Josh Hamilton market update - 3 years $60-75 million

[Araqnid]

I wish! That would be a great christmas gift to us! But we wont be getting hamilton!

This past season wasn't enough?

[Araqnid]

I think that there are two arguments here, one very stupid, and one very good.

I think the good argument is whether Josh Hamilton is worth the investment. I say no because, completely leaving out the whole drug thing, I think people look at what he's capable of for stretches and extrapolate it to a season. Just as he goes on monstrous tears, he goes cold really badly as well. And I'm sorry, during that playoff game when he struck out on three pitches to Matusz, that was not a guy that was lost, but a guy that gave up and mailed it in. I'm sure as hell not on board paying ANYONE potentially 25-30% of the team budget to quit. The stats are great, the player behind them isn't as great.

I think the stupid argument is the money argument. Not what JH is worth, just we won't throw 100M at a guy who might be worth half that, and thus Angelos is a stingy old miser. I think people forget very conveniently that he got burned several times on expensive FA acquisitions. I think it makes perfect sense when you're spending that kind of money to do some due dilligence.

Ultimately, Josh Hamilton is not a good enough player to justify the kind of investment someone else is going to make. And when someone makes that mistake, we shouldn't shake our head and say "Seattle wants it more than us!" We should laugh at them, and ridicule them, because they make bad decisions a lot.

[BrunoCherrytown]

I think that there are two arguments here, one very stupid, and one very good.

I think the good argument is whether Josh Hamilton is worth the investment. I say no because, completely leaving out the whole drug thing, I think people look at what he's capable of for stretches and extrapolate it to a season. Just as he goes on monstrous tears, he goes cold really badly as well. And I'm sorry, during that playoff game when he struck out on three pitches to Matusz, that was not a guy that was lost, but a guy that gave up and mailed it in. I'm sure as hell not on board paying ANYONE potentially 25-30% of the team budget to quit. The stats are great, the player behind them isn't as great.

I think the stupid argument is the money argument. Not what JH is worth, just we won't throw 100M at a guy who might be worth half that, and thus Angelos is a stingy old miser. I think people forget very conveniently that he got burned several times on expensive FA acquisitions. I think it makes perfect sense when you're spending that kind of money to do some due dilligence.

Ultimately, Josh Hamilton is not a good enough player to justify the kind of investment someone else is going to make. And when someone makes that mistake, we shouldn't shake our head and say "Seattle wants it more than us!" We should laugh at them, and ridicule them, because they make bad decisions a lot.

I understand this sentiment to some degree. I'm not particularly fond of Hamilton for any number of reasons. I think any team signing him is hoping for 3 seasons of great play and then the rest is paying the premium. Will he even give 3 seasons of great play? If he'd take 4 years, I think it's worth the risk at market rate. Just blindly giving him 6 or 7 at market rate is ridiculous though. And I don't think there are too many of us who think Angelos is cheap that would ridicule not jumping on that train.

But there is this other point you are making which I think has a bit of a gray area to it. Where we should ridicule teams for actually paying market value. Market value is market value. We can ridicule it or understand we're going to have to pay it here and there. Nobody, not even the Yankees signs all market value players. They just do it more than everybody else.

And while it may be really cool to have the best "Cost per win" ratio in baseball as a team - I'd rather have the most wins. As a fan, i'm not celebrating a fiscal and statistical hybrid measure of the team's performance. So there has to be more of a balance than what we are seeing now.

And saying Angelos got burned by some contracts a long time ago is a world's smallest violin kind of moment. The fans have gotten burned by his nickel and diming not just on free agents, but drafting, player development, post first-round draft spending, non-existent international department for too many years. We got burned by him pocketing all of the profits from his network.

So there is gray area between spend whatever it takes to get Hamilton or Greinke or whoever versus labeling us a small market team and restricting our GM in that way when the economics of our particular market/RSN ownership setup do not suggest the purse strings should be so tight.

It's not a black and white issue. Never was, never will be.

[Araqnid]

I understand this sentiment to some degree. I'm not particularly fond of Hamilton for any number of reasons. I think any team signing him is hoping for 3 seasons of great play and then the rest is paying the premium. Will he even give 3 seasons of great play? If he'd take 4 years, I think it's worth the risk at market rate. Just blindly giving him 6 or 7 at market rate is ridiculous though. And I don't think there are too many of us who think Angelos is cheap that would ridicule not jumping on that train.

But there is this other point you are making which I think has a bit of a gray area to it. Where we should ridicule teams for actually paying market value. Market value is market value. We can ridicule it or understand we're going to have to pay it here and there. Nobody, not even the Yankees signs all market value players. They just do it more than everybody else.

And while it may be really cool to have the best "Cost per win" ratio in baseball as a team - I'd rather have the most wins. As a fan, i'm not celebrating a fiscal and statistical hybrid measure of the team's performance. So there has to be more of a balance than what we are seeing now.

And saying Angelos got burned by some contracts a long time ago is a world's smallest violin kind of moment. The fans have gotten burned by his nickel and diming not just on free agents, but drafting, player development, post first-round draft spending, non-existent international department for too many years. We got burned by him pocketing all of the profits from his network.

So there is gray area between spend whatever it takes to get Hamilton or Greinke or whoever versus labeling us a small market team and restricting our GM in that way when the economics of our particular market/RSN ownership setup do not suggest the purse strings should be so tight.

It's not a black and white issue. Never was, never will be.

I'm 100% against Hamilton. I think if you can get him for 3 years under $50M, then you do it, but he'll get a lot more than that, and it will be hilarious in a couple of years watching that backfire for them.

As for spending - I agree that so much more can be done to improve the organization - especially in the player development and international spending arenas. But for the first time, we have actually started to invest in that. I think we all understand that wins are the most important thing - but getting the most value is also important - even if you are NY or Boston. I'm not against throwing heaps of money at the top free agent, just as long as it doesn't hinder our ability to continue to contend. If we sign Hamilton at market value, we'll be giving 30% of our payroll to a player with a track record of injuries, cold spells, and quitting. Not exactly a top formula for winning.

That said - I'm pretty disappointed that we eliminated ourselves out of the Grienke sweepstakes. While I think he also won't be worth whatever contract he gets, I do think that he'd at least be worth the risk.

[clapdiddy]

I understand this sentiment to some degree. I'm not particularly fond of Hamilton for any number of reasons. I think any team signing him is hoping for 3 seasons of great play and then the rest is paying the premium. Will he even give 3 seasons of great play? If he'd take 4 years, I think it's worth the risk at market rate. Just blindly giving him 6 or 7 at market rate is ridiculous though. And I don't think there are too many of us who think Angelos is cheap that would ridicule not jumping on that train.

But there is this other point you are making which I think has a bit of a gray area to it. Where we should ridicule teams for actually paying market value. Market value is market value. We can ridicule it or understand we're going to have to pay it here and there. Nobody, not even the Yankees signs all market value players. They just do it more than everybody else.

And while it may be really cool to have the best "Cost per win" ratio in baseball as a team - I'd rather have the most wins. As a fan, i'm not celebrating a fiscal and statistical hybrid measure of the team's performance. So there has to be more of a balance than what we are seeing now.

And saying Angelos got burned by some contracts a long time ago is a world's smallest violin kind of moment. The fans have gotten burned by his nickel and diming not just on free agents, but drafting, player development, post first-round draft spending, non-existent international department for too many years. We got burned by him pocketing all of the profits from his network.

So there is gray area between spend whatever it takes to get Hamilton or Greinke or whoever versus labeling us a small market team and restricting our GM in that way when the economics of our particular market/RSN ownership setup do not suggest the purse strings should be so tight.

It's not a black and white issue. Never was, never will be.

Excellent post.

While I agree with Duquette's assessment about some of these middling players getting huge contracts, you are always going to pay a premium for the upper-echelon players. Personally, I'd rather go after Greinke (as stated before), but would be happy with Hamilton on a four-year deal. He is a game-changer, and there are very few of them around.

The thing is...there are many ways this could be played. Next year, you'll have money coming off the books for Roberts, but you are likely to see some raises in arbitration that will more or less negate that. You could take players like Hardy and Johnson and replace them with cheaper (Machado, Closer du jour) alternatives. Losing those two guys will hurt, but if you build your system enough, you will be providing adequate replacements from within or by making shrewd trades/signings. I think DD is looking out for the long-term for this team and is quite capable of "multi-tasking".

Historically, I believe, the year AFTER a playoff or World Series run provides a bump in attendance if the team remains somewhat competitive in the next season. I would imagine that a Greinke or Hamilton signing would boost season ticket sales. I would also bet that it would be a boost to our record. I guess there's always the chance that this team falls flat in 2013, but I'd have a hard time believing that with a full season of Machado, Markakis, and Hammel, improved offense from Hardy and 2B, and the improved outfield defense with Hamilton (or even McLouth), Jones, and Markakis. Getting that extra boost from a big signing could be just what we need to get over the hump or at least keepe last season's success moving forward.

[sevastras]

I think that there are two arguments here, one very stupid, and one very good.

I think the good argument is whether Josh Hamilton is worth the investment. I say no because, completely leaving out the whole drug thing, I think people look at what he's capable of for stretches and extrapolate it to a season. Just as he goes on monstrous tears, he goes cold really badly as well. And I'm sorry, during that playoff game when he struck out on three pitches to Matusz, that was not a guy that was lost, but a guy that gave up and mailed it in. I'm sure as hell not on board paying ANYONE potentially 25-30% of the team budget to quit. The stats are great, the player behind them isn't as great.

I think the stupid argument is the money argument. Not what JH is worth, just we won't throw 100M at a guy who might be worth half that, and thus Angelos is a stingy old miser. I think people forget very conveniently that he got burned several times on expensive FA acquisitions. I think it makes perfect sense when you're spending that kind of money to do some due dilligence.

Ultimately, Josh Hamilton is not a good enough player to justify the kind of investment someone else is going to make. And when someone makes that mistake, we shouldn't shake our head and say "Seattle wants it more than us!" We should laugh at them, and ridicule them, because they make bad decisions a lot.

Atleast he was mailing it in then and not in August like Brob use to do. I didnt care we were 15 games back, run to first like you mean it. Play like you care.

[weams]

Excellent post.

It was so Good it Got HHP'd

[CA-ORIOLE]

Excellent post.

While I agree with Duquette's assessment about some of these middling players getting huge contracts, you are always going to pay a premium for the upper-echelon players. Personally, I'd rather go after Greinke (as stated before), but would be happy with Hamilton on a four-year deal. He is a game-changer, and there are very few of them around.

The thing is...there are many ways this could be played. Next year, you'll have money coming off the books for Roberts, but you are likely to see some raises in arbitration that will more or less negate that. You could take players like Hardy and Johnson and replace them with cheaper (Machado, Closer du jour) alternatives. Losing those two guys will hurt, but if you build your system enough, you will be providing adequate replacements from within or by making shrewd trades/signings. I think DD is looking out for the long-term for this team and is quite capable of "multi-tasking".

Historically, I believe, the year AFTER a playoff or World Series run provides a bump in attendance if the team remains somewhat competitive in the next season. I would imagine that a Greinke or Hamilton signing would boost season ticket sales. I would also bet that it would be a boost to our record. I guess there's always the chance that this team falls flat in 2013, but I'd have a hard time believing that with a full season of Machado, Markakis, and Hammel, improved offense from Hardy and 2B, and the improved outfield defense with Hamilton (or even McLouth), Jones, and Markakis. Getting that extra boost from a big signing could be just what we need to get over the hump or at least keepe last season's success moving forward.

All well and good and these are great posts from you and Bruno, but the bottom line is there is no sign that PA is going to shell out the money for these types of FA's. DD is going to work within the resources he has in evaluating risk and value. So yes, paying for "value" with respect to premium free agents isn't black and white, but the reality of our situation seems to be pretty clear. I can't fault DD for using the money he can afford to spend instead of gambling the money he can't afford to lose.

[Frobby]

Yeah, but if it's one the 3 seasons(literally half of his career) in which he's missed 25% or more of the games, that's 20-30% of our payroll not playing in 25% of our games. And again, he's going to be 32 next year and players typically begin to decline/break down at 32 or 33.

He only played in 75.8% of the games he was eligible for in his age 26-31 seasons(high- 96.3% in 2008/low- 54.9% in 2009). If he couldn't stay healthy in his physical prime, why would that suddenly change in what should be his declining years? It's also probably worth reminding everyone at this juncture that he was having vision issues at the end of the season which, at least partially, caused him to struggle so badly during the last few weeks that Rangers fans began booing him.

These are just some of the reasons why pretty much every team is reluctant to go beyond 3 years with him despite his unquestionable ability to hit the baseball better than almost anyone else, and why teams without infinity dollar payrolls(us) should run screaming from his $20-25 million dollar per season contract expectations.

Red flags everywhere.

This is a great point. People fall in love with Hamilton's slash line, but he hasn't been a durable player. For that reason, he's only had one season which, according to fangraphs, was worth $20 mm. So three years, $60-75 mm is no bargain. If the O's were willing to increase payroll, I'd pay 3/$60 mm even though he probably won't quite be worth that, but there's no way I'd be looking at paying much more than $20 mm no matter how short the contract is.

[CA-ORIOLE]

This is a great point. People fall in love with Hamilton's slash line, but he hasn't been a durable player. For that reason, he's only had one season which, according to fangraphs, was worth $20 mm. So three years, $60-75 mm is no bargain. If the O's were willing to increase payroll, I'd pay 3/$60 mm even though he probably won't quite be worth that, but there's no way I'd be looking at paying much more than $20 mm no matter how short the contract is.

True, but now that mid-tier free agents are apparently worth 13 mil per year on 3 year contracts, 20 mil per year for Hamilton begins to make more sense.

[Dipper9]

True, but now that mid-tier free agents are apparently worth 13 mil per year on 3 year contracts, 20 mil per year for Hamilton begins to make more sense.

Except in May when he's on the DL and we're putting Nolan back out there.

Over the last few years, Tex is the only guy I truly would have overpaid for, because in addition to his glove and bat, he also had that hometown hero presence that would have paid off wonderfully for the Orioles. But even with Tex, he ain't worth the money that NY is giving him. There are few of these free agents that are. Most of their best years are behind them, and they are getting paid for what they did, not for what they are gonna do. As much as I'd love to be signing the big names every offseason, I completely understand why the Orioles don't do it.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Except in May when he's on the DL and we're putting Nolan back out there.

Over the last few years, Tex is the only guy I truly would have overpaid for, because in addition to his glove and bat, he also had that hometown hero presence that would have paid off wonderfully for the Orioles. But even with Tex, he ain't worth the money that NY is giving him. There are few of these free agents that are. Most of their best years are behind them, and they are getting paid for what they did, not for what they are gonna do. As much as I'd love to be signing the big names every offseason, I completely understand why the Orioles don't do it.

True, but for some teams it makes more sense to take the risk, and if PA said I'm gonna cough up the extra money and take the risk then why not? Rather spend 3/60 on Hamilton than spend 3/78 mil on Napoli and Victorino.

[Dipper9]

True, but for some teams it makes more sense to take the risk, and if PA said I'm gonna cough up the extra money and take the risk then why not? Rather spend 3/60 on Hamilton than spend 3/78 mil on Napoli and Victorino.

Absolutely no doubt about this....which is why the Sawx are still gonna suck. They are still trying to solve their problems by overpaying for over aged talent. Why would you want the Orioles to follow that model?

[MurphDogg]

True, but for some teams it makes more sense to take the risk, and if PA said I'm gonna cough up the extra money and take the risk then why not? Rather spend 3/60 on Hamilton than spend 3/78 mil on Napoli and Victorino.

Everybody agrees with this sentiment. Nobody believes Hamilton is signing for 3/$60. If the Orioles had offered 3/$60 there would be a thread full of people complaining how cheap the Orioles are.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Absolutely no doubt about this....which is why the Sawx are still gonna suck. They are still trying to solve their problems by overpaying for over aged talent. Why would you want the Orioles to follow that model?

Where did I say/imply I'd want to follow that Red Sox model? It's not just the Red Sox, look at the Giants. The deal for Hunter, the reported deals for Youk, etc. I hate the general concept of 30 something mid-tier FA's. I hate the idea even more now that they've become more ridiculous. I merely implied if I we had the payroll flexibility I'd rather go big on deal like Hamilton's reported 3/60 (and yes, I know it will probably be closer to 100 mil when it's all done).

Everybody agrees with this sentiment. Nobody believes Hamilton is signing for 3/$60. If the Orioles had offered 3/$60 there would be a thread full of people complaining how cheap the Orioles are.

Agree the final will be likely be more than 3/60. I was responding to Frobby's post about Hamilton likely not being worth 3/60.