilson, 03 December 2012 - 06:26 AM.

[MoGator71]

Not to mention the various incidents over the years (whining about day games, throwing his 3rd base coach under the bus and whining about VMart on that play at the plate in Detroit where he got hurt) that indicate he's at best a diva and at worst a douche? Oops forgot ripping Melky Cabrera for being stupid re: putting whatever substances in his body...so add hypocrite to the list.

[Doctor G]

This guy has an ever present AA sponsor with him both at home and on the road. As far as I recall he did have a one nigt slip in AZ a couple winters ago involving a few drinks but apparently no drug use.

One slip in 5 years isn't untypical of most twenty something guys in the Program.

As long as he establishes a solid connection with Boston AA upon his arrival from Texas, his continued sobriety shouldn't be a major concern.

[Drek717]

This comment leaves the door open for up to a 5 year contract. Seems like SoSH is pretty well in agreement that 5 years or more would not be a good idea (15 of 466 total votes came in in favor of a 5 year contract or longer above). I hope Ben isn't willing to go 5. Even 4 would be hard to swallow, though I can't imagine Hamilton not finding at least a 5 year contract out there somewhere.

I think his comment doesn't just leave the door open for a 5 year deal, it strongly suggests that is what they're offering up.

5 years is Hamilton's 32-36 seasons. At the start of 2012 Matt Holliday had 5 years remaining (plus a 6th year option) for his 32-36 seasons at $17M per. While I think Holliday is slightly overpaid per year that is simply the nature of free agency and I don't think anyone would call his contract an albatross at this point. Hamilton has much greater offensive upside than Holliday, an equal or slightly higher reasonable offensive floor, and is a better defender. So Hamilton's 32-36 years at anything between $17-$20M would seem like a pretty worthwhile contract to sign.

If the BJ Upton deal has inflated Swisher's market to a 4-5 year deal at $15-$16M it would be damn near negligent to not at least throw a 5 year, $18M-$20M deal on the table for Hamilton. He's the better player and at this point the costs might be getting too close to care about. An extra $3-5M a year isn't going to change this team's future plans if they intend to give a big money contract out for RF regardless. Better to go with the higher ceiling guy now and spend a little extra if the years are effectively the same.

I could definitely see a 2013 Red Sox team with Napoli at 1B, taking a few starts at C, with Hamilton in RF and a Kalish/Gomes platoon in LF. Then by about 2015 Kalish moves to RF where he should be more valuable defensively while Hamilton moves to LF to protect him physically. If Napoli is on a 3 year deal Hamilton could move to DH for 2016 and 2017, if Napoli signs a 4 year deal then Hamilton DHs for the last year only.

The Red Sox have a serious lack of power bats. That's what happens when you send Rizzo out one off-season and Reddick + Miles Head out the next. Probably our three best power hitting prospects cleared out in the span of a year. Now our best power hitters guys who only look to have plus power potential relative to their current positions (Bogaerts and Lavarnway) but with only good power if they move to more offense oriented positions, and a corner OF prospect who's power is on the border of what you'd call "plus power" (Brentz).

Throwing just money out to lock up Napoli and Hamilton on comparatively short term deals is a worthwhile option to shore up the lack of home run power this team is facing over the next several years, if they'll sign the right contracts. Neither should be removed from consideration out of hand.

[OttoC]

...and a corner OF prospect who's power is on the border of what you'd call "plus power" (Brentz)....

Brentz has the power, all right. It is just a question of how well he will handle advanced pitching, i.e., how often he will get his bat on the ball to show that power.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Hamilton has much greater offensive upside than Holliday, an equal or slightly higher reasonable offensive floor, and is a better defender.

I won't argue the "better defender" part, but it's simply not true that he has "an equal or slightly higher reasonable offensive floor." As measured by wRC+, Hamilton has only had one offensive season in the past five that was as good as Holliday's worst season over that span.

I'm not even sure you can say that he has greater offensive upside than Holliday at this point; this assertion rests largely on a BABIP-spiked, injury-shortened outlier season that there's no evidence he can match again. But I'm pretty sure you can't say he has "much greater" offensive upside.

Not saying that a 5-year deal for the right price couldn't possibly be a reasonable one--though I have my doubts--but comping Hamilton to Holliday should, if anything, give us pause. For one thing, it's misleading to look at the last five years of Holliday's contract (one of which is an option, BTW--it's four more guaranteed years plus an option, not 5+1) without noting that the Cardinals have already gotten three years of copious surplus value on it. As good as Holliday has been for them, would the Cards sign him now, heading into his age-33 year, for 5/85?

[Drek717]

I won't argue the "better defender" part, but it's simply not true that he has "an equal or slightly higher reasonable offensive floor." As measured by wRC+, Hamilton has only had one offensive season in the past five that was as good as Holliday's worst season over that span.

I'm not even sure you can say that he has greater offensive upside than Holliday at this point; this assertion rests largely on a BABIP-spiked, injury-shortened outlier season that there's no evidence he can match again. But I'm pretty sure you can't say he has "much greater" offensive upside.

Not saying that a 5-year deal for the right price couldn't possibly be a reasonable one--though I have my doubts--but comping Hamilton to Holliday should, if anything, give us pause. For one thing, it's misleading to look at the last five years of Holliday's contract (one of which is an option, BTW--it's four more guaranteed years plus an option, not 5+1) without noting that the Cardinals have already gotten three years of copious surplus value on it. As good as Holliday has been for them, would the Cards sign him now, heading into his age-33 year, for 5/85?

1. At the start of 2012 when Holliday was 32 it was 5 years + 1 year option. Now it's 4+1, but he's also a year older than Hamilton. I was making the comparison of their age 32-36 years.

2. I wouldn't call 518 ABs with a .359 BA vs. a .390 BABIP as "BABIP Spiked". By that definition Manny Ramirez had a "BABIP spiked" season in 2000 just before signing with the Red Sox for his massive contract (.351 BA, .403 BABIP) and had a similar spike in 2002 (.349 BA, .373 BABIP). Monster 1.000 OPS seasons tend to correlate with huge BABIP spikes. Even Holliday in '07 had his career best BA of .340 paired up with easily his career best BABIP at .377. I'd say that is just what a career year looks like, you can't dismiss the season as an outlier because of it.

3. wRC+ is one of the few stats that paint the picture you're pointing too by the way. If you go by wRAA over the last three years Hamilton has the best single season and the third best single season, Holliday has #2, #5, and #6.

In terms of OPS+ Hamilton has three seasons in the 130's, one at 90, and one at 170, that's since he was 26 and played regularly at the MLB level. Holliday since he was 26 (broke in at 24) had three seasons in the 130's, 2 in the 140's, and two that just barely broke into the 150's (150 in '07, then 151 in '11). Hamilton's top tier performance is hands down the higher ceiling of the two. The floor you could reasonably expect from both at this point is pretty clearly a 130's OPS+. Holliday is a far safer bet to split the difference on floor v. ceiling at this point, but it doesn't mean their floors aren't very similar. Though I will agree, it wouldn't be correct to say that Hamilton's floor is slightly higher than Holliday's.

4. Would the Cardinals have signed Holliday to 5/$85 going into last season, that is the question, not this season if we're going to keep this age relative as much as possible. And I'd say yes, the probably do. He was coming off a strong season and his next five years project to be better than anything else they could hope to put in his place, by a healthy margin. So you pay the money. Its not like you're signing him until he's 40. You might have a bad year or two at the end but that's the risk inherent in any veteran's contract. It didn't stop them from giving Yadier Molina 5/$75M for his age 30-35 seasons at a position notorious for players aging poorly, to a guy who only plays 130-140 games a season, and who at the time of the extension had only one season in his career with an OPS+ over 100. His defense and game calling wasn't something they could replace over the next five years. The money doesn't do any good if it goes unspent, so they paid Yadi. He returned the favor by posting by far his best offensive season to date.

I'd say the same goes for Boston. What do we have to play in the corners over the next five years? A bunch of maybes. Maybe Kalish pays off on the promise of his 2010 minor league season. Maybe Brentz does learn to handle breaking balls. Maybe Sands or Linares are revelations. Maybe Brandon Jacobs really is ready in two or three years. Not a lot of definite answers. The 2014 OF market also doesn't look particularly great as well, so not much help there. This is why they've been in on Swisher up to this point. If they're in on Swisher there is no reason not to be in on Hamilton, they serve the same purpose.

If we could trade for Wil Myers then signing Hamilton (or Swisher for that matter) isn't a good move, but as it stands now it's not like we're really blocking anyone with either signing, even on a 5 year deal. By the time any of our prospects could truly break through we'll have an opening at DH or 1B ready for an aging power hitter to step into, or an opening at the other corner OF needing to be filled, if not both.

Edited by Drek717, 03 December 2012 - 12:23 PM.

[Laser Show]

Buster Olney was just on ESPN and said (paraphrasing) to keep an eye on Boston with Hamilton; he thinks they could sign him to an aggressive 2-year deal if Hamilton's market doesn't develop.

[Savin Hillbilly]

3. wRC+ is one of the few stats that paint the picture you're pointing too by the way.

But it's also one of the few stats that accounts for the rather sizable difference in home park offensive environments the two guys have been playing in.

Buster Olney was just on ESPN and said (paraphrasing) to keep an eye on Boston with Hamilton; he thinks they could sign him to an aggressive 2-year deal if Hamilton's market doesn't develop.

I love the idea of Hamilton on an aggressive 2-year deal. (What would that be? $45M?).

[bosockboy]

I'd guess 2/50.

[Laser Show]

I'd guess 2/50.

That'd be my guess as well.

I have to say, I'm ecstatic about how well they've held the line on contract length thus far.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'd be all over Hamilton at 2 years. When I voted I didn't think anything under 5 years was even worth thinking about. If there's a realistic chance at 2/45 or even 2/50 I'd be thrilled to see them pull the trigger. It's the long term projection of Hamilton's ability to stay on the field along with the fact that the further into the future you go, the more likely it is he has a fall off the wagon that concerns me the most. He would likely be a very productive player over the next 2 years.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'd be all over Hamilton at 2 years. When I voted I didn't think anything under 5 years was even worth thinking about. If there's a realistic chance at 2/45 or even 2/50 I'd be thrilled to see them pull the trigger. It's the long term projection of Hamilton's ability to stay on the field along with the fact that the further into the future you go, the more likely it is he has a fall off the wagon that concerns me the most. He would likely be a very productive player over the next 2 years.

Yup. And the lineup the Sox could field next year if they pulled this off is pretty spectacular:

Ellsbury cf
Pedroia 2b
Hamilton rf
Napoli 1b
Ortiz dh
Middlebrooks 3b
Gomes/Kalish lf
Lavarnway/Ross c
Iglesias ss

Only downside of Hamilton as opposed to Swisher is you lose the 1B backup, so you'd need to keep somebody like Gomez or Sands on the bench, but there's nothing wrong with that.

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Yeah, I just made a similar point in the Napoli thread. The path to a 2013 playoff contender without mortgaging the future is starting become more clear. Obviously, trading for Myers means they probably don't sign Hamilton and the 2013 lineup would probably take a step back in favor of the future, but even with Myers in there instead it looks like a really good lineup next year. I suppose they could technically sign Hamilton and trade for Myers moving Gomes to a full time bench player and back up DH, but that's getting a bit carried away.

[Drek717]

But it's also one of the few stats that accounts for the rather sizable difference in home park offensive environments the two guys have been playing in.

So does OPS+ and it isn't weighted for league or year, which aren't useful for this comparison. Case in point, last season Hamilton had a wOBA of .387 while Holliday's was .378. wRC+ is based on wOBA, so clearly it's equation is adding what is creating the difference in the final results (140 for Hamilton, 141 for Holliday).

In reality it's splitting hairs though about how much correction factor to use for parks and league, since wRAA is trying to do the same thing as wRC+ and it has Hamilton up 36.6 to 35.0 for Holliday. The key point here about using them over OPS+ though, to me at least, is that in both wRAA and wRC+ leauge wOBA is used to correct a player's wOBA. So Holliday's positive bump versus straight wOBA over Hamilton in both metrics from that correction is only meaningful if you assume it's because the NL has superior pitching, not that the AL has superior hitting. Otherwise Hamilton is being compared to a superior peer group than Holliday is by either metric. In OPS+ he is not. OPS+ has flaws, but in this case I'd say it's bringing less noise to the party. wOBA would work well too, though only if you agree with the assumption that OBP is significantly more valuable than SLG, which clearly favors Holliday.

I love the idea of Hamilton on an aggressive 2-year deal. (What would that be? $45M?).

Sure. The fewer years the better. 2 at $50 would be fine by me. Hell, 3 at $70M would be worth throwing out there.

Only downside of Hamilton as opposed to Swisher is you lose the 1B backup, so you'd need to keep somebody like Gomez or Sands on the bench, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Sounds like it's time for Jonny Gomes to get himself a first baseman's mit. He needs to add a bit more positional versatility if he's going to be anything more than the small end of a platoon with Kalish or Nava. Add 1B and we have an option to give Napoli a day off or at catcher when at home or facing a lefty.

Edited by Drek717, 03 December 2012 - 01:29 PM.