Jump to content

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

TradeAngelos

By TradeAngelos
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
Posted
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?

Well, I am not so sure about this. Over the last three years, Victorino was worth 7.6 rWAR/13 fWAR, Napoli was worth 8.4 rWAR/10.4 fWAR, Hamilton was worth 15.3 rWAR/16.9 fWAR. Total, that's 16 rWAR/23.4 fWAR for Victorino/Napoli, 15.3/16.9 for Hamilton. They are all about the same age (Victorino and Hamilton will be 32 next year, Napoli will be 31). I think you could argue it either way, depending on what you think about the relative importance of each of the last three years in predicting future performance, clubhouse factors, the personalities and habits, and the team's needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 578
  • Created
  • Last Reply
wildbillhiccup Hangout Veteran Council

wildbillhiccup

Posted
Posted
Well, I am not so sure about this. Over the last three years, Victorino was worth 7.6 rWAR/13 fWAR, Napoli was worth 8.4 rWAR/10.4 fWAR, Hamilton was worth 15.3 rWAR/16.9 fWAR. Total, that's 16 rWAR/23.4 fWAR for Victorino/Napoli, 15.3/16.9 for Hamilton. They are all about the same age (Victorino and Hamilton will be 32 next year, Napoli will be 31). I think you could argue it either way, depending on what you think about the relative importance of each of the last three years in predicting future performance, clubhouse factors, the personalities and habits, and the team's needs.

WAR (ba dump dump)...what is it good for (absolutely nothing). Sorry couldn't resist. All this talk of WAR...can't we all just get along! Seriously though, it's just a metric. One of many and not the end all be all. If you want a comparison for Victorino look at Johnny Damon. Once he lost a step, he became a very mediocre player. He didn't (and Victorino doesn't) have enough "pop" to justify any SB regression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MurphDogg Hangout Grand Counsel

MurphDogg

Posted
Posted
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).

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.

He has reportedly been offered 4/$108 from the Rangers and is still holding out for a 6 or 7 year deal. This 3/$60 stuff is foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
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.

Yes, but they're different kinds of risks. Napoli and Victorino have performance risks. But there's a very good chance that Hamilton puts up a .875 OPS, but only plays 100 games and he's basically the '12 version of Nick at twice the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
Well, I am not so sure about this. Over the last three years, Victorino was worth 7.6 rWAR/13 fWAR, Napoli was worth 8.4 rWAR/10.4 fWAR, Hamilton was worth 15.3 rWAR/16.9 fWAR. Total, that's 16 rWAR/23.4 fWAR for Victorino/Napoli, 15.3/16.9 for Hamilton. They are all about the same age (Victorino and Hamilton will be 32 next year, Napoli will be 31). I think you could argue it either way, depending on what you think about the relative importance of each of the last three years in predicting future performance, clubhouse factors, the personalities and habits, and the team's needs.

There's also the value in getting the production out of one player instead of two. You're better off, generally speaking, if you have 1/9th of your lineup producing four wins than if you have 2/9ths contributing the same amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CA-ORIOLE Hangout Grand Counsel

CA-ORIOLE

Posted
Posted
Well, I am not so sure about this. Over the last three years, Victorino was worth 7.6 rWAR/13 fWAR, Napoli was worth 8.4 rWAR/10.4 fWAR, Hamilton was worth 15.3 rWAR/16.9 fWAR. Total, that's 16 rWAR/23.4 fWAR for Victorino/Napoli, 15.3/16.9 for Hamilton. They are all about the same age (Victorino and Hamilton will be 32 next year, Napoli will be 31). I think you could argue it either way, depending on what you think about the relative importance of each of the last three years in predicting future performance, clubhouse factors, the personalities and habits, and the team's needs.

My basic argument would be:

-1 high quality is better than 2 lower quality at the pricepoint we're talking about (other than maybe injury risk).

-High WAR players (particulary hitting skills) tend retain more value than lower ones.

-Much of Napoli's value is based on catching and he'll be limited (at least somewhat) in that role.

-Much of Victorino's value is based on speed and playing CF (both factors will be marginalzied going forward).

Not to say Hamilton doesn't present his own unique set of risk factors. He certainly does. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrinkinWithFermi All-Star

DrinkinWithFermi

Posted
Posted
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.

I think Victorino lives up to his contract, or at least comes closer than Hamilton will come to living up to the $100 million dollar contract he will ultimately receive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrungoHazewood Hangout Grand Counsel

DrungoHazewood

Posted
Posted
I think Victorino lives up to his contract, or at least comes closer than Hamilton will come to living up to the $100 million dollar contract he will ultimately receive.

Depends on what you mean by "closer". Hamilton might give you $60M worth of value on a $100M contract with great years interspersed with half-seasons of meh, while Victorino only falls short of his by $20M while giving you three almost-average seasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TradeAngelos All-Star

TradeAngelos

Posted
  • Author
Posted
There comes the Yankees, swooping it.

Or the agent for Hamilton leaking false information after realizing the market for his "$175 million" client has completely evaporated.

What better way to drive the price up to try to get the Yankees in the mix, real interest or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • interloper
      Cease vs everyone else

      By interloper · Posted

      Because he strikes out a lot, mostly. Almost a third of his AAA ABs ended in a K. To his credit, he killed it in his other ABs haha. But I tend to think he's going to have trouble with top level stuff in the big leagues. Or that at least it will take him a long time to adjust.  Kjerstad had more ABs than Cowser, but fewer Ks and more home runs. I think he's going to be the better ML hitter, and it's not particularly close for me. 
    • Number5
      Boras & Elias Conversations On Extensions

      By Number5 · Posted

      Well, it does seem to confirm that Elias has reached out regarding the possibility of extensions, which was the question.
    • Spy Fox
      Which Helps Most; Improving the Best Players or the Worst Players?

      By Spy Fox · Posted

      I think different teams can improve in different ways. Right now, the Orioles have more room to improve by adding elite talent. The depth on this team is among the best in MLB. There's a lack of major weak links. But there is not as much truly top talent as some teams have. Guys like Rutschman, Henderson, GRod, and the next round of prospects may grow more into that. But we aren't quite there yet. 
    • Sports Guy
      Cease vs everyone else

      By Sports Guy · Posted

      Why do you believe that?
    • Frobby
      Which Helps Most; Improving the Best Players or the Worst Players?

      By Frobby · Posted

      I am more willing to draw conclusions from a 162-game season than from a 3-game playoff series.  However, I suspect there isn’t a one-size fits all answer to the question.   It depends how good your best player/players are, and how bad your weakest links are.  
    • interloper
      Cease vs everyone else

      By interloper · Posted

      He's got plenty of power, that's clear, but in MLB I believe he may not be able to fully tap into that power as often as he has in the minors. Like Hays, who also hit 17 home runs in his final year between AA and AAA. I think Cowser's highest upside comp is Markakis with a little more power. But he doesn't have nearly the hit tool that Markakis had. He's going to strike out a ton. 
    • Frobby
      Which Helps Most; Improving the Best Players or the Worst Players?

      By Frobby · Posted

      Just copied and pasted your post yo make it legible. ===== Let’s use the Orioles 2023 season as a general case study and compare with a study I learned about via well known journalist and author, Malcolm Gladwell, Revisionist History podcast. (Season 1,  Episode 6, “My Little Hundred Million”. ) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revisionist-history/id1119389968?i=1000372836942 At minute 12:15 or so, Gladwell discusses whether it is a greater help to a sports team if the worst player on the roster is replaced with a better player or if the team brings in an even better player as its top star.  That is, does it help more to strengthen your strongest link or your weakest link? His conclusion is: It depends on the sport. In basketball one player can dominate the court in offense and defense. So improve your top player. In soccer, a tital team sport improve the weakest player. It set me thinking is baseball a strong link or weak link sport? It seems that in constructing the 2023 roster, Elias, whether intentionally or not, used the improve the weakest links strategy.  Gibson replaced Lyles McCann replaced Benboom Frazier replaced Odor.  Additional improvements occurred with adjusting playing time levels of players in the organization for both 22 and 23.  The result was a stellar 101 win season! The Orioles 2023 regular season experience suggests that baseball is a strengthen the weakest links sport.  But then the playoffs. The consensus seems to be we lacked the superstar who can carry the team.  It seems that baseball in the playoffs is more of a strong link sport.  So, to put it together, the 2023 Orioles season experience suggests that the regular season is improved with an improve the weak link strategy. While playoffs often need a superstar.  So, if this theory holds true, do the Orioles need to specifically add more proven All Star level players or do we simply depend upon the hope that one of these years we will have a good player get hot at just the right time?

  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...