I wouldn't think it would be fun to be as one-note as karlmagnus.

***** please. I'm not saying anything half a dozen others haven't said. When the Sox give me a reason to stop playing a ###### up pennywhistle, then I'll be the first one whistling "Flight of the Bumblebees".

***** please. I'm not saying anything half a dozen others haven't said.

So everyone else has a simultaneous coincidental paranoid delusion that you are veering close to being a one-note gimmick poster?

Hanrahan and Melancon both look to be guys who are good, not great, relievers. But Hanrahan is older, costs a bunch of cash, and is gone after this year.

sure. they're both worse than papelbon, and better than ... 2012 version of mark melancon. but there's a lot of space between awful and great. hanrahan in 2010 and 2011 was a very good reliever, and his 2012 was pretty good on the balance, with some red flags. melancon, on the other hand was pretty good in 2011 and horrible in 2012. they are not the same.

From the outside, Melancon looks like a better bet, especially since you have a few years left to see how he improves or to trade him.

a better bet to what, exactly? to provide marginally better total value over his 5 years than hanrahan can in 1? maybe. but that's not what the red sox need. with hanrahan you have a real chance that he bounces back to where he was in 2010/2011. if he doesn't, you have a pretty good chance that he at least pitches as well as 2012. and if he doesn't do that, you let him go. they took a guy that has an ok chance to provide some value at hte back of the bullpen and turned him into a guy that has a chance to be a very good reliever again.

I can see why it is more tempting to jump on a poster than defending a crap trade.

melancon, on the other hand was pretty good in 2011 and horrible in 2012. they are not the same.

Melancon had a bad four-game stretch at the start of the year that screwed up his numbers, but was otherwise quite good.

With all due respect to everyone's assessment of Holt's defense, he played more SS than 2B in the minors. And in this article, Hurdle says he "did fine" at SS. Without more info, I'm going to assume he's at least passable. If he is, he's a pretty interesting piece.

I think MC hits the nail on the head with this trade. Maybe the Red Sox have good reasons to like Hanrahan a lot better than Melancon, but their recent track record doesn't really make me want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I can see why it is more tempting to jump on a poster than defending a crap trade.

One has nothing to do with the other.

It's plausible that this was a good deal (for reasons outlined in my post #5), but I don't have a lot of reason to trust the Red Sox talent evaluators, and you need to trust the Sox evaluators to like the trade. All of the stuff about "Melancon was #5 in the bullpen" presumes that Melancon isn't good and Hanrahan is good, but their respective CAIRO projections (Hanrahan 3.06 ERA in Pit, Melancon 3.84 ERA in Bos) don't suggest such a huge gap. If Sands is useless, then trading him isn't much of a loss, but he projects as a competent bench bat (CAIRO 330/459 in Bos) with starter upside.

Further, there's the problem that the exact same Sox evaluators that we're supposed to trust now, well, they traded Jed Lowrie for Mark Melancon in the first place, and they also took DeJesus and Sands as throw-ins to the Punto Trade. If those guys actually suck, then why should we trust the front office that acquired them?

The "Sox traded for them" thing cuts both ways, though. Folks who hated the Melancon trade and continually brought up league differences and save percentage and "can he pitch in Boston?" as arguments against trusting Melancon probably shouldn't have all that visceral a reaction against trading him away.

So everyone else has a simultaneous coincidental paranoid delusion that you are veering close to being a one-note gimmick poster?

Someone's delusional when they think two (three i guess, I couldn't quite parse SOSH's comment) people consist of everyone. (cue others to pile on.)

But I'll stop being negative. Let me say I'm thrilled and excited to get the Flyin Hawaiin as our right fielder/center fielder for the next three years. He's got a great arm, and who knows, maybe he'll return to 2010 form

I'm delighted to get Stephen Drew on such a cheap contract. He was hurt the last 1 1/2 years. Who knows, maybe he'll repeat that career 113 OPS+ season he had. Which is great for a shortstop.

If they ever do sign Napoli and his hip...whoops, not allowed to be negative...I'm sure Napoli will thrive in his new enviroment and put up career numbers.

Hanrahan?? Who can hate that?...ok stop stop stop....

I was going to say with a straight face that I wasn't being sarcastic, and I wasn't but...I can't say that demoting, and it is a demotion, there is no chance they use Bailey as a fireman...I can't say with a straight face that demoting Bailey after two months is a good idea. Unless of course there is some plan we don't know about to trade Bailey.

with hanrahan you have a real chance that he bounces back to where he was in 2010/2011

There is also the chance that Melancon would do the same. If that happens you've got him for another 3-4 years.

Melancon 2009-2011: 112 IP, 124 ERA+, 2.23 K/BB

Hanrahan 2009-2011: 202 IP, 118 ERA+, 3.07 K/BB

I just don't see a major difference between the two. I like Hanrahan's stuff better and he's got more of a track record but I just don't find that a compelling reason to believe he's got meaningfully more upside.

they also took DeJesus and Sands as throw-ins to the Punto Trade.

I don't think you can equate DeJesus/Sands with Lowrie for Melancon. They were as you note throw-ins and presumably wouldn't have been expected to be major contributors. Guys like that you get with the idea that maybe their benefit is in being flipped somewhere else. I think using both to acquire someone you believe to improve your team makes sense. De La Rosa/Webster/Proven MLB Closer is not awful as a return for Nick and Puntettes.

We've all done it in our fantasy leagues I'm sure. You push for another player or two who probably won't amount to much but could have some value.

I can't say with a straight face that demoting Bailey after two months is a good idea. Unless of course there is some plan we don't know about to trade Bailey.

There are plenty of real reasons to dislike this trade, but how does switching Bailey's role make it a bad thing?

There are plenty of real reasons to dislike this trade, but how does switching Bailey's role make it a bad thing?

Overall bad? No, I think my analysis of "So the Sox paid 7 mill to clear roster space" is spot on. A lot of lateral moves.

One of the the main writers at Over The Monster is afraid this is pushing the Sox perilously close to the luxury tax limit they made such a big deal about last year, so there is that. Making a lateral move that limits them.

As for Bailey, I didn't say that switching him makes it a bad trade. Just that it's hard to get on board with making Hanrahan the closer immediatly. Not even an obligatory "Spring training quote"? it's kind of ominous. Yes, I know relievers like to know their role as soon as possible, but...it's just a little weird. Does Bailey have another injury we don't know about? Is he in trouble? Are they going to trade him? How does Bailey feel about this?

The most important thing about this trade is that we got rid of a guy who either misspells or mispronounces his own name. That's always going to be a plus.

As for Bailey, I didn't say that switching him makes it a bad trade. Just that it's hard to get on board with making Hanrahan the closer immediatly. Not even an obligatory "Spring training quote"? it's kind of ominous. Yes, I know relievers like to know their role as soon as possible, but...it's just a little weird. Does Bailey have another injury we don't know about? Is he in trouble? Are they going to trade him? How does Bailey feel about this?

Ok, thanks, I wasn't sure what you meant. It did also strike me as slightly odd that Hanrahan was 'anointed' so soon.

The other problem with the Bailey angle is that a year ago, they traded for Bailey to be their closer. In one year, they seem to have decided that they were wrong on both him and Melancon, which doesn't make me want to believe them on Hanrahan.

The other problem with the Bailey angle is that a year ago, they traded for Bailey to be their closer. In one year, they seem to have decided that they were wrong on both him and Melancon, which doesn't make me want to believe them on Hanrahan.

Well, Bailey's one year was 15 innnings of 7 ERA, so I understand not being stubborn about his role. But what I don't understand is bypassing the perfectly good closer options of Uehara and Tazawa.

One of the the main writers at Over The Monster is afraid this is pushing the Sox perilously close to the luxury tax limit they made such a big deal about last year, so there is that.

This occurred to me, too. I think it suggests one of two things:

1. They think the present team, as constructed, is good enough to make a run this year. Or,
2. They're going to move some salary very soon.

The most important thing about this trade is that we got rid of a guy who either misspells or mispronounces his own name. That's always going to be a plus.

That's why they had Hanrahan say his name quickly seven times at the medical.

1. They think the present team, as constructed, is good enough to make a run this year.

It might mean they are simply done with all substantial roster changes whether or not they think the team is good enough, right?

One of the the main writers at Over The Monster is afraid this is pushing the Sox perilously close to the luxury tax limit they made such a big deal about last year, so there is that.

I'm guessing this writer is using Alex Speier's payroll estimates? I think Speier is over-projecting arbitration salaries by $5-10M total. using my own estimates of arb and pre-arb salaries, I have the Sox projected to about $155M in luxury tax payroll, which gives them $10M in breathing space. My ~$25M projection, ~$32M with Hanrahan, basically agrees with the arb salary projection at MLBTR. I also expect that Alfredo Aceves will be traded, and Saltalamacchia may also go, which would free up several million apiece.

Is there really still some question that Salty will go? I assumed he was gone when they got Ross but it's been a while and now I'm wondering...

Melancon 2009-2011: 112 IP, 124 ERA+, 2.23 K/BB

Hanrahan 2009-2011: 202 IP, 118 ERA+, 3.07 K/BB

100% more innings and almost 50% better k/bb ratio. i'll take hanrahan going forward.

It's plausible that this was a good deal (for reasons outlined in my post #5), but I don't have a lot of reason to trust the Red Sox talent evaluators, and you need to trust the Sox evaluators to like the trade.

i agree that you can't really trust the red sox as evaluators at this point. trading reddick for bailey was an absurdly bad move in hindsight, and pretty bad at the time; the lowrie trade was almost as bad, as they basically got nothing in return.

that said, i think you can make the case for this trade quite easily. stolmy is a lottery ticket at best. sands repeated at the most hitter-friendly environment and didn't dominate, and he doesn't have a position. all that's left is hanrahan vs. melancon, and i think that's a pretty clear upgrade.

The other problem with the Bailey angle is that a year ago, they traded for Bailey to be their closer. In one year, they seem to have decided that they were wrong on both him and Melancon, which doesn't make me want to believe them on Hanrahan.

well, they were wrong on both bailey and melancon. would you rather they not admit it and repeat their mistakes?

Is there really still some question that Salty will go? I assumed he was gone when they got Ross but it's been a while and now I'm wondering...

geez. i hope they find a way to move him, but i'm beginning to wonder, too.

well, they were wrong on both bailey and melancon. would you rather they not admit it and repeat their mistakes?

No, but I don't want to repeat the mistake of trusting their talent evaluators.

stolmy is a lottery ticket at best. sands repeated at the most hitter-friendly environment and didn't dominate, and he doesn't have a position. all that's left is hanrahan vs. melancon, and i think that's a pretty clear upgrade.

Well, I'm not willing to say that Jerry Sands is valueless. A guy who can put up a 750 OPS and fake both 1B and LF has bench value, and he's young enough that he could learn to be better than that.

Also, the Sox traded four seasons of Melancon for one season of Hanrahan. Hanrahan doesn't need to be just an upgrade, he needs to be enough of an upgrade to justify losing the next three seasons of Melancon. If Melancon sucks, that's fine and dandy, but it's a more involved question than just, who projects better in 2013?

well, they were wrong on both bailey and melancon. would you rather they not admit it and repeat their mistakes?

I'm not condemning them admitting mistakes (although they may be wrong there too), I'm only observing what that reversal says about their decision making.

Is there really still some question that Salty will go? I assumed he was gone when they got Ross but it's been a while and now I'm wondering...

geez. i hope they find a way to move him, but i'm beginning to wonder, too.

Yeah, I said "maybe" because I'm growing concerned that they don't believe in Lavarnway.

Melancon 2009-2011: 112 IP, 124 ERA+, 2.23 K/BB

Hanrahan 2009-2011: 202 IP, 118 ERA+, 3.07 K/BB

100% more innings and almost 50% better k/bb ratio. i'll take hanrahan going forward.

The K/BB ratio is a valid point but the innings is largely a function of the fact that one guy was a young pitcher trying to break into a team that was one of the best in baseball and the other was a semi-established pitcher trying to break into one of the worst.

Is there really still some question that Salty will go? I assumed he was gone when they got Ross but it's been a while and now I'm wondering...

geez. i hope they find a way to move him, but i'm beginning to wonder, too.

Yeah, I said "maybe" because I'm growing concerned that they don't believe in Lavarnway.

But there's no rush to decide on Lavarnway, right? Unless I'm forgetting some factor, I don't see the downside of having a little depth at catcher to either safeguard against an injury to Salty or Ross or to wait for a great trade offer for one of the guys. For all this, I'm assuming that Napoli is not part of the catching situation.

Also, the Sox traded four seasons of Melancon for one season of Hanrahan. Hanrahan doesn't need to be just an upgrade, he needs to be enough of an upgrade to justify losing the next three seasons of Melancon. If Melancon sucks, that's fine and dandy, but it's a more involved question than just, who projects better in 2013?

of course it's more complicated than just 2013.

i guess what i'm saying is that it depends on where you set the replacement level for middle relievers. if melancon is projecting to be just another guy at the back of the bullpen, then that has value in the abstract (and real value to a team on a tight budget), but you should* be able to find a replacement. so, if melancon is replaceable, and hanrahan has a chance to get back somewhere near his 2010/2011 performance, he has more value to the red sox, even if they project to have similar values over the length of their contracts.

* i realize this is a jump to say that the red sox will succeed at replacing replaceable players, but, if you can't do that, you're forced to trade jed lowrie and josh reddick for relievers, and you've basically already lost.

to add, middle relievers are either replaceable or they aren't.

if they are replaceable, then you don't shed a tear over losing melancon. if they are, then you sometimes have to part with a guy like jed lowrie (who had upside, but couldn't stay on the field) for one. you can't have it both ways.

to add, middle relievers are either replaceable or they aren't.

This may be semantic quibbling, but in losing Melancon they might be giving up a 'back-end' reliever, not just a 'middle' reliever.

no, i don't think that's quibbling.

that argument is that melancon projects to be a pretty good reliever, one that you can use in high leverage 8th inning spots. that, i don't see.

the other argument that i'm seeing in this thread is that melancon is just ok, a guy that you can use in medium leverage situations, but because they have him locked in for 5 years, he has real value. i agree with this, but i'm arguing that you can replaceable this easily, and that the performance represented by hanrahan's 75% (to pull a number out of my ass) projection is actually scarce.

the other argument that i'm seeing in this thread is that melancon is just ok, a guy that you can use in medium leverage situations, but because they have him locked in for 5 years, he has real value. i agree with this, but i'm arguing that you can replaceable this easily, and that the performance represented by hanrahan's 75% (to pull a number out of my ass) projection is actually scarce.

Even if you accept that Hanrahan>Melancon I don't think Hanrahan>Melancon+Sands+Pimentel for this team.

Even if you accept that Hanrahan>Melancon I don't think Hanrahan>Melancon+Sands+Pimentel for this team.

fair enough. i disagree, though, as i see sands and pimentel as near zero.

Even if you accept that Hanrahan>Melancon I don't think Hanrahan>Melancon+Sands+Pimentel for this team.

You forgot Holt, which balances it out. The title to Keith Law's insider post on the trade said it best: "Minor upgrade for little cost."

With all due respect to everyone's assessment of Holt's defense, he played more SS than 2B in the minors. And in this article, Hurdle says he "did fine" at SS. Without more info, I'm going to assume he's at least passable. If he is, he's a pretty interesting piece.

I saw Holt play on numerous occasions last year. He's not a good defender. Might be able to get up to passable at SS (in the true-talent -10 sense) and might not, but definitely isn't there yet.

In an ideal world, he's a 2B.

Two points - first, I love Alex Speier.

Me too. Love his articles.

The other problem with the Bailey angle is that a year ago, they traded for Bailey to be their closer. In one year, they seem to have decided that they were wrong on both him and Melancon, which doesn't make me want to believe them on Hanrahan.

How much of this falls with bringing Farrell back into the mix? I think you have to consider that the talent evaluations are going to be different based on different staff from last year...