Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

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.

   1. OCD SS Posted: November 15, 2008 at 03:26 AM (#3009675)
He would be an excellent risk...


Who is going to at least want closer money, if not to actually close. I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, just that it will be costly.
   2. rr Posted: November 15, 2008 at 03:34 AM (#3009677)
OCD is right, and I also think that Wood will want to go to team on which he can be the big dog.
   3. alskor Posted: November 15, 2008 at 03:37 AM (#3009678)
Hey, he was willing to take less to stay on the Cubbies... maybe he has a thing for old time stadiums... we can show him what real fans are like.
   4. villageidiom Posted: November 15, 2008 at 04:11 AM (#3009689)
Who is going to at least want closer money, if not to actually close.
OK, Debbie Downer. Who's out there among the reliever free agent ranks who (a) Boston can realistically get (b) for a non-closer role (c) who would be worth getting and (d) would cost a reasonable amount?

I'm not asking to be snarky. I think the bullpen is one of those few areas on the roster where Mr. Epstein is willing to sign free agents. Who are the best of the bunch?
   5. Justin T., Director of Somethin Posted: November 15, 2008 at 04:16 AM (#3009693)
I grant that I'm likely to be proven wrong, but this just doesn't feel like a good year to be a closer FA. The teams that could use a closer don't appear to be the ones which would be willing to give lots of money for one. Except the Mets. But there's more than one FA closer who wants to get paid.
   6. Sam M. Posted: November 15, 2008 at 04:28 AM (#3009700)
The teams that could use a closer don't appear to be the ones which would be willing to give lots of money for one. Except the Mets. But there's more than one FA closer who wants to get paid.

Ah, but you forget one important thing: the Mets' bullpen is so bad, they actually need about FOUR FA closers. And with the move to Citi Field, they actually have the money to pay them. So it might just be a good year to be K-Rod, Fuentes, and Wood. Omar will sign 'em all, and then add Cruz for good measure.

You know, I'm almost serious. That's how desperate I am for bullpen help after the last two seasons . . . . Sigh.
   7. plink Posted: November 15, 2008 at 04:32 AM (#3009704)
Only for a one year deal. I really subscribe to the idea that once you get below the top tier, middle relievers are essentially fungible.
   8. Darren Posted: November 15, 2008 at 04:46 AM (#3009708)
I don't see a lot of people jumping to sign Wood as a closer. Teams who sign closers generally think they're contenders and contenders don't want a closer who might be out for 1/2 the year. Wood may sign somewhere where he's in the hunt for the closer role but I just don't think anyone's going to plunk down 3/30 for him.
   9. tfbg9 Posted: November 15, 2008 at 04:55 AM (#3009711)
He’s a big injury risk


He's an injury lock. Almost. Wtf, 11 mil for 2 years?
   10. philly Posted: November 15, 2008 at 05:25 AM (#3009716)
I don't see a lot of people jumping to sign Wood as a closer. Teams who sign closers generally think they're contenders and contenders don't want a closer who might be out for 1/2 the year. Wood may sign somewhere where he's in the hunt for the closer role but I just don't think anyone's going to plunk down 3/30 for him.


How can you forget so quickly? I beleive you were cheering when the Brewers coughed up 10M and a comp pick for Gagne just last year.

Maybe the Brewers getting burned so badly scares teams away, but if Gagne can get 10M as a high, risk flyer for a contender, then I don't think you can go in thinking about getting Wood on the cheap for non-closer money.
   11. Darren Posted: November 15, 2008 at 05:30 AM (#3009718)
I could certainly see someone giving Wood 1/10 if they, as the Brewers did, had some other viable options to step in. But 1/10 is non-closer money. Closer money is what Francisco Cordero got last year--4/48, or what Fuentes appears set to get--3/35 or so.

(And to make clear, IIRC, I was cheering about the comp pick, not that it was good signing.)
   12. philly Posted: November 15, 2008 at 05:54 AM (#3009727)
But 1/10 is non-closer money.


I disagree. The 10M/year is close enough to what Cordero got and Fuentes is reported to get considering both are much better pitchers. It's a non-closer length of contract.

Off the top of my head I don't think there's a set-up releiver out there that makes more than 5M/yr. That's non-closer money.

I'd be pretty surprised if Wood signs for closer to 5M than 10M. That doesn't necessarily make him a bad fit for the Sox, although I suspect Papelbon would flip his lid if Wood was brought in to be his setup guy for more than Papelbon will make in arb (5-6M tops?).
   13. Darren Posted: November 15, 2008 at 04:38 PM (#3009811)
Semantics, I think. You sign a closer for 4/48 (Cordero's deal), and you've got a large chunk of money at risk because of all those years guaranteed. If the guy flames out, you could have wasted upwards of $30 mil. With a 1/10 deal, the most you're wasting is $10 mil.

I'd be pretty surprised if Wood signs for closer to 5M than 10M.


Agreed.

It's hard to worry about what Pap thinks if he's going to be completely unrealistic about the realities of baseball's salary structure. Last year mop-up man Timlin made several times Pap's salary and he didn't have a problem with that.
   14. HMS Moses Taylor Posted: November 15, 2008 at 04:48 PM (#3009812)
Kerry really wants to stay with the Cubs. If he doesn't get a 3 year deal somewhere, he'll be back with the Cubs. Jim Hendry was trying to do him a favor by stopping the talks with Wood now, letting him try to get a long term deal. If that doesn't happen, I guarantee you he'll be back with the Cubs. They're going to offer him arbitration, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Wood accept it if he hasn't signed by the deadline.

we can show him what real fans are like.

Ignoring the snark here, but I think part of the reason Wood wants to stay is the fans. If he signs anywhere else and goes through a rough patch or is hurt again, the fans aren't going to be as patient with him. He's still incredibly popular here in Chicago and he's got an extremely large amount of goodwill with the fans. Like tfbg says, he is going to be hurt at some point during the year.

As for the snark, you mean the type of fans that would boo David Ortiz in the ALCS? :) (And yes, Cubs fans turn on our own too, it's just a joke)
   15. Josh Posted: November 17, 2008 at 07:58 PM (#3010835)
If I'm Wood, I either sign for (1) a short deal where I can be a closer and then get a long deal, or (2) a long deal for long deal money. So, I don't see him on the Sox.

Non-closers who are good pitchers but who may blow up a la Justin Speier? Jeremy Affeldt and Will Ohman? I guess Juan Cruz, but he is a type A. I also guess Brandon Lyon, but he has been a closer.
   16. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 17, 2008 at 08:11 PM (#3010870)
Why spend money on the bullpen? Our bullpen is freakin' awesome. Papelbon-Okajima-Masterson-Delcarmen, right? The replacement level is really high for all the important innings, and I don't think that's where the Sox should focus their money or energy.

The places we could use an upgrade are the rotation - Buchholz can't be penciled in as the 5th starter, nor should Masterson or Bowden - and SS/C. (And I know everyone disagrees with me about SS, and judging by the Lugo rumors, so do the Red Sox. I'm probably wrong, and I hope I am, too.)

Sabathia!
   17. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 17, 2008 at 08:41 PM (#3010925)
Why spend money on the bullpen? Our bullpen is freakin' awesome. Papelbon-Okajima-Masterson-Delcarmen, right?


Not disputing that point but I will be surprised if both Delcarmen and Masterson are Red Sox in 2009. I think one of those guys is going to get moved either for a catcher or in a deal that brings a starter back (not sure how the latter would work, maybe a three team deal).
   18. Jon T. Posted: November 17, 2008 at 08:42 PM (#3010927)
I agree with MCoA, Sabathia or Teixiera, with an upgrade at catcher. That's all I want.
   19. OCD SS Posted: November 18, 2008 at 07:28 PM (#3011609)
OK, Debbie Downer. Who's out there among the reliever free agent ranks who (a) Boston can realistically get (b) for a non-closer role (c) who would be worth getting and (d) would cost a reasonable amount?


I'm not saying I don't want him (assuming that the Sox are already going to blow their first round pick to sign Tex or CC), just that I don't think he'll want to be on the Sox given the constraints I mentioned. That said, I don't think the FO really wants to spend any $ on a FA RP. I think their plan is to keep grabbing some promising college guys in the draft who they can slot into the bullpen in after a short(er) development period, and fill in the last spots in the pen with cheap signs.

Why spend money on the bullpen? Our bullpen is freakin' awesome. Papelbon-Okajima-Masterson-Delcarmen, right? The replacement level is really high for all the important innings, and I don't think that's where the Sox should focus their money or energy.


I think because Masterson goes in a trade for a catcher.
   20. PJ Martinez Posted: November 19, 2008 at 04:33 PM (#3012280)
The Sox have allegedly landed a different reliever (via SoSH):

per rotoworld:

Sports Radio 810 WHB in Kansas City reports that the Red Sox have traded Coco Crisp to the Royals in exchange for Ramon Ramirez.
Ramirez had an excellent rookie year for the Rockies in 2006 before struggling in 2007, but bounced back following a trade to the Royals last season, posting a 2.64 ERA and 70/31 K/BB ratio in 71 2/3 innings. Dealing for Crisp would leave the Royals with a very crowded outfield and could indicate that the team is on the verge of dealing Mark Teahen or David DeJesus.
   21. Mike Webber Posted: November 19, 2008 at 04:48 PM (#3012299)
I thought last winter that KC was a logical spot for Crisp, I wondered this off season if Lugo could also end up in KC, with Boston picking up the tab of course. Though I was hoping the return would be Grienke for Crisp, Lugo, prospect X and of course a bunch of cash to KC.
   22. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 19, 2008 at 04:54 PM (#3012302)
That feels like the first domino. Adding Ramirez seems like it would make it easier for Theo to turn around and deal Delcarmen or (more likely) Masterson in a deal for a catcher.

What's Ramirez like? Based on his BRef page he's pretty good, K an inning kind of guy. Hard thrower?
   23. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: November 19, 2008 at 04:57 PM (#3012306)
Huh, I vaguely remember that guy. Had a surprise rookie yr, then I think he was hampered by injuries the following year and never got untracked.
   24. Valentine Posted: November 19, 2008 at 05:01 PM (#3012309)
Low-90s fastball, good curve, decent splitter, no changeup. From Extra Bases blog.
   25. Mike Webber Posted: November 19, 2008 at 05:06 PM (#3012318)
He is a 92-93 MPH guy that throws a sinking fastball. Not extreme heat but solid.
He's not a very tall guy, I'd guess maybe a 5'9" guy listed at 5'11".
Bill James on-line says last year 47% FB, 32% Change, 18% Slider.
   26. tfbg9 Posted: November 19, 2008 at 05:14 PM (#3012328)
Damn. I'm the only Primate who likes Coco.
   27. Mike Webber Posted: November 19, 2008 at 05:49 PM (#3012363)
Oh I like Coco, I thought keeping him last year was very smart, and I wouldn't trade him this year for a middle reliever. With Drew's back and Jacoby's still not a lock, I think a solid major league outfielder is a very handy thing to have around.
   28. Valentine Posted: November 19, 2008 at 06:13 PM (#3012383)
Baldelli would be a good option to replace Crisp, IMHO.
   29. Dag Nabbit is part of the zombie horde Posted: November 19, 2008 at 06:16 PM (#3012386)
Anyone else find themselves thinking of lousy Robert Duvall movies whenever they see this tread title?
   30. SoSH U at work Posted: November 19, 2008 at 06:19 PM (#3012389)
Damn. I'm the only Primate who likes Coco.


Nope. I like Coco, but I'm partial to speedy centerfielders (especially ones who outhit the starting centerfielder).
   31. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 19, 2008 at 06:21 PM (#3012392)
Baldelli would be a good option to replace Crisp, IMHO.
Disagree. The problem the Red Sox have is that Drew is going to hit the DL at some point, and (less so) Ellsbury might need to be benched. The 4th outfielder needs to be capable of playing everyday to replace them, and Baldelli can't do that.

I liked Coco too. This feels like selling low on a good player, but I don't know anything about Ramirez.
   32. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: November 19, 2008 at 06:28 PM (#3012398)
Does anyone *not* like Coco? I'm sure everyone wished he would have hit like he did his last 2 years in Cleveland, but he was cheap, and ended up a good CF. It might be nice if they still had Shoppach, though.

Did Crisp become a problem regarding losing playing time to Ellsbury? I don't remember that during the season but I'm following the team from afar and might not hear that stuff.
   33. Valentine Posted: November 19, 2008 at 06:32 PM (#3012403)
No, Crisp was terrific both on the field and in the clubhouse. I'm sure it didn't hurt that he was playing essentially full time (injuries to Ortiz, Manny, Drew), but even when he was on the bench for a week or two he didn't complain.

I know Crisp outhit Ellsbury slightly last year, but the difference isn't large and I expect that to reverse this year.
   34. Toby Posted: November 19, 2008 at 06:51 PM (#3012430)
what, no knee-jerk complaints that the Sox are getting whiter? I'm disappointed.
   35. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 19, 2008 at 06:56 PM (#3012438)
I'm glad you didn't let the utter lack of knee-jerk complaints prevent you from offering knee-jerk complaints about the complaints.
   36. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 19, 2008 at 07:13 PM (#3012468)
Did Crisp become a problem regarding losing playing time to Ellsbury? I don't remember that during the season but I'm following the team from afar and might not hear that stuff.


what was interesting is he said a few things at the start of Spring Training that indicated that he probably WOULD be a problem. don't recall the exact quotes but it was something on the order of "I'm not going to sit quietly on the bench." Once the season began he was a model citizen though (James Shields and Joe Maddon would probably disagree) though as pointed out in #33 he played pretty regularly.
   37. Toby Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:25 AM (#3012762)
Fair enough, Mikael. I'll try to avoid being a curmudgeon.
   38. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:32 AM (#3012763)
Ramirez is a generic middle reliever, perhaps with a tad more upside than most (he can pitch in reasonably high leverage situations without hurting you too badly). He's been around, from the Rangers to the Yankees to the Rockies (he was part of the package for the immortal Shawn Chacon) to the Royals and now the Red Sox.

-- MWE
   39. Darren Posted: November 20, 2008 at 02:57 AM (#3012772)
I liked Coco too. This feels like selling low on a good player, but I don't know anything about Ramirez.


I can understand if you don't like the deal (though I disagree), but how can this be considered selling low on Coco? He's coming off a pretty good season after two miserable ones (at the plate), and just completed a strong second half followed by a heroic postseason. His contract has reached a point where it's short, reasonable, and flexible. I'd say this is the highest value that Coco has had since the Red Sox acquired him.

Ramirez is a generic middle reliever, perhaps with a tad more upside than most (he can pitch in reasonably high leverage situations without hurting you too badly).


Ramirez was a dominant setup man in 06 and 08, sandwiched around an injured 07. I am very happy that the Red Sox got 5 years of him on the cheap for 1-2 years of Coco at market rates.
   40. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:02 AM (#3012778)
what, no knee-jerk complaints that the Sox are getting whiter? I'm disappointed.

Ramon Ramirez is white?
   41. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:13 AM (#3012785)
I can understand if you don't like the deal (though I disagree), but how can this be considered selling low on Coco?
I was being imprecise. All I meant was that it didn't feel like much return. But everyone seems to think it was a really good trade by the Red Sox, and the reaction formation to this general claim seems to be that it was also a good deal for the Royals, so it's likely that I'm just wrong.
   42. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:26 AM (#3012791)
Ramirez was a dominant setup man in 06 and 08


A reliever whose in-play BA is league average despite being a fly-ball pitcher, and who walks nearly 4 men per nine innings isn't what I would call dominant. He's a lot like David Riske (who shows up on his comp list), actually - he looks good until he's in your uniform, and then you realize just why teams are reluctant to pitch him in high-leverage situations.

-- MWE

EDIT: Or Jay Powell, who is one of the ZiPS comps.
   43. Valentine Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:44 AM (#3012795)
Ramon Ramirez seems to be tough on RHH, less so on LHH.
   44. Darren Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:47 AM (#3012796)
If you want to quarrel with the word dominant, if you think it should only apply to elite-level closers [edit: or even closer-quality pitchers], that's fine with me. But your arguments are not convincing me that he's anywhere near a generic middle reliever. To wit..

According to Fangraphs, Ramirez had a pLI of 1.36 last year, ranking him second on the Royals. He also had 21 holds. KC had no qualms about using him as their primary setup man.

Ramirez had a groundball percentage of 46% last year, which is a little above averaage, IIRC. In 06, it was 40.7%, which is below average. He's certainly not a fly-ball pitcher according to those standards. Not that I can make heads or tails of what you're talking about with his league-average BA/fly-ball pitcher quote. Given his GB/FB ratios, what should his in-play BA be? What's average? What's dominant?

As for his walks, he had 25 unintentional BBs last year and 24 in 06. Those numbers are on the high side and they're a reason for concern, but they did not prevent him from being an excellent reliever. [08 UIBB rate: 3.14; career UIBB rate: 3.10; career BB rate: 3.68--maybe not much of a cause for concern after all] .
   45. Darren Posted: November 20, 2008 at 03:49 AM (#3012797)
MC,

It seems that the SOSHers mostly agree with you. So there's that.

Other good news from SOSH: the Red Sox signed failed prospect Dan McAnulty today. He's 28 in 09, has hit well in AAA, but hasn't done it in the Majors yet. Looks likely to compete for a 4th OF spot.
   46. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:23 AM (#3012818)
For his career, Ramirez has a GB rate of 41.5%, which is definitely fly-ball territory, although not extreme; league average is around 45%, and the extreme guys are below 40. FB pitchers tend to be about 5-7 points better on in-play BA than GB pitchers, and relievers tend to be about 5-7 point better on in-play BA than starters. A typical high-leverage reliever would be in the upper .280s; Ramirez was at .296. That's decent, not dominant.

In 2006, among the 9 primary relievers the Rockies used, Ramirez was seventh in the percentage of appearances he made in high-leverage situations, and third in the percentage of appearances he made in low-leverage situations (better than Cortes and Dohmann, in both cases, below everyone else).

Yes, it is true that Ramirez had the most holds on the Royals a year ago and the second-highest pLI. But what that doesn't reflect is that most of them occurred BEFORE the All-Star break, and that as the season went on Ramirez started seeing fewer of his appearances in high-leverage situations. In June and July, when the Royals were 28-25, Ramirez made 16 of 26 appearances in high-leverage situations. In August and September, the Royals were 25-28, and Ramirez appeared 22 times, but just 9 times in high-leverage situations.

My definition of dominant is someone like this guy was a year ago, only over several years. Okajima is a guy I consider to be a dominant reliever. Get the WHIP down closer to 1.0 and the BABIP down below .280 and then we can talk about dominant.

-- MWE
   47. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:40 AM (#3012827)
The difference between .295 and .280 in a reliever's BABIP doesn't seem like useful information to me. What DIPS teaches us, in my reading, is not that no "skill" exists or whatever, but that it's extremely difficult to get useful information out of even relatively large samples of BABIP data. Statistical analysis teaches us things about statistics. DIPS teaches us not to trust statistics for BABIP in typical cases without large samples.

I don't know if Ramirez is dominant - he's thrown 160 innings over the last three years with a 127 ERA+, that could mean a lot of things. I just don't see how his BABIP can teach us about him - it's hard enough for ERA to teach us all that much in a sample that size.

If someone watched Ramirez a lot and saw a pitcher who was more hittable than average, that would be interesting, but that's a quite different kind of claim. Relievers, in most cases outside the extremes, need to be analyzed primarily with non-statistical tools.
   48. Darren Posted: November 20, 2008 at 04:58 AM (#3012835)
FB pitchers tend to be about 5-7 points better on in-play BA than GB pitchers, and relievers tend to be about 5-7 point better on in-play BA than starters. A typical high-leverage reliever would be in the upper .280s; Ramirez was at .296. That's decent, not dominant.


Do you attribute all of the difference to the pitcher? Isn't some of that the responsibility of the fielders?

In 2006, among the 9 primary relievers the Rockies used, Ramirez was seventh in the percentage of appearances he made in high-leverage situations, and third in the percentage of appearances he made in low-leverage situations (better than Cortes and Dohmann, in both cases, below everyone else).


He was a 24-year-old rookie in 2006. It is no surprise that they would not immediately use him in high-leverage situations.

In June and July, when the Royals were 28-25, Ramirez made 16 of 26 appearances in high-leverage situations. In August and September, the Royals were 25-28, and Ramirez appeared 22 times, but just 9 times in high-leverage situations.


So the Royals saw the 2.30 ERA he put up in June and July, while pitching in so many hi-lev games, and decided to use him in lower-lev situations in Aug/Sep? Also, it would be good to know how many high-leverage situations were available during each period. And what you're using to define hi-lev.

My definition of dominant is someone like this guy was a year ago, only over several years.


That's a very rare animal. For instance, Hideki Okajima doesn't come close to fitting that description.
   49. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:04 AM (#3012838)
I'll add that Riske seems an odd parallel - his problem, which I know well enough just from watching his two months as a Red Sox, is that he can't keep the ball in the park. You can't let a guy like that throw important innings. A few too many hits and a lot too many walks sounds more like, maybe, Curt Leskanic. And he got some high-lev innings sometimes.
   50. Darren Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:12 AM (#3012842)
"A lot too many walks" is not accurate though, unless you count the times he was walking people on purpose. NL 06, BB/9 was 3.39. AL 08, it was 3.32. I'm not sure how many of those are intentional, but I doubt that Ramirez's ~3.12 UIBB is really far out of line.
   51. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:30 AM (#3012850)
You're looking for significantly better than average in a high-lev reliever, though, right? It's too many for a preferred high-lev reliever. Is it a lot too many? That's definitional.

EDIT: to be clear, I was just offering a comp based on MWE's description, I don't know if that properly fits Ramirez or not.
   52. Darren Posted: November 20, 2008 at 05:44 AM (#3012857)
Good (not great) hi lev relievers are going to be good to great in some things and average in others (probably not bad in much of anything). Ramirez has a good K rate, great HR, good H rate (which I find almost irrelevant), and an average BB rate. That fits the profile in my book.

Also, to add to thte discussion above: if we are going to talk about Ramirez's BABIP, should there be adjustments made for the fact that he played in Coors?
   53. villageidiom Posted: November 20, 2008 at 08:32 PM (#3013247)
Regardless of what one thinks about Ramirez being good, great, or nothing special, he is taking the roster spot formerly held by Mike Timlin. There's one way to describe him: upgrade. I'll leave the bickering over how good he is to the rest of you; that spot was one of the team's weaknesses, and they filled it by dealing away surplus.

In other news, they've signed Paul McAnulty to add some OF depth in the high minors. They've also added to the 40-man roster pitchers Felix Doubront and Hunter Jones, and catcher Mark Wagner. Thoughts?
   54. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: November 20, 2008 at 09:07 PM (#3013291)
Jones intrigues me as a replacement for Lopez. Lopez frustrates me as much as Daisuke with his control and I think he is living on borrowed time more than Matsuzaka is so I wouldn't mind Jones earning a shot. It seems like we've been hearing about Wagner forever but other than a Lancaster-fueled boost in '07 he's been pretty unimpressive. The good news is the Sox have some room on the 40 man so they can hold him there and see if he develops a bit as catchers sometimes do.
   55. villageidiom Posted: November 29, 2008 at 04:51 AM (#3017333)
I'm hanging out in my family room, stoking the remains of a fire in the fireplace, while also trying to stoke the Red Sox hot stove - which seems to be in about the same pathetic condition.

Boston acquired the guy who got the save in the Rangers' 30-3 win a couple years ago. He's out of options. The Rangers get two PTBNL or cash.

Yep, that's it.
   56. villageidiom Posted: December 01, 2008 at 12:01 PM (#3017844)
And reportedly the Tazawa deal has been finalized pending a physical. 3 years, $3 million.
   57. Darren Posted: December 01, 2008 at 01:35 PM (#3017849)
That's the equivalent of a high first rounder, no? In terms of value, though, he only needs to be a supp pick level player to be worth that.
   58. villageidiom Posted: December 01, 2008 at 01:50 PM (#3017851)
I think so - As a point of reference I think Hansen got 4 years, $4 million, when he signed.
   59. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: December 01, 2008 at 02:56 PM (#3017863)
That's the equivalent of a high first rounder, no?


I think it's arguably quite a bit less than that. As a free agent Tazawa has more leverage than Hansen or other draft picks have. I wouldn't know where to look for the info but a comparison to Latin American free agents would be a better frame of reference I would think.
   60. OCD SS Posted: December 01, 2008 at 03:33 PM (#3017875)
Well, he did have higher monetary offers on the table (in fact wasn't every other offer for more than the Sox?) so you could use what he could have signed for as a proxy for that leverage.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Sheer Tim Foli
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6913 seconds
60 querie(s) executed