That's a lot of money considering three of those are arbitration years.Seager extended by Seattle with a 7 year, 100mm deal.
He'd probably make, what, a total of 20mm in those three arb years? So 80mm for those four post-arb years, which seems like a steal given that a) his bat isn't in decline, b) he doesn't gain weight during the season, c) he's 27, d) he doesn't have atrocious defensive metrics/position issues, e) he's been durable so far.That's a lot of money considering three of those are arbitration years.Seager extended by Seattle with a 7 year, 100mm deal.
Maybe OK given the inflation rate but a lot can happen in 3 years, both good and bad.He'd probably make, what, a total of 20mm in those three arb years? So 80mm for those four post-arb years, which seems like a steal given that a) his bat isn't in decline, b) he doesn't gain weight during the season, c) he's 27, d) he doesn't have atrocious defensive metrics/position issues, e) he's been durable so far.That's a lot of money considering three of those are arbitration years.Seager extended by Seattle with a 7 year, 100mm deal.
Well yeah.Maybe OK given the inflation rate but a lot can happen in 3 years, both good and bad.He'd probably make, what, a total of 20mm in those three arb years? So 80mm for those four post-arb years, which seems like a steal given that a) his bat isn't in decline, b) he doesn't gain weight during the season, c) he's 27, d) he doesn't have atrocious defensive metrics/position issues, e) he's been durable so far.That's a lot of money considering three of those are arbitration years.Seager extended by Seattle with a 7 year, 100mm deal.
I'm not.the moops said:Appears that the Hanley deal is 4/88 with a 5th year vesting option for 22 million.
I'm kinda shocked that Hanley couldn't find a 6 year deal from someone.
As Eno Sarris tweeted this morning: "Congratulations on a major league average baseball career!"Eephus said:Josh Willingham retires at age 35. He was consistently productive until his body broke down. He was usually a good late round fantasy value, especially in OBP leagues.
His final B-R comps include some good players
1.Cliff Johnson (958)
2.Preston Wilson (947)
3.Pete Incaviglia (945)
4.Jay Bruce (935)
5.Glenallen Hill (932)
6.Wally Post (925)
7.Don Mincher (924)
8.Glenn Davis (921)
9.Ryan Ludwick (917)
10.Nelson Cruz (916)
Hello Ruben, it's RubenUSA Today's Bob Nightengale reports that the Phillies "have had the most serious talks" with the Phillies regarding a trade for ace Cole Hamels.
That's kind of harsh. Willingham was a decent player for some bad teams.As Eno Sarris tweeted this morning: "Congratulations on a major league average baseball career!"Eephus said:Josh Willingham retires at age 35. He was consistently productive until his body broke down. He was usually a good late round fantasy value, especially in OBP leagues.
His final B-R comps include some good players
1.Cliff Johnson (958)
2.Preston Wilson (947)
3.Pete Incaviglia (945)
4.Jay Bruce (935)
5.Glenallen Hill (932)
6.Wally Post (925)
7.Don Mincher (924)
8.Glenn Davis (921)
9.Ryan Ludwick (917)
10.Nelson Cruz (916)
Love that no one respects baseball reporters so that these kids are breaking reports.The 14 year old kid who broke both of the Ramirez and Sandoval signings (apparently he knows people in the Boston org) says that Boston's close on Lester, too.
https://twitter.com/mlb_nl_al
If any team can trade their own ####ty contracts to themselves it would be the PhilliesGB Rotoworld. Incompetent ####s
Hello Ruben, it's RubenUSA Today's Bob Nightengale reports that the Phillies "have had the most serious talks" with the Phillies regarding a trade for ace Cole Hamels.
Hamels could probably get his option year guaranteed if that happened.If any team can trade their own ####ty contracts to themselves it would be the PhilliesGB Rotoworld. Incompetent ####s
Hello Ruben, it's RubenUSA Today's Bob Nightengale reports that the Phillies "have had the most serious talks" with the Phillies regarding a trade for ace Cole Hamels.
It might be a little harsh. But he does remind me of a slightly upgraded Incaviglia.That's kind of harsh. Willingham was a decent player for some bad teams.As Eno Sarris tweeted this morning: "Congratulations on a major league average baseball career!"Eephus said:Josh Willingham retires at age 35. He was consistently productive until his body broke down. He was usually a good late round fantasy value, especially in OBP leagues.
His final B-R comps include some good players
1.Cliff Johnson (958)
2.Preston Wilson (947)
3.Pete Incaviglia (945)
4.Jay Bruce (935)
5.Glenallen Hill (932)
6.Wally Post (925)
7.Don Mincher (924)
8.Glenn Davis (921)
9.Ryan Ludwick (917)
10.Nelson Cruz (916)
Dude made over 35 mil for traveling the country for 11 years while playing a game at a ridiculously high level. No shame in that.It might be a little harsh. But he does remind me of a slightly upgraded Incaviglia.That's kind of harsh. Willingham was a decent player for some bad teams.As Eno Sarris tweeted this morning: "Congratulations on a major league average baseball career!"Eephus said:Josh Willingham retires at age 35. He was consistently productive until his body broke down. He was usually a good late round fantasy value, especially in OBP leagues.
His final B-R comps include some good players
1.Cliff Johnson (958)
2.Preston Wilson (947)
3.Pete Incaviglia (945)
4.Jay Bruce (935)
5.Glenallen Hill (932)
6.Wally Post (925)
7.Don Mincher (924)
8.Glenn Davis (921)
9.Ryan Ludwick (917)
10.Nelson Cruz (916)
They ought to be able to get something for Allen CraigWhy?That Lackey trade is looking worse and worse.
They have a paucity of hitting, and a dearth of pitching. Allan Craig isn't very good. He hits righty like the rest of their team. He's projected by Steamer to be a 0.6 WAR player next year (splitting the difference between his sub-replacement 1.4 in 2014, and his ~2.5 WAR 2012 and 2013), whereas Lackey is projected for 2.4 WAR on 1/10th of the salary.Why?That Lackey trade is looking worse and worse.
I know you think championships are moving violations but they won the World Series last year.I thought the big dump trade to the Dodgers was a really smart move, but since then I get the feeling that Cherington doesn't really have a good plan or idea of what he's doing. We're only just starting free agency though, and there are still dominoes to fall. Still, just having played fantasy baseball, I'd rather have a player that fills a need instead of having a dearth of players and then trying to flip one of them. Beane's kind of doing the same thing with his 1B/DH, but the players involved are far more fungible.
Cherington had a great 2012-2013, and the Sox had a great 2013 (irrespective of their Series win) as a result. The tear-down (Dodgers trade) and re-tooling (2013 off-season: Napoli, Drew, Victorino, Dempster, Uehara, Ross, Gomes) were very well executed, even if none of the guys Boston got back from LA are going to make an impact with the big club. Peavy for Iglesias was a move that was obviously made with the short-term in mind.I know you think championships are moving violations but they won the World Series last year.I thought the big dump trade to the Dodgers was a really smart move, but since then I get the feeling that Cherington doesn't really have a good plan or idea of what he's doing. We're only just starting free agency though, and there are still dominoes to fall. Still, just having played fantasy baseball, I'd rather have a player that fills a need instead of having a dearth of players and then trying to flip one of them. Beane's kind of doing the same thing with his 1B/DH, but the players involved are far more fungible.
The lack of development from some of their prospects put Cherington in a bit of a pickle. Their offensive core is aging and theirfanbasenation is very demanding. They need to add a pitcher or two but they have the financial resources and trade chips to do that. But Ramirez and Sandoval push their payroll up to 2014 levels. We'll have to see how much more they'll add this year.
Dumb analogy, I know. But the principle is the same.Hilts said:Still, just having played fantasy baseball...
Ummm, no.Dumb analogy, I know. But the principle is the same.Hilts said:Still, just having played fantasy baseball...
Amaro seems clueless, he is probably asking for Bogaerts and Owens.Probably not likely, but does signing Hanley open up a possible Xander/Hamels trade?
Well it's been said that he wants three top prospects in a Hamels trade. So yeah, clueless sounds about right.Amaro seems clueless, he is probably asking for Bogaerts and Owens.Probably not likely, but does signing Hanley open up a possible Xander/Hamels trade?
Not sure (as I still see Bogaerts at SS in 15), I'd think the exodus of BOS OF will kickstart the Hamels to BOS chatter.Probably not likely, but does signing Hanley open up a possible Xander/Hamels trade?
I think the vast majority of Sox fans would hate a Xander trade. It would cause a lot of uproar.What does the nation (or baseball fans in general) feel would be an acceptable trade for Hamels? A week ago, I would have said no-way the sox would trade Xander, but after the Pablo/HanRam signings, not so sure.
News articles seem to be all over the place. This one suggests Eduardo Rodriguez for Hamels stright-up is a fair deal for both. This one suggests the Phils could get Addison Russel from the Cubs. This one suggest a Puig for Hamels swap. Sure seems like a pretty wide-range of values?
As a Phils Phan, Id be happy with a deal headlined by Xander. Maybe toss in some scraps like Middlebrooks or JBJ? Would the sox laugh at this type of deal or jump at it?
An unproven top prospect + a couple of B level guys, Russel fits. Although I'd start with Starlin and draw a hard line in the sand and hope Philly blinks. If several weeks go by and they don't I call them back and say, well what if we talked Addison instead.What does the nation (or baseball fans in general) feel would be an acceptable trade for Hamels? A week ago, I would have said no-way the sox would trade Xander, but after the Pablo/HanRam signings, not so sure.
News articles seem to be all over the place. This one suggests Eduardo Rodriguez for Hamels stright-up is a fair deal for both. This one suggests the Phils could get Addison Russel from the Cubs. This one suggest a Puig for Hamels swap. Sure seems like a pretty wide-range of values?
As a Phils Phan, Id be happy with a deal headlined by Xander. Maybe toss in some scraps like Middlebrooks or JBJ? Would the sox laugh at this type of deal or jump at it?
[SIZE=13.63636302948px]The Phils would probably be smart to accept a package of younger, lesser-knowns, but it will never happen with this regime. Probably for the best anyway as they'd screw it up. They'll need a name of some sort or they'll just hang on to Hamels and re-visit at the deadline (which Ive expected to happen all along).[/SIZE]For Hamels, I'd guess Rodriguez, then maybe some of their lower level high prospect like Devers or Margot, and add in a lower ceiling but still decent prospect like Cecchini/Barnes/Brian Johnson or Marrero.What does the nation (or baseball fans in general) feel would be an acceptable trade for Hamels? A week ago, I would have said no-way the sox would trade Xander, but after the Pablo/HanRam signings, not so sure.
News articles seem to be all over the place. This one suggests Eduardo Rodriguez for Hamels stright-up is a fair deal for both. This one suggests the Phils could get Addison Russel from the Cubs. This one suggest a Puig for Hamels swap. Sure seems like a pretty wide-range of values?
As a Phils Phan, Id be happy with a deal headlined by Xander. Maybe toss in some scraps like Middlebrooks or JBJ? Would the sox laugh at this type of deal or jump at it?
A Rodriguez/Margot/Marrero package would be something like 2 of their top 5 prospects and a top 10 one. All probably within top 100 in baseball. Marrero might be outside the top 100 but is a defense first SS.
Not many come to mind. Probably the closest comp is Robin Yount. Yount was the starting SS for the Brewers for about 10 years, then became their starting CF the next season. He wasn't a spectacular outfielder, but he did win the AL MVP once as a SS, and later as a CF.The whole Hanley to the OF thing just seems weird to me. Has anyone even confirmed that's the plan? Has there ever been a high-profile SS like him suddenly move to a position they've never played before at this stage in their career? Either Hanley really is playing OF this year or Xander is getting traded. I guess Im just having a hard time understanding the former.
Hubie Brooks is another one.Not many come to mind. Probably the closest comp is Robin Yount. Yount was the starting SS for the Brewers for about 10 years, then became their starting CF the next season. He wasn't a spectacular outfielder, but he did win the AL MVP once as a SS, and later as a CF.The whole Hanley to the OF thing just seems weird to me. Has anyone even confirmed that's the plan? Has there ever been a high-profile SS like him suddenly move to a position they've never played before at this stage in their career? Either Hanley really is playing OF this year or Xander is getting traded. I guess Im just having a hard time understanding the former.
Gary Sheffield came up as a SS, then played some 3B before moving to the outfield in his late 20s.
Craig Biggio became a starting CF after a decade or so at 2B, but he'd dabbled in the OF before, and could play anywhere on the field, including catcher.
I dont think my question is so much could he do it. Its more why would he suddenly agree to do it now after he has balked at the idea in the past. I suppose its possible that no team was willing to sign to play SS because of his defense, but that seems unlikely given the number of teams that could use an offensive upgrade there. Also seems strange that there's been no official declaration of what position he was actually signed to play. Obviously more moves to come before this is all sorted out.Hubie Brooks is another one.Not many come to mind. Probably the closest comp is Robin Yount. Yount was the starting SS for the Brewers for about 10 years, then became their starting CF the next season. He wasn't a spectacular outfielder, but he did win the AL MVP once as a SS, and later as a CF.The whole Hanley to the OF thing just seems weird to me. Has anyone even confirmed that's the plan? Has there ever been a high-profile SS like him suddenly move to a position they've never played before at this stage in their career? Either Hanley really is playing OF this year or Xander is getting traded. I guess Im just having a hard time understanding the former.
Gary Sheffield came up as a SS, then played some 3B before moving to the outfield in his late 20s.
Craig Biggio became a starting CF after a decade or so at 2B, but he'd dabbled in the OF before, and could play anywhere on the field, including catcher.
The fielding skillset should be transferable unless Ramirez is unable to get reads off the bat. It will take him some time to get used to playing balls off the wall but I think that's the case of any new Boston LF. The reason why the move is rare is because few SS have the offensive chops to move that far to the right on the defensive spectrum. The examples given were all excellent offensive SS. You're not going to ask Cesar Izturis to make the same move.
It does seem like a large sum of money for an undefined role. I'm open to the possibility that Boston knows what Ramirez's role will be and are keeping it quiet so they don't go into trade negotiations with forced hands, but his production has a lot more value at SS than COF, assuming he can still field the position.I dont think my question is so much could he do it. Its more why would he suddenly agree to do it now after he has balked at the idea in the past. I suppose its possible that no team was willing to sign to play SS because of his defense, but that seems unlikely given the number of teams that could use an offensive upgrade there. Also seems strange that there's been no official declaration of what position he was actually signed to play. Obviously more moves to come before this is all sorted out.Hubie Brooks is another one.Not many come to mind. Probably the closest comp is Robin Yount. Yount was the starting SS for the Brewers for about 10 years, then became their starting CF the next season. He wasn't a spectacular outfielder, but he did win the AL MVP once as a SS, and later as a CF.The whole Hanley to the OF thing just seems weird to me. Has anyone even confirmed that's the plan? Has there ever been a high-profile SS like him suddenly move to a position they've never played before at this stage in their career? Either Hanley really is playing OF this year or Xander is getting traded. I guess Im just having a hard time understanding the former.
Gary Sheffield came up as a SS, then played some 3B before moving to the outfield in his late 20s.
Craig Biggio became a starting CF after a decade or so at 2B, but he'd dabbled in the OF before, and could play anywhere on the field, including catcher.
The fielding skillset should be transferable unless Ramirez is unable to get reads off the bat. It will take him some time to get used to playing balls off the wall but I think that's the case of any new Boston LF. The reason why the move is rare is because few SS have the offensive chops to move that far to the right on the defensive spectrum. The examples given were all excellent offensive SS. You're not going to ask Cesar Izturis to make the same move.
That is true, but you have to look at the combo of Bogaerts at SS, Hanley in LF, and whatever is gained from Cespedes trade, and compare that financially and production-wise to Hanley at SS, Cespedes in LF, and whatever is gained by trading Bogaerts.his production has a lot more value at SS than COF, assuming he can still field the position.
Google "transaction cost" and report back with your findings. Go ahead and take your time, I'll wait. If you need any help with big words, feel free to shoot me a pm.Ummm, no.Dumb analogy, I know. But the principle is the same.Hilts said:Still, just having played fantasy baseball...
Also, anybody that plays for 11 years in the bigs is definitely not 'average.'Dude made over 35 mil for traveling the country for 11 years while playing a game at a ridiculously high level. No shame in that.It might be a little harsh. But he does remind me of a slightly upgraded Incaviglia.That's kind of harsh. Willingham was a decent player for some bad teams.As Eno Sarris tweeted this morning: "Congratulations on a major league average baseball career!"Josh Willingham retires at age 35. He was consistently productive until his body broke down. He was usually a good late round fantasy value, especially in OBP leagues.
His final B-R comps include some good players
1.Cliff Johnson (958)
2.Preston Wilson (947)
3.Pete Incaviglia (945)
4.Jay Bruce (935)
5.Glenallen Hill (932)
6.Wally Post (925)
7.Don Mincher (924)
8.Glenn Davis (921)
9.Ryan Ludwick (917)
10.Nelson Cruz (916)
Seems like a rather generous assumption. He can't stay on the field and is now on the wrong side of 30. If you're evaluating him at SS then you need to account for 30-60 (plus?) missed games. He may or may not incur similar health issues in the outfield, but there's a realistic possibility his health is much greater playing there.his production has a lot more value at SS than COF, assuming he can still field the position.
What if as some have stated that teams like the Cubs and Red Sox believe bats to be the new market inefficiency? The Red Sox could be rudderless or they could also just be trying to exploit the market. Why did the Cubs trade for La Stella when they seem to have too many MI options, same as why the Red Sox seem to be stacking up OFers. Teams can't get enough hitting these days and it would seem some teams are betting that others will overpay in prospects or pitching for hitters.Google "transaction cost" and report back with your findings. Go ahead and take your time, I'll wait. If you need any help with big words, feel free to shoot me a pm.Ummm, no.Dumb analogy, I know. But the principle is the same.Hilts said:Still, just having played fantasy baseball...
I was looking at it from Ramirez's POV. When you're looking at it from the player's POV and not the team's, you don't have to consider any of those things. The context of the quote was in response to the question, "Why would Hanley Ramirez agree to play OF now after insisting on playing SS on previous occasions?" I was acknowledging that was a fair question to ask.That is true, but you have to look at the combo of Bogaerts at SS, Hanley in LF, and whatever is gained from Cespedes trade, and compare that financially and production-wise to Hanley at SS, Cespedes in LF, and whatever is gained by trading Bogaerts.his production has a lot more value at SS than COF, assuming he can still field the position.
Your face seems like a rather generous assumption.Seems like a rather generous assumption.his production has a lot more value at SS than COF, assuming he can still field the position.