How much better does Hardy's contract look following Hanley Ramirez's new deal?

[BohKnowsBmore]

Last five seasons:

Hardy (32)

2010 - 1.3 rWAR; 2.2 fWAR

2011 - 4.1 rWAR; 4.3 fWAR

2012 - 3.2 rWAR; 2.7 fWAR

2013 - 3.9 rWAR; 3.4 fWAR

2014 - 3.4 rWAR; 3.4 fWAR

Average - 3.2 rWAR; 3.2 fWAR

Ramirez (30)

2010 - 2.8 rWAR; 4.2 fWAR

2011 - 0.2 rWAR; 1.0 fWAR

2012 - 1.3 rWAR; 2.9 fWAR

2013 - 5.4 rWAR; 5.0 fWAR

2014 - 3.5 rWAR; 3.4 fWAR

Average - 2.6 rWAR; 3.3 fWAR

With Ramirez potentially playing LF, his glove won't be nearly as large of a hindrance (assuming he can play LF even somewhat competently, I wonder how his instincts will be out there), but he will lose a TON of positional value for his bat.

It will be interesting to see what other guys sign for, but Hardy's deal looks pretty good by comparison IMO.

[byrdz]

Hardy is Themistocles

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YxbGcOaln5k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[OFFNY]

o

I liked Hardy's previous 3-year extension that he signed in 2011, when MacPhail was still the G.M.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/13848/j-j-hardys-extension-good-deal-for-os

I like the 3-year extension that Hardy just signed last month, also.

[BohKnowsBmore]

o

I liked Hardy's previous 3-year extension that he signed in 2011, when MacPhail was still the G.M.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/13848/j-j-hardys-extension-good-deal-for-os

I like the 3-year extension that Hardy just signed last month, also.

Well that extension may be one of the better moves in O's history in terms of dollars-to-value, keeping in mind that we aren't talking about unexpected performance or a guy on his rookie deal.

[Frobby]

The Ramirez deal doesn't affect my opinion of the Hardy deal. I thought the Hardy deal was fair to both sides.

[theobird]

The Hardy deal was a fair deal for all involved, for an outstanding ss. Hanley is a horrible ss, in fact he isn't even a ss, so i do not think it relates. It could still be a good deal for the Bosox if Hanley plays a decent LF and hits to his capability.

[weams]

The Hardy deal was a fair deal for all involved, for an outstanding ss. Hanley is a horrible ss, in fact he isn't even a ss, so i do not think it relates. It could still be a good deal for the Bosox if Hanley plays a decent LF and hits to his capability.

Is Lough a better deal than Hanley, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and the arrows of outrageous ridicule or to assess the Hanley deal in four years when he has contributed 4 WAR.

[BohKnowsBmore]

The Hardy deal was a fair deal for all involved, for an outstanding ss. Hanley is a horrible ss, in fact he isn't even a ss, so i do not think it relates. It could still be a good deal for the Bosox if Hanley plays a decent LF and hits to his capability.

He has played SS for the majority of his career. Actually, over the past two seasons, he has played 191 games as a SS, 7 games as a DH and 0 at any other position. Over his career, he has played 1,077 games at SS, 98 games at 3B, and 14 at DH. I think it's fair to say he's a SS by trade.

[theobird]

If Hanley plays ss in Boston, he will have been great deal for the Orioles.