|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The Red Sox made a play to re-acquire Marlins superstar Hanley Ramirez after losing out to the rival Yankees for star free agent Mark Teixeira, league sources tell SI.com. But while the Marlins listened to Boston’s overtures, Florida isn’t anxious to trade its best player, and talks apparently have been aborted after no agreement could be reached.
The Marlins were said to be most interested in a center fielder, and discussions apparently centered on Boston’s promising youngster Jacoby Ellsbury, talented pitching prospect Clay Buchholz and others in a package for Ramirez, who began in Boston’s organization.
The Red Sox first targeted Teixeira as a way to upgrade their offense, but after the rival Yankees won that bidding with their $180 million proposal over eight years (Boston was believed to be offering at least $170 million over eight guaranteed years plus two additional years that could be voided by the team based on plate appearances), Ramirez briefly became an appetizing alternative.
Tripon
Posted: December 30, 2008 at 03:46 AM | 215 comment(s)
| Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Boston, Florida
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-10-2012 (17 - 8:31pm, Feb 10)Last: Bob EvansNewsblog: Curt Schilling Says Manny 'Quit on the Field,' Teammates Stopped Him From Confronting Slugger (29 - 8:31pm, Feb 10)Last: Arnett Mead (Arjun)Newsblog: Stark: Big names who might be on the move (3 - 8:28pm, Feb 10)Last: birdlives is one crazy ninjaNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012 (418 - 8:27pm, Feb 10)Last: NJ is feeling betterNewsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault (6130 - 8:24pm, Feb 10)Last: Misirlou's got a busy day, he's wearing a vestNewsblog: Mets owners knew about Maddoff (32 - 8:16pm, Feb 10)Last: SouthSideRyanNewsblog: Sullivan: 2011 in Extreme Home Runs (1 - 8:15pm, Feb 10)Last: Good cripple hitterNewsblog: Knobler: Stay away from steroids -- but vote how you want (26 - 8:14pm, Feb 10)Last: BooeyTransaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (56 - 8:12pm, Feb 10)Last: Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas)Newsblog: MLB: Hall of Fame worthy? Furthest thing from Schilling's mind (41 - 7:55pm, Feb 10)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Grantland/Bill James: An Open Letter to the Hall of Fame About Dwight Evans (45 - 6:59pm, Feb 10)Last: Ron JNewsblog: ESPN: Law: Top 100 Prospects (paywalled) (11 - 6:54pm, Feb 10)Last: Crispix AttacksNewsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s (298 - 6:51pm, Feb 10)Last: rflohNewsblog: FSKC announces on-air lineup for Royals - Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc to join (12 - 6:32pm, Feb 10)Last: Robert in Manhattan BeachSox Therapy: Offseason Minor League Thread (3 - 6:11pm, Feb 10)Last: Dan
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I hate to agree - but he's right
Would he waive the "provide no value" clause, too?
I think the Diamondbacks should just enjoy paying approximately $11 million of their approximately $66 million payroll each of the next two years. How many dumber contracts are there, given the context of a team's resources, than that one? Any?
And I agree you'd be hard pressed to find a contract that was more pointless, unnecessary and destructive to a team than the Eric Byrnes extension--which, besides wasting $30m of the team's low payroll, led to the dump of two cheap young left fielders in SHairston and CQuentin.
Jeff Moorad really knows how to exploit dumb baseball owners to enrich marginal baseball players.
Can you narrow it down to say 20 or so?
He's huge and a pal of Francesspool.
Man, he is huge!
Who doesn't?
As a move intended to add talent, it's a great one. Still, why move him to CF? He was finally decent at SS according to the numbers last year and only projected to be about -10 this year. How much more valuable could he be in CF?
Buchholz/Ellsbury isn't close to a reasonable Hanley package but it's probably what they offer during the first phone call
If the Red Sox want Hanley they're either including Lester or the entire farm system. You don't get a guy like that without it hurting.
Sounds like a pointless phone call. I'd resent having my time wasted if I were Beinfest.
Start with Lester, Anderson, Lowrie and go from there.
This doesn't sound like a bad deal for Boston. Add some low level lottery tickets like Almanzar and Navarro, and you might have something.
I'd be offended that he thought I was LaMar.
This is insane. I stopped him in the hall and told him so. But kind of funny at the same time. Who here could pick Lars Anderson out of a criminal lineup?
You forgot Pedroia, Youkilis, and Papelbon. Remember, the only fair deal is one in which the Red Sox give up at least 5 times as much talent as they get back.
In this scenario, Theo's LaMar.
The first had not been my understanding of the situation.
And the second seems to contradict what the article here says about the contact.
I think this is more cyclical and less of a sure thing than you think it is. Despite their reputation, the Yankees have signed the bestest FA at whatever cost only twice this decade - in the 2001 offseason and this year. People were ready to gamble first-born children and mortgage payments that Beltran would be a Yankee, but he isn't.
"Sorry we only won ONE World Series w/ the guys we got for Han-Ram, Red Sox Nation! We'll do better next time!"
Not to dig up that well-beaten horse, but calling that trade foolish (even as hyperbole) is just silly. Of course, so's trying to re-acquire Ramirez @ the peak of his powers, even if Loria would take a month-old ham sandwich filled with cash for him.
Has there ever been a case where a team's re-acquired (via trade) a former prospect so soon after flipping him to another team AND after the prospect's established himself as a bonafide player?
I can't think of one, by why shouldn't a team? There's no sense in compounding the error out of some kind of weird pride.
Didn't Schilling return to the original drafting team just a few years after he was traded - in geological time?
Can you narrow it down to say 20 or so?
It was a guy who calls himself "Adam the Bull."
That's Adam “The Bull” Gerstenhaber
Repoz knows all the idiots. edit...but he hasn't met me yet.
The bestest free agent that happens to fit the Yankees needs doesn't come around every year. Also, I think the Yanks have learned their lesson from the Carlos Beltran mistake. I don't expect them to ever pass on a player like that again. Certainly, if I were the Sawx FO, I wouldn't count on the Yankees taking a pass on Ramirez.
A pass on signing (in a few years - HR just signed an extension, right?), or a pass on trading? If the Red Sox would come up short (or spite their face) in any potential trade, I'd love to see the mystique considerations NYY would have to pile on in order to swing a non-laughable deal.
Agreed. However, I'd think twice about overpaying due to an emotional connection, and about trading for and locking up a player like this who could suddenly decline or get hurt before free agency.
I'm not saying that either of these are sure things, but they are factors to consider.
Yeah, but couldn't you say this about any player? Ramirez has been durable and, more importantly, he's freakin awesome. This is all just theoretical, though. I can't imagine the Marlins will trade him.
edit: You know, after looking at the details of HR's contract, if the Marlins trade him, MLB should run Loria out of the league. He's going to be laughably underpaid for the life of his contract.
I dont really understand this. who has the emotional connection to Hanley? And what do you mean 'player like this'? isnt this type of player the kind you would want to lock up contractually? ..which the Marlins have already done, he's signed until after 2014 I think.
Whenever the Hanley sell off happens (I'll guess next offseason) it will be big and involve a lot of interested teams, I would assume.
Theo's Lamar because he's the one asking for the great player.
They just landed their ballpark (ETA: 2012) so I would guess they are looking to keep people interested for then. Now obviously, if they think they can land a package for Hanley that would make them better for the stadium's opening, that's one thing. But I can't see them fire-selling just now.
I dont think its so certain, but i may be wrong.
I agree. But I could see them doing it at the start of next offseason
Buddy Myer wasn't anywhere near the player that Ramirez is, but Washington traded him to Boston soon after Myer debuted. He posted a 106 OPS+ in his first full season in Boston, and Washington got him back in another trade with the Red Sox.
This doesn't sound like a bad deal for Boston. Add some low level lottery tickets like Almanzar and Navarro, and you might have something.
In this scenario, Theo's LaMar.
Haren netted six players as a very good young pitcher signed cheaply for several years. Cabrera netted two Top 20 prospects plus other stuff. Hanley is a lot better than Haren and a lot more valuable than Cabrera. Shouldn't he net an ace pitcher a league average SS, a very good prospect and two low level high upside guys? If he were still on the Red Sox isn't that what you'd want back if you traded him at all?
Which is why unless the Marlins are in a "Trade-him-or-bust" mode, Hanley isn't going anywhere.
I think both of those are basically reasonable packages for Hanley Ramirez. Both seem a little bit steep to me, but not too, too bad. Hanley Ramirez may be the best player in baseball - Pujols is undergoing surgery this offseason, after all.
Nonetheless, on either front that would be a hard package to give up for Hanley. Not just in the fan-emotional sense but also because there is a lot of talent going there. On the Yankee front, it opens some big holes (2B and 2 rotation spots) and for Boston it takes away a starter and commits them to Lugo.
Which is the incredibly long-winded way of saying once again I don't think Hanley is going anywhere unless Loria takes the sandwich from #38.
Likewise for the Red Sox, but even less so.
For the privilege of making this trade off, the Red Sox have to kick in two top prospects. Why would they do this? Would you want your favorite team to make this kind of deal?
Yes, but I'm not sure that Haren, at the point he was traded, was significantly more valuable than Lester is right now.
Hanley is far more likely to make that projection than Lester(pitcher) or Lowrie(only 306 MLB PAs), and a 6 WAR player is worth a lot more than two 3 WAR players.
And maybe they should go that route, it sure as hell isn't my money. But I think the notion of the Yankees adding another $25-40 million in payroll isn't a likelihood at this point.
Now the Red Sox have some dough to spend, but their post-trade holes wouldn't hit quite as nicely with the FA market as the Yankees, they could sign one of the Lowe/Perez/Wolf bunch to fill Lester's spot but Hudson does nothing for them.
(As an aside, I don't think the Yankees will end up going 1/15 for Pettitte. I think he overplayed his hand, and he's either taking 1/10 or pitching elsewhere in 2010. Or not pitching.)
I've gotta say that a Top Ten starter projecting about the same as a promising-but-never-done-much shortstop is a red flag.
I don't see how Jed Lowrie should hold me back from acquiring Hanley Ramirez. His inclusion in that first paragraph really throws me. If Jed Lowrie is your prototypical 3 WAR player, then I'd absolutely give up a couple of those for Hanley Ramirez.
Two 3 WAR players are worth nothing close to one 6 WAR player.
lineup spots and 6 WAR players are both more precious resources than 3 WAR players.
If the Angels were offered Ramirez for Jered Weaver and Erick Aybar or Brandon Wood (actually, Aybar + Wood) then I'd say hell yeah! Do the trade!
Sometimes I think the wins above replacement concept needs to be junked. Getting an infielder who like Lowrie, Wood, or Aybar is not that hard. Getting a pitcher like Lester or Weaver is harder, but can be done. Derek Lowe is out there and all he costs is millions. Getting a player like Hanley Ramirez, already locked up for 6 more seasons, is very, very difficult. There just aren't too many who play at that level, and they are rarely available. A-Rod, Pujols, Mauer, Sizemore, Beltran, Utley, Wright - that's about it.
All right. And I've been wrong about projections before. But the way I read your post above was that as far as value, Lester = Lowrie. I thought that was way overrating to Jed, and would fail the necessary "sanity check" that any system that attempts to compare position playes and pitchers should go through.
So that's locked him into a situation where the Yankees have a huge amount of leverage, and Pettitte has very little. I think Pettitte (or his agents, I'm not necessarily assigning all of this to Andy and Andy alone) imagined the Yankees, having signed CC and A.J. would be dishing out any more big money deals and instead working on the edges (i.e. Cameron-for-Melky and Pettitte himself).
Once they signed Tex, that gave the Yankees at least the bargining position to say "We're better than last year, a lot better, and we have one open rotation spot with two kids we were willing to start last year itching to grab it. So take your 10 million or go home, because Houston isn't spending any money, and we know you aren't signing elsewhere."
Another way to look at this math is that it would be silly to overpay a player by one-third, assuming that you have him as a $10 million player.
Really? That's the move that will finally give you that opinion of the Mets?
And their strategy may work. In my reading, they're "playing hardball" in order to get Pettitte to sign for 1/13, or maybe 1/11 with easily achievable incentives. They don't expect him to sign at their price, they're doing the normal negotiation thing of offering less money than the player wants in the hopes of meeting in the middle.
EDIT: this, it should be noted, is precisely what happened in the ARod and Sabathia negotiations. The people who understood "take it or leave it" as in fact a perfectly normal opening bid were exactly right. The people who swallowed the Yankee FO's rhetoric were wrong. I think it maps quite well onto the current situation.
Why do you keep saying this? Below what market?
But Lester and Lowrie's contracts are bigger bargains. By a lot.
I would say it's your job to put a 95+-win team on the field and two three WAR players help you toward that goal. A 5-6 WAR player (and again, this is generous, he may well be in the 4-5 range if his defense isn't average) helps more. But it's not the end-all, be-all.
You also have to consider the other side of the trade. The Marlins are not working with a $150 mil. 3 WAR players who make nothing are very valuable to them.
I understand this point of view, but didn't Tango essentially put this notion to rest.
Also too in addition and furthermore, Hanley doesn't project to be a 6-WARP guy. He projects to be closer to 5.
The deals being discussed here have the Red Sox giving up the best of both worlds--cost-controlled above average players who are ML-ready and top prospects with tremendous upside. No thanks, IMHO.
You might be right that the Yankees have some "give" on their 1/10 offer. But I don't think it's as much as you think and I also don't think this is anything close to last season, where the Yankees basically made it clear that Pettitte was welcome to come back for his $16, just tell them where to sign.
Below the market where Burnett got 5/82. Below the market where Lowe is reportedly getting 3/45 and holding out for 4/60.
Is that really a below market deal for a 37 year-old pitcher coming off an ERA+ of 98?
I'm hoping that Andy will agree to the Yankees offer and rejoin the team as the #4 starter in the rotation, but I think everyone needs to acknowledge that there have indeed been corrections in the market this offseason, especially as pertains to players who aren't elite. Last season Bobby Abreu's OPS+ of 120 would have, at the least, earned him his $16 million option on 2009. This year, he'll probably see an annual value of around 70% of that, maybe even less.
.279 .326 .431
...hell, Jed can do that.
OK, seriously, what would Hanley project to put up in a Sox uni?
How are Pettitte's desires relevant here? What matters is that a 1-year deal is a lot less risky than a 3-year deal--that's why they cost more per year. That Pettitte would be happy with a 1-year deal, rather than settling for it, doesn't really matter from a pricing perspective.
Nothing in that link refutes my point. You have a limited number of players you can use. A 6 WAR player and a replacement player produce the same value as two 3 WAR players, but it is (or should be) easier to get a 1 WAR player to improve on that replacement player than it is to get a 4 WAR player to replace one of the 3 WAR guys.
I think the disagreement focuses on whether $16 million represents a below-market deal for Pettitte.
As far as AAV, Pettitte at $15 million would get about 90% of what AJ gets.
I don't think he's 90% of the player that Burnett is.
I don't think the Lowe thing is relevant - it isn't the Yankees, and it isn't signed.
I don't think that's universally the case. Sometimes players and teams agree on one-year deals for other reasons. I'm sure that Gagne felt that a good year as the Brewers' closer would rehab his value on the open market.
And there's nothing keeping a team with only a few 6-WAR players (which describes the current Red Sox) from being very good.
He's offering to go short because he wants to go short. He shouldn't be additionally compensated for something that is his preference. If he's worth 12 mil a year according to the projections, that's what his fair market value is.
People are seriously underrating Hanley.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main