297 replies to this topic

[pjheff]

Which in turn threw a wrench into the ongoing reality that we went in to this offseason ideally needing BOTH a legitimate type #4 and #5 hitter for our lineup, with a limited amount of availability spots to do so. 1B and RF being the most obvious places it could/would potentially happen. This proved to be the adequate case at 1B, but by going in the direction of adding Victorino, that more or less closed the reality door on seeing the both happen.

Might Farrell consider Ellsbury to be that middle of the order bat, with someone like Victorino earlier in the lineup? While Victorino is not ideal in the leadoff spot, especially against righties if his 2012 production is his new normal, such usage would bring balance to the force:

1) Victorino RF
2) Pedroia 2B
3) Ellsbury CF
4) Napoli 1B
5) Ortiz DH
6) Middlebrooks 3B
7) Gomes LF
8) Saltalamacchia C
9) Iglesias SS

One could conceivably do something similar with Pedroia:

1) Ellsbury CF
2) Victorino RF
3) Pedroia 2B
4) Ortiz DH
5) Napoli 1B
6) Middlebrooks 3B
7) Saltalamacchia C
8) Gomes LF
9) Iglesias SS

[Red(s)HawksFan]

If Hamilton's knees are a surgical correctable condition...and the medicos project a useful recovery...I'd go 4 years ...if not forgedda bout him...

Synvisc is typically used to alleviate arthritic pain and discomfort. Typically, the surgical correction for that is full replacement of the joint. I don't know if there is an alternative surgery (arthroscopic or otherwise) that would buy any more "useful" a recovery than the synvisc offers.

Doesn't mean Hamilton can't be a useful player for the length of whatever contract he signs, even with his knees in their present condition, but he'll probably always be a risk to at the very least need a day or two off here and there just to rest and get off his feet for a while. I doubt he's ever going to be a 150-155+ game a year player. If his team gets 140 games out of him each season, they've gotten extremely good fortune with his health.

[lexrageorge]

With the exception of one bad year, which happened to be last year, Victorino has been a consistent 0.800 OPS guy with a 0.350 OBP. and good for about 30 steals. Granted, he's not a #4 power guy, but he's not batting 7th either. The lineups posted by pjheff are a much more realistic expectation of where he'll slot in this lineup. He's also far superior defensively than anyone that played RF (of OF, for that matter) for the Sox last season.

Also, Salty is gone; not sure why folks can't get their heads around that fact. Several teams have identified needs a catcher; there's still 2+ months until pitchers and catchers report. There is less than 10% chance he's on the roster on reporting day; the acquisition of Victorino does not change that fact.

The Sox are being smart by waiting to see how the Hamilton market develops. If the Yankees do 5/125, let them. There are better investments for this team. If he ends up coming cheap or short, then go for it. I still get the feeling that some team will swoop in and take him off the market with a longer and more expensive deal than we would feel comfortable with.

[DanoooME]

This in turn brings up where we stand on Lavarnway. Granted, i again like him, and feel sending him back to AAA is a general waste. Unfortunately, now there's that looming reality that by not adding that second legitimate bat beyond Napoli, the lineup is suddenly looking potentially thin and rather RH'd at that. Now say what you want about Salty (i do all the time), but unlike Lavarnway he's actual proven at the MLB level. It's here I'm betting that this is counting for something fairly big in Ben's book when looking at this projected lineup atm, where best case scenario at SS is probably one that sees a ST invite to somebody like Alex Gonzalez, and then making Iglesias battle him out to earn the starting job breaking camp. Not exactly encouraging stuff on the offensive side. Combine that with that fact we signed Ross so early, likely with promises of ample playing time/opportunity short of being a starter, and i'm left seeing a catching platoon. With Lavarnway actually being the one to play the role of victim here, due to a missed opportunity last season and the bad set of surrounding circumstances for him in relationship with the 2013 mix.

This is the part I disagree with. While lineup balance is a nice thing to have, it isn't necessary to have a good functioning offense and to keep Salty, who looks to me like a guy the league caught up with in June after two hot months, when there are teams desperate for catching and see the 25 HR and think he's a solution is keeping him for the wrong reasons. Look at his monthly splits and see if you disagree.

Salty by Month

Split	G	GS	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	BAbip	tOPS+	sOPS+
April/March	16	13	52	50	6	12	3	0	4	9	0	0	2	12	0.240	0.269	0.540	0.809	0.235	112	122
May	24	20	84	78	13	24	7	0	6	15	0	0	5	26	0.308	0.345	0.628	0.973	0.383	158	161
June	22	19	86	77	12	16	3	0	5	13	0	0	7	21	0.208	0.279	0.442	0.721	0.212	94	95
July	20	17	73	66	10	12	1	0	5	9	0	1	7	31	0.182	0.260	0.424	0.685	0.233	84	84
August	20	19	80	73	7	15	0	0	3	7	0	0	6	26	0.205	0.263	0.329	0.591	0.267	64	64
Sept/Oct	19	19	73	61	7	11	3	1	2	6	0	0	11	23	0.180	0.301	0.361	0.662	0.243	84	85

And on top of that, his CS% was a late-career Tekian 18%. He seems to have some decent value, I'd like to see him dealt ASAP because I don't see how Lavarnway/Ross/Napoli (for a few games) is really any worse even without any platoon advantage.

It's funny how people (not you in particular, just in general) look at guys and write them off for what they can't do. Salty is a guy you need to look at for what he can do (hit HRs) and what he can't (pretty much everything else) and see that the balance demands a trade while his still has value because I think he's as likely if not more likely to fail than Lavarnway.

Sorry for the tangent in the Hamilton thread on catchers. Maybe we need a catching thread.


edit:formatting

Edited by DanoooME, 08 December 2012 - 09:11 AM.

• Back to top

[someoneanywhere]

Fair enough that flexibility can have many meanings and interpretations here. To me flexibility and the need to preserve such means attempting to NOT paint yourselves into any penny pinching scenarios we saw last winter, and maintaining the ability to seize opportunites you may ideally want/need as they present themselves. Ya know, pretty much flex the muscles we spent the better part of a decade having before we got caught up in the realm of fielding $170m payrolls.

Just saying, for some of the people out there preaching about Victorino money not mattering in the short term, maybe take a second to sit down and start doing the actual math. The money/flexibility for the next few years is adding up fairly quick, and if that lineup above isn't cutting it for some, those are some pretty big all-in bets being made on significant internal help coming sooner rather then latter. Especially in the process of all but pushing Ellsbury out the door, who is the only significant contract i readily seeing coming off the books next winter (other then maybe Lester, who will need to be directly replaced himself), and which is then going to create a hole at the top of the lineup to go along with the arguable hole that already exists in the #5 spot now.

It may have many meanings to you -- and that's honestly great; it's why we have discussion boards. But it has meant, and seems to mean, only a few major principles to the people making the decisions and spending the money. They have been utterly clear about how they envision yearly payroll: they will spend. They have been utterly clear about how they will spend it: in the creation of deep depth -- which is necessarily going to cost money. They have been utterly clear about how long they will spend it for, and why: 3-4 years, with the idea of supporting a younger core of players as they mature into big leaguers. Again, the merits of Gomes or Victorino or Napoli or Ross or Uhera or certainly open to debate and analysis. But I don't think we can accuse the decision makers of falseness or hypocrisy. They are doing what they said they would do. And I don't think paying for Hamilton would betray the vision either (no matter what you think of the talent being acquired). They can push upwards of $160 million per year in payroll obligation before they have to worry about losing in-season flexibility to acquire talent. They are nowhere near that right now.

[redsoxstiff]

It may have many meanings to you -- and that's honestly great; it's why we have discussion boards. But it has meant, and seems to mean, only a few major principles to the people making the decisions and spending the money. They have been utterly clear about how they envision yearly payroll: they will spend. They have been utterly clear about how they will spend it: in the creation of deep depth -- which is necessarily going to cost money. They have been utterly clear about how long they will spend it for, and why: 3-4 years, with the idea of supporting a younger core of players as they mature into big leaguers. Again, the merits of Gomes or Victorino or Napoli or Ross or Uhera or certainly open to debate and analysis. But I don't think we can accuse the decision makers of falseness or hypocrisy. They are doing what they said they would do. And I don't think paying for Hamilton would betray the vision either (no matter what you think of the talent being acquired). They can push upwards of $160 million per year in payroll obligation before they have to worry about losing in-season flexibility to acquire talent. They are nowhere near that right now.

I could not agree more...

Putting an elite player for the three hole is very critical,,,especialy since Papi is still healing and whither that goest...?

If a big name acquisition [non pitcher] puts a more stringent restriction on the search for a SP...Let it stand...

[MikeM]

It may have many meanings to you -- and that's honestly great; it's why we have discussion boards. But it has meant, and seems to mean, only a few major principles to the people making the decisions and spending the money. They have been utterly clear about how they envision yearly payroll: they will spend. They have been utterly clear about how they will spend it: in the creation of deep depth -- which is necessarily going to cost money. They have been utterly clear about how long they will spend it for, and why: 3-4 years, with the idea of supporting a younger core of players as they mature into big leaguers. Again, the merits of Gomes or Victorino or Napoli or Ross or Uhera or certainly open to debate and analysis. But I don't think we can accuse the decision makers of falseness or hypocrisy. They are doing what they said they would do. And I don't think paying for Hamilton would betray the vision either (no matter what you think of the talent being acquired).

Very few on this board, in the midst of endless rebuilding/bridge year talk and before they went out signed Napoli/Victorino, spent as much time here as i was stressing that expectation on such money being spent. If you want to take that inevitable factor, and now alter/twist it into better fitting presentation #23164 on what the master plan in play really is, that's great too. Nobody is arguing that they weren't going to spend money though, it's how much money they were going to spend that is the current question, and whether or not preserving our financial flexibility translated into spending at/near cap levels in year 1.

They can push upwards of $160 million per year in payroll obligation before they have to worry about losing in-season flexibility to acquire talent. They are nowhere near that right now.

That may be coming across as "utterly clear" to some out there (mainly those now making their on-the-fly logic alternations as the Victorino signing butt heads with the reality of the potential lineup quality it corners us into), yet I personally fail to see where ownership has gone on record and stated such as substantiated fact.

But regardless, if you really do think we are nowhere near that atm, i again suggest taking a moment and doing the actual math that's going to tie that all together into a 25 man roster going forward from here.

[MikeM]

Again, preaching to the choir on Lavarnway

It's not really a matter of what i want to happen though. It's what i'm left projecting on Ben doing, given the current set of surrounding circumstances.

Edited by MikeM, 08 December 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[MikeM]

With the exception of one bad year, which happened to be last year, Victorino has been a consistent 0.800 OPS guy with a 0.350 OBP. and good for about 30 steals. Granted, he's not a #4 power guy, but he's not batting 7th either. The lineups posted by pjheff are a much more realistic expectation of where he'll slot in this lineup. He's also far superior defensively than anyone that played RF (of OF, for that matter) for the Sox last season.

Victorino's posted a .229/.296/.333 line this past season against RHP. The year prior to the career season he had in 2011, which saw him tally a respectable .270/.333/.455, it was .233/.305/.376.

Taking that into account, and based on my belief that we are indeed going to see a flat out platoon at catcher in 2013 (which will obviously alter the lineup we see against LHP, where one would/could expect Victorino to hit higher), i saw giving the default nod to Salty as the most logical choice there. Preserving the ideal R/L split on the surface, while not initially asking too much out of Middlebrooks/Kalish in the process.

Also, Salty is gone; not sure why folks can't get their heads around that fact. Several teams have identified needs a catcher; there's still 2+ months until pitchers and catchers report. There is less than 10% chance he's on the roster on reporting day; the acquisition of Victorino does not change that fact.

Based on what, the overwhelming "what i want to happen will" logic that's been the common theme of projection posts on this board since the beginning this offseason? That same logic that started off on some base notion we were going to play a conservative hand, while most certainly not including the $3/$39m signing of a Victorino type before it actually happened?

Yeah, i want to trade Salty for Floyd too. I'd also love to slot Josh Hamilton in the #5 slot of our lineup. But i don't even need 10-1 odds to take you up on a bet that none of it is actually going to happen. At which point i am still going to need to advance my speculation from there after i collect my winnings.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Based on what, the overwhelming "what i want to happen will" logic that's been the common theme of projection posts on this board since the beginning this offseason?

Yes. Exactly that.

But if it weren't based on that, it might be based on the following considerations:

• The Sox' first significant offseason acquisition was a veteran catcher who they declared would be "more than a backup" in 2013;
• They then went and acquired another veteran catcher, who they have slotted as the starting 1B but who, they declared, would also probably get some time in at C;
• They have a touted C prospect who has nothing more to prove in the minors, and whose further education at the ML level is presumably part of Ross's job portfolio.

So they now have four guys who can play catcher. Two of them they just signed; they're highly unlikely to trade either. They can't use more than three of them on the 25-man. So either Salty or Lavarnway has to go. There are three ways this can happen:

1) They trade Salty;
2) They trade Lavarnway;
3) They stash Lavarnway in AAA for one more year.

Of these, (2) seems the least probable. They'd rather keep Lavarnway if they can, given that his long-term ceiling looks higher, yet Salty has more current market value, since there are teams in need of immediate C help, and for that need they'd probably prefer Salty's experience over Lavarnway's potential. So Salty is far more likely to be traded.

(3) is a possibility, but If Napoli is really going to play more than a small handful of C games, and Ross is going to get more than 30 or 40 starts, as the Sox seemed to imply on signing him, then there might not be enough games left to justify Salty's 3rd-year arb salary. He's a more valuable asset traded than kept. Also, Lavarnway can't learn a whole lot from David Ross if he's 50 miles away.

In short, while it's far from a certainty that Salty will be dealt, it seems like easily the likeliest outcome.

[MikeM]

Of these, (2) seems the least probable. They'd rather keep Lavarnway if they can, given that his long-term ceiling looks higher, yet Salty has more current market value, since there are teams in need of immediate C help, and for that need they'd probably prefer Salty's experience over Lavarnway's potential. So Salty is far more likely to be traded.

I'd argue the claim of Salty having more trade/market value then Lavarnway atm. I mean let's be honest here, there's a reason both of us would ultimately rather see Lavarnway get his chance. If you were the one calling the Sox for a catcher, who would you initially be asking about?

IDK, maybe at the end of the day Salty is indeed some raging ass that gets swept up in a clean house attempt, or the FO is really that much more committed to viewing Lavarnway as the future here then i'm currently giving it credit for. But right now, i keep coming back to what i stated earlier:

We are already poised to enter into the season with an extremely questionable lineup 5-9. Heck, even the "strength" of our 1-4 has one guy in which we essentially have no clue on what to expect, a 37 year old coming off a missed half season, and 31 year old cleanup hitter who has a grand total of one 382ab+ season to his credit. If they trade Salty, we are left with a single projected LHH 4-9, and an iffy type who's shown absolute nothing at the MLB to boot. So in the end, i just see too much of an argument existing against piling on Lavarnway's uncertainty on top of that, especially when that Floyd'like return on Salty never actually materializes.

Maybe if we were trading Saltly + Kalish to bring in a LHH outfielder with some decent pop, who then gets slotted in LF, i could see it. Barring that though, it's just not adding up as a realistic "this season still matters" whole imo.

[YTF]

OK, so the Rangers lose out on the Greinke sweepstakes to the Dodgers, lose Napoli to free angency and trade Micheal Young to Philly. Is there any way they don't resign Hamilton now? I understand that an outrageous offer from another team might prevent that, but that's seeming unlikely at this point.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I'd argue the claim of Salty having more trade/market value then Lavarnway atm. I mean let's be honest here, there's a reason both of us would ultimately rather see Lavarnway get his chance. If you were the one calling the Sox for a catcher, who would you initially be asking about?

Swihart, of course.

But if I needed a #1 catcher right now, and my priority was a guy who has established some degree of competence at the ML level, then I'd be asking about Salty. There are teams that are in that position right now, and those are the teams whose phone calls I'm returning first if I'm Cherington.

[redsoxstiff]

OK, so the Rangers lose out on the Greinke sweepstakes to the Dodgers, lose Napoli to free angency and trade Micheal Young to Philly. Is there any way they don't resign Hamilton now? I understand that an outrageous offer from another team might prevent that, but that's seeming unlikely at this point.

You are probably right but I hope your wrong...I certainly want the Hamilton saga to come to an ending...i wish he would come to us...

This thread relates to A great player and much thought and effort goes toward middling players...I would hope that JH becomes a viable option for us...I want to see his carreer shredded as others have been and they are still dominating this thread... Come on, give this old fart somethings to gum on until the other cleat lands ...Why is there such a silence from the JH camp...Is it his weirdo agent?

Edited by redsoxstiff, 10 December 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[someoneanywhere]

OK, so the Rangers lose out on the Greinke sweepstakes to the Dodgers, lose Napoli to free angency and trade Micheal Young to Philly. Is there any way they don't resign Hamilton now? I understand that an outrageous offer from another team might prevent that, but that's seeming unlikely at this point.

You know, I think the odds are for it but maybe not as great as it might appear. If the Rangers were in that long on Greinke, you'd have to think the priority was not Greinke alone but starting pitching. By the same token, I don't know how, if you're them, you sit on the most dynamic bat in free agency, who's already let it be known he prefers to stay, if you're not deeply ambivalent about committing to him.

Not, again, that I think the Red Sox should blow the stack to sign Hamilton. I just think there's more wiggle in how things might go than one turn of events might make it appear, no matter how significant.

Edited by someoneanywhere, 10 December 2012 - 12:39 PM.

[SoxScout]

BOSTON -- The Red Sox, according to a baseball source, remain in a holding pattern on Josh Hamilton, the free-agent outfielder who reportedly has designs on a long-term contract of at least six years.

He won’t get a deal of that length from the Red Sox, but Boston officials will remain in the mix for Hamilton as long as the possibility, however slim, exists that he could be had for a shorter deal.

The Red Sox went into the winter meetings with a strategy of offering Hamilton no more than a three-year deal, but perhaps with an average annual value commensurate with the highest-paid players in the game. Think $25 million per and up, and you get the idea.

But a baseball source said Monday night that he thought it “doubtful” that the Sox could sign Hamilton for fewer than four years.

http://espn.go.com/b...ix-for-hamilton

[xjack]

I wonder how much of the Sox holding the line on three years is tied to standard analysis of aging sluggers versus a unique take on Josh Hamilton.

I know a couple recovered drug addicts, and they believe that their years of drug use affected their long-term health and physical well-being. I'm not sure how hardcore Hamilton was, but if he was a serious heroin addict, I wouldn't be surprised if he's now more susceptible to injuries as a result.

[Savin Hillbilly]

The thing about holding the line at 3 years for Hamilton is this: it looks like the market for Hamilton has gotten very small--but I would guess that's contingent on the assumption that he would require at least a four-year commitment. Lower the ante to three years, and I bet the market starts expanding pretty quickly. But precisely because of that, Hamilton's agency won't feel any great urgency about making a three-year deal; they'll hold off and see if someone will swoop in with a viable four-year offer. Which makes the whole situation a recipe for a very, very late signing.

[OCD SS]

The Reds/ DBacks/ Tribe 3-way makes things a bit more complicated; now AZ has filled their holes and are saying they're unlikely to deal Upton. That puts Texas in a bind as they still need an OFer and a SP. Would they pony up for both Hamilton and Sanchez? If they won't go to 4 years on Hamilton, should the Sox?

I really don't like the idea of losing draft picks with the way the new CBA is shaking out, but supposedly this year's draft is weaker than last year's (which was also hailed as being pretty weak). If we're going to see that kind of diminishing talent, does it make sense to offer the 4th year (on a yes-or-no, can't-shop-this offer) to lock him up? If they're still hanging around, they must have a decent idea of where to send Ellsbury.

[JimD]

If Hamilton 'settles' for a three-year deal, I'm not optimistic he'd see the rebuildin' Red Sox as a good fit unless they blow everyone else away in dollars. I'd have to think that being on an immediate contender would take on a greater urgency for him on a short deal.

[Corsi]

The Phillies have offered free-agent outfielder Josh Hamilton a three-year contract, reports 94WIP’s Anthony Gargano per a source close to the situation.
Later, Gerry Fraley of the Dallas Morning News told Gargano and Glen Macnow on 94WIP that he believes a deal in the range of three years, and $80 million would get a deal done with Hamilton.

http://philadelphia....-year-contract/

[Savin Hillbilly]

If Hamilton 'settles' for a three-year deal, I'm not optimistic he'd see the rebuildin' Red Sox as a good fit unless they blow everyone else away in dollars. I'd have to think that being on an immediate contender would take on a greater urgency for him on a short deal.

Josh Hamilton has been overrated here and elsewhere, but I don't think the current Sox are so far from being a contender that he wouldn't pretty much seal the deal. Replacing Gomes with him in the starting lineup would instantly give us the best batting order in the division, Iggy and all (assuming Napoli really is on his way, of course). We already probably have the division's best bullpen, and then all we'd have to do is flip Salty (+ a middling prospect as needed) for Floyd or some other quality mid-rotation starter in order to have a very respectable rotation. And that, I think, would make us favorites, or ought to.

Whether it's worth the draft pick or the salary outlay is another question, of course.

[Edelpeddle]

Has Cherington decided that starting pitching is the new market inefficiency?

[Corsi]

Has Cherington decided that starting pitching is the new market inefficiency?

Possibly.

The Rangers have work to do, too, but some rival evaluators see the Red Sox as a team poised to move on pitching as the prices drop.

https://twitter.com/...806028647276544

[Edelpeddle]

I was half joking, but someone as statistically minded as Cherington could simply be looking at the run differential that he'd like to get to on paper and deciding that it would be more cost effective to achieve that goal by adding tons of offense than by addressing the starting pitching.

[RedOctober3829]

http://philadelphia....-year-contract/

3/80 for Hamilton? Sign me up right now.

[someoneanywhere]

If Hamilton 'settles' for a three-year deal, I'm not optimistic he'd see the rebuildin' Red Sox as a good fit unless they blow everyone else away in dollars. I'd have to think that being on an immediate contender would take on a greater urgency for him on a short deal.

I don't know that rebuilding will play into it all that much. If they throw a wad at Hamilton over three years, by definition they aren't rebuilding.

I'd be poised, as I've mentioned, to be very disciplined about what I would offer him. I think, for him, the questions have to be more about the fishbowl that's Boston than about anything else. That kind of scrutiny, that kind of constant pressure, is the sort of thing that might -- as he would put it -- "tempt" him.

[gammoseditor]

3/80 for Hamilton? Sign me up right now.

If we didn't offer that number first we would likely have to beat it, and hope no one else also comes over the top.

[StuckOnYouk]

I get the feeling that the only thing we've left in Hamilton's agent's mind is IF he's interested in a 3 year deal, we will beat any team's offer. If he's insisting on 4, we're not interested.

So in other words I don't see Philly getting him for 3 years, we'll top that 80 by a few mil if we have to I'd think.

[MikeM]

I still don't get the overall short sightedness involved in the defense of some of these deals already handed out (Victorino), or possibly in the works (Dempster). Generally speaking, either the money we are out there spending on these 3 year deals "does not matter" in the short term, or Ben may very well be clogging up the roster with expensive contracts on mediocre'ish options, in which we just potentially find ourselves looking to replace/improve upon as soon as next winter.

This attempting to hold the middle "we are rebuilding, but we really aren't" line is getting rather silly, imo. I mean i get the core need to put an optimistic spin on everything we do, but c'mon now. If (and granted, that's still a big *if* btw) Ben walks out of this winter spending/committing the same amount of money/time on Victorino/Dempster that we could of potentially secured Josh Hamilton with, he's deserving of a pretty low "what you did in your first offseason with money to spend" grade in my book.

Here's to hoping Hamilton does indeed get/take that 5 year offer from somewhere. Or resigns with Texas. Because this is all starting to look really "dress the pig up" ugly really quick imo.

[Cellar-Door]

I still don't get the overall short sightedness involved in the defense of some of these deals already handed out (Victorino), or possibly in the works (Dempster). Generally speaking, either the money we are out there spending on these 3 year deals "does not matter" in the short term, or Ben may very well be clogging up the roster with expensive contracts on mediocre'ish options, in which we just potentially find ourselves looking to replace/improve upon as soon as next winter.

This attempting to hold the middle "we are rebuilding, but we really aren't" line is getting rather silly, imo. I mean i get the core need to put an optimistic spin on everything we do, but c'mon now. If (and granted, that's still a big *if* btw) Ben walks out of this winter spending/committing the same amount of money/time on Victorino/Dempster that we could of potentially secured Josh Hamilton with, he's deserving of a pretty low "what you did in your first offseason with money to spend" grade in my book.

Here's to hoping Hamilton does indeed get/take that 5 year offer from somewhere. Or resigns with Texas. Because this is all starting to look really "dress the pig up" ugly really quick imo.

There are some flaws with this thinking:
1. Hamilton has agency, he gets to choose who he wants to play for, that he chooses somewhere other than Boston doesn't mean the Red Sox made a mistake that prevented them from signing him.
2. Hamilton can't pitch,
3. None of us have any idea what shape Hamilton's knees are in.
4. It makes the assumption that the Red Sox can't sign all 3.

[MikeM]

There are some flaws with this thinking:
1. Hamilton has agency, he gets to choose who he wants to play for, that he chooses somewhere other than Boston doesn't mean the Red Sox made a mistake that prevented them from signing him.
2. Hamilton can't pitch,
3. None of us have any idea what shape Hamilton's knees are in.
4. It makes the assumption that the Red Sox can't sign all 3.

If there was even a remote plan in place that had us being legitimately in on Hamilton, you don't go out and sign Victorino. On top of that, you especially don't go out and sign BOTH Victorino and Gomes. Period. It's really just that simple imo.

Actually, if we are talking about using this new found flexibility to hedge our bet some, Gomes i can maybe see. But taking the pre-leap on Victorino under those surrounding circumstances is just plain silly, regardless how one chooses to spin some ridiculous notion of "but.....but, if we didn't end up with Hamilton, we'd of potentially risked away our opportunity to fork over 3/$39m to the 32 year old/showing signs of a decline outfielder who seemingly can't hit RHP anymore".

If Hamilton's knees are that much of an issue, he likely never makes it past his pre-deal physical. If/when he does, i'll personally take my chances there over the even arguably higher overall risk/s involved with those other 2 turning out to be expensive pumpkins we'd ideally like to be rid of sooner rather then latter.

You are right in that Hamilton can't pitch, but it's not like Dempster would be some guy coming in without huge transitional (both age and league) question marks of his own in that department. And if you had the option to sign all 3, why take so much varied long term risk in the process? Make your big bet on Hamilton, keep Ellsbury around another year to negate any presented need of Victorino, and start looking at other pitchers who aren't 36 and requiring a 3 year deal (Marcum comes to mind). Free agency not offering up the best pool of talent to pick and choose from? Go with the internal arms already in house, and wait to spend your money latter if/when something better comes along. That will always, and i mean 99% of the time always, end up trumping the supporting logic behind handing out bad "filler" contracts when all is said and done.

Even biting the bullet and stepping up with the 4th year on Hamilton early on would of been a better overall approach then the one it appears Ben is taking now. Because at this point, and even in the event we do score Hamilton, this is still going to end badly as a whole imo. It's like Bad Version Theo out there pissing away our financial resources all over again.

[MHead81]

If there was even a remote plan in place that had us being legitimately in on Hamilton, you don't go out and sign Victorino. On top of that, you especially don't go out and sign BOTH Victorino and Gomes. Period. It's really just that simple imo.

Except that (a) they reportedly offered Ellsbury for Lee, meaning they would have been fine putting Victorino in CF, Hamilton in RF and Gomes & Nava/Kalish in LF, and (b) you can still have an outfield of Hamilton, Ellsbury and Victorino with Gomes as the 4th OF. (Since we would have 3 starting OFs capable of starting at CF, the outfield could be shuffled with the players who are not getting a day off moving out of LF so Gomes could play there.)

Free agency not offering up the best pool of talent to pick and choose from? Go with the internal arms already in house, and wait to spend your money latter if/when something better comes along. That will always, and i mean 99% of the time always, end up trumping the supporting logic behind handing out bad "filler" contracts when all is said and done.

A few weeks ago on D&C, Lucchino said that the plan is to build "deep depth." You don't do that by filling out your rotation with your guys in the high minors who aren't yet ready to come up permanently but who you can use to call up in the event of injury (De La Rosa, Barnes, etc.), or by penciling in Morales and Doubront-- 2 guys who have not come even close to pitching 200 innings in a single season, and then expecting Lackey to be back to LAA Lackey. In addition to that, you don't depend on 30 starts out of two pitchers (De La Rosa, Lackey) coming off of TJ surgery, nor do you put De La Rosa in the rotation in April and expect that come September he won't be out of gas. And of course, the guy you'd call up in September to replace De La Rosa with would be... oh yeah, De La Rosa.

To build "deep depth," you stash as many guys as you can in AAA (with mL FA deals or your own prospects), you stash a guy or 2 in the bullpen who you can stretch out if need be (Morales, Aceves), and you acquire a "filler" contract (ideally, not a "bad 'filler' contract") so that the guy who in your scenario is part of the front line of defense is now your 2nd or 3rd option in the event of emergency.

"If/when something better comes along," said player is almost certain to cost way too much in prospects during the season when many teams are bidding for his services in a league which has lowered the bar for reaching the playoffs by adding 2 more wild cards, meaning the 95-win mark is too high of a target. So it is a question of shelling out only cash in the offseason versus using prospects in the season, and especially given this particular organization's situation, that seems to be a no-brainer.

[The Boomer]

If there was even a remote plan in place that had us being legitimately in on Hamilton, you don't go out and sign Victorino. On top of that, you especially don't go out and sign BOTH Victorino and Gomes. Period. It's really just that simple imo.

Actually, if we are talking about using this new found flexibility to hedge our bet some, Gomes i can maybe see. But taking the pre-leap on Victorino under those surrounding circumstances is just plain silly, regardless how one chooses to spin some ridiculous notion of "but.....but, if we didn't end up with Hamilton, we'd of potentially risked away our opportunity to fork over 3/$39m to the 32 year old/showing signs of a decline outfielder who seemingly can't hit RHP anymore".

If Hamilton's knees are that much of an issue, he likely never makes it past his pre-deal physical. If/when he does, i'll personally take my chances there over the even arguably higher overall risk/s involved with those other 2 turning out to be expensive pumpkins we'd ideally like to be rid of sooner rather then latter.

You are right in that Hamilton can't pitch, but it's not like Dempster would be some guy coming in without huge transitional (both age and league) question marks of his own in that department. And if you had the option to sign all 3, why take so much varied long term risk in the process? Make your big bet on Hamilton, keep Ellsbury around another year to negate any presented need of Victorino, and start looking at other pitchers who aren't 36 and requiring a 3 year deal (Marcum comes to mind). Free agency not offering up the best pool of talent to pick and choose from? Go with the internal arms already in house, and wait to spend your money latter if/when something better comes along. That will always, and i mean 99% of the time always, end up trumping the supporting logic behind handing out bad "filler" contracts when all is said and done.

Even biting the bullet and stepping up with the 4th year on Hamilton early on would of been a better overall approach then the one it appears Ben is taking now. Because at this point, and even in the event we do score Hamilton, this is still going to end badly as a whole imo. It's like Bad Version Theo out there pissing away our financial resources all over again.

It's more like they had only difficult choices to make. The top free agents each carry their own risks. I would have preferrred the approach that thrifty organizations like the Rays are unafraid to pursue. However, the Sox lacked their pitching depth and no doubt were afraid to sacrifice Lester and whatever else it would take to get Myers. It was better to take the risk that Lester and the other starters could make comebacks. Instead of buying Hamilton and others high and repeating recently handcuffing mistakes in free agency, they overpaid to buy Napoli and Victorino low in the hopes that they would also make comebacks in a relatively short term. In plugging these holes for up to 3 seasons, the only mistake they could truly make was to sacrifice prospects and cost controlled younger players who are the core of their simultaneous rebuilding project. To attempt fielding a more competitive team for the next couple of seasons it was only a question of how to deploy their more than ample financial resources without copromising their long term flexibility. If the team exceeds expectations, they predicted right. If they disappoint again, they are still in a position to more traditionally continue to rebuild like Tampa Bay and other budget conscious teams do almost always. If they develop their needed younger and cost controlled core, it then makes more sense to break the bank to acquire that big ticket free agent from the annually dwindling pool of in their prime talents who are now more likely to be extended by the organizations where they gained stardom before they are allowed to ever reach free agency. This is where all their own money will go every time they successfully develop another worthy major leaguer. This is how most competitive organizations will exploit their finances in the foreseeable future. It's possible to discern this strategy, however unsatisfying their choices were, in the changed environment under the new collective bargaining regime.

[redsoxstiff]

...If they disappoint again, they are still in a position to more traditionally continue to rebuild like Tampa Bay and other budget conscious teams do almost always....

Boomer, I am fine with all of your positions except the one I'm quoting...
Three disappointments and this last one with a huge supply of monies...May create a seriousdownturn in revenue...

I am not suggesting a return to the :good old days"????when four or barely five figures were the attendance norms...

E.g. There were less than eleven thousand fans in the stands for Teds last game and last home run...

Turning things around from the down side is truly an ass breaking deal...

[Corsi]

Olney:

Source: Angels positioning themselves for a big strike in the market. Hamilton? We'll see.

https://twitter.com/...286367241003010

Joe McDonnell, Writer http://FoxSportsWest.com & http://FoxSports.com:

According to MLB source the Angels are in SERIOUS negotiations with Josh Hamilton. No deal has been reached as of yet.

https://twitter.com/...276263900839936

[RedOctober3829]

A lineup featuring Trout, Pujols, and Hamilton is scary to even think about. Wow.

[bakahump]

If your willing to go 3/80


Would you go 4/92? Sure you could look at it as "if Hamilton sucks then paying him 23 in 2016 will suck". Or you could look at it as "12 million in 2016 wouldnt be too bad for Hamilton." Would 12 million really make or break the 2016 team? Would 15?

I have actually proposed something like this in a Pedroia extension thread. The Sox have alot of money to spend this year. Front load contracts while you have the money. Then in the future if players "underproduce" (compared to their early career norms) you would be paying them less money.


Would Hamilton take 4/92 instead of 3/80? Would he take 4/95?

Edited by bakahump, 13 December 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[Darnell's Son]

If your willing to go 3/80


Would you go 4/92? Sure you could look at it as "if Hamilton sucks then paying him 23 in 2016 will suck". Or you could look at it as "12 million in 2016 wouldnt be too bad for Hamilton." Would 12 million really make or break the 2016 team? Would 15?

I have actually proposed something like this in a Pedroia extension thread. The Sox have alot of money to spend this year. Front load contracts while you have the money. Then in the future if players "underproduce" (compared to their early career norms) you would be paying them less money.


Would Hamilton take 4/92 instead of 3/80? Would he take 4/95?

The main issue though is the luxury tax, and that is calculated by AAV so this scenario doesn't work.

[gammoseditor]

If your willing to go 3/80


Would you go 4/92? Sure you could look at it as "if Hamilton sucks then paying him 23 in 2016 will suck". Or you could look at it as "12 million in 2016 wouldnt be too bad for Hamilton." Would 12 million really make or break the 2016 team? Would 15?

I have actually proposed something like this in a Pedroia extension thread. The Sox have alot of money to spend this year. Front load contracts while you have the money. Then in the future if players "underproduce" (compared to their early career norms) you would be paying them less money.


Would Hamilton take 4/92 instead of 3/80? Would he take 4/95?

If the Angels are jumping in then the numbers you're throwing out won't get it done.

And the luxury tax is calculated off of contracts average annual values. Front loading a contract doesn't help at all.

[Corsi]

Confirming @joeontheradio report, industry source says Angels are indeed getting close on a deal with Hamilton. Not quite done.

https://twitter.com/...298904091131905

[j44thor]

The only advantage to Front loading a contract would be to hopefully sign someone to a lower overall contract by paying more $$ upfront.
A contract that pays 20/15/10/5 is more valuable than a contract that pays 13/13/13/13 yet the latter has a higher AAV for cap purposes.

Of course I'm not sure if that type of structuring is even legal since one would assume teams would take advantage of that if it were the case.

[DanoooME]

Rosenthal says done deal, 5 years, no dollar figure yet: https://twitter.com/...305040458559489

[sackamano]

MLB trade rumors says it's a done deal, Hamilton to the Angels.

[tims4wins]

5/$125

[BoSoxFink]

Holy hell that lineup is sick! One of, if not the best lineups ever on paper I believe. Trout, Pujols, Hamilton and Trumbo all in the same lineup? WOW!

[Rasputin]

Holy hell that lineup is sick! One of, if not the best lineups ever on paper I believe. Trout, Pujols, Hamilton and Trumbo all in the same lineup? WOW!

And they took a big player from a prime division rival and they get to play the Astros a bunch.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

It appears the answer to this thread question is "no."

There's a thread in the MLB forum for the signing. Probably best to move discussion over there.