Rangers eye extension for Hamilton
I didn't see this posted anywhere.
Should he be compared, in contract, to Dustin Pedroia or Grady Sizemore?
about 3 years ago
mtex
78 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Bad idea.
eom
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
Agreed
Pedroia >>> Hamilton
Grady >>> Hamilton
Those guys have bigger seasons and more of them. They both play premium defensive positions and Hamilton is expected to be moved off his in the near future.
He also carries some drug risk along with nearly no history of repeated excellent play.
Makes no sense to put him on their level financially. Even if in the end he has similar careers he’ll be doing it from the corner.
Bad idea.
To be fair to Hamilton
He is a marketing stud – which is something of value when extending guys. Probably 50% of baseball fans still don’t know who Sizemore is, everyone knows Hamilton by now.
And while Hamilton has no history of repeated excellent play, he has a history of being recognized by scouts as the most talented baseball player this side of ARod. While Pedroia earned his long-term deal with a history of performing in Fenway, Longoria earned his off a great minor league career and universal agreement among scouts in his future stardom. Hamilton is more similar to Longoria in this respect (with the obvious large age difference).
Considering that Pedroia, and especially Sizemore (whose contract should be illegal its so low), aren’t making all that much money, you can’t really say “no sense to put him on their level financially”. But it shouldn’t be ridiculous either, for the reasons you point out.
Just at cursory glance, a 5 year 90 millionish sort of thing seems like it would probably be solid value.
But I’d have no problem with splurging a little just because of how much attention he brings this franchise.
That's the same mentality that brought us the Michael Young contract though.
Hamilton isn’t Young, but still…
Yeah. Spies. They're little guys with beady eyes and long fingernails. They plant bugs that can pick up the hush of a man's heartbeat - or the whisper of a falling hair.
Did Young REALLY bring that much attention to the Rangers?
Sure, the Hamilton story will die off, but for now he makes the Rangers a lot more relevant than they would be otherwise.
Wow
That is a lot of money.. Way, way too much.
He’s under team control for 4 years. Lets be very generous and assume he’ll make 20 million his first year of free agency (that is very generous in this market)
Without a contract, we could expect Hamilton to get the following:
Year 1: 400,000
Year 2: 6,000,000
Year 3: 8,000,000
Year 4: 12,000,000
Year 5: 20,000,000
That’s way less than 50 million right there, maybe you can say he gets more in arbitration, but at most without a long-term deal he gets 60 or 65 million in the next 5 years. Assuming signing gives him some job security and money up front, I can see giving him 5 years, 45 million. But nothing too much more than that.
Agreed
5 years/ 45 million may be ok (it wouldn’t be great like Kinsler’s deal is), but it’s not franchise-crippling.
5 years/ 90 million is way, way, way too much.
R
5/45
is really my upper limit. And I think Hamilton snatches that up instantly. That is easily fair value for him through his arbitration years, and takes away all of the Rangers safety net if something were to go wrong (injury, relapse, just stopped being good, etc). He’s not Evan Longoria – as you say below he’s at his peak right now.
My guess, if something does get done, he has a 5 year/40 million with a team option for a 6th year at ~$14 million, ~$3 million buyout. Even that may be too high.
Yeah
I can see that.
Overall, I’d probably just go year-to-year with Hamilton unless he takes a significant discount. There’s too much that could potentially go wrong that I’d rather have a potential out then lock him up….
It’s really too bad we’re cheerers of laundry. We think of ways to limit the potential rewards that players will make in the future because it would cripple the team :/.
So, while we’re cheering for them, we’re also hoping that they don’t optimize their actual return in some aspects.
R
Yah, that about sums it up.
I was thinking more along the lines of a 5/45-50mm or so with a team option for the sixth year (with a buyout) that could turn it into a 6/60-66mm or so.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
I hate Michael Young.
"There are no weak opinions with the dirkatron, it’s all scream-across-the-parking-lot echelon." -hightowersmith
by thedirkatron on Feb 12, 2009 11:09 PM CST up reply actions
"That is a lot of money.. Way, way too much."
Based on what? His 2008 season was worth a little over 18 million. If we get him for less than that I’ll be thrilled.
That's how much he was worth if he was on the open market
He isn’t going on the open market anytime soon though. Since he won’t even be able to make anything close to 18 million a year until maybe his last couple of years, its stupid to offer him that much money per year right away. We’d be better off just letting him walk.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
You're suggesting exactly that
You said up there 5 years / 90 million would be acceptable. If he were a free agent, and we were the Red Sox, then maybe you discuss that number.
Fortunately for us, he’s under team control for 4 years. 4 years where at most the Rangers will pay him $40 million, more likely closer to $30 million.
This is what you said
Just at cursory glance, a 5 year 90 millionish sort of thing seems like it would probably be solid value.
But I’d have no problem with splurging a little just because of how much attention he brings this franchise.
Admit it, you were wrong in writing that – that isn’t about some abstract valuation, that is what you’re willing to spend. Don’t pretend that you didn’t say it. Its right there for us all to see.
Ugggh
No.
5 year 90 millionish could potentially be Michael Young like…. I see that lonestarJon had the same idea.
It’s probably not AS bad, but the problem I have is 1) It’s at the tail end of his peak, 2) he’s had health issues, and 3) he’s going to be a corner OF for the last half.
I don’t think that’s worth paying $18 million a year. Especially since he’s going to be cheap this next year, so you’re really giving him about $22+ million a year.
R
whaa?
pedroia’s deal is 6 years/~40 mil. i dont know if thats a fair comp but it seems in the ballpark at least. 90 million is too much and if we have to spend that much we should just go year to year. i also think there needs to be some clauses regarding potential drug relapses that would lessen our financial burden should he get swallowed up by his addiction again.
by Smoakin in the Boys Room on Feb 12, 2009 6:18 PM CST up reply actions
Pedroia's deal is a bargain.
I didn’t suggest go to Hamilton and suggest this much. I looked at his projections and the value of free agent wins vs. his production in 2008 and threw out a quick estimate of what his value would be worth on the market.
Sweet jesus man
Are you serious? Especially what we’ve seen other sluggers getting lately (granted, older players but shorter contracts)? 5 $35MM or so.
Concur...
the injury risk is still there, and just going through arb. would pay him much less than 90 mil.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I think that would insult him
Because this contract runs through the prime of his career. I think 5 years/45 mill like R suggested is reasonable for a hitter of Hambone’s caliber.
5/35 would insult him?
Then he can just go year-to-year and shoulder all the risk himself.
Here’s a little harsh reality – its his own fault that his “prime” is in his pre-Arb years, as opposed to right when he reaches free agency. And I’m pretty sure he’s aware of that, and understands the realities of baseball business. The Rangers are under no obligation to reward him as if he hadn’t screwed up. He may say no to 5/35, but he shouldn’t be insulted by it.
he can't feed his family
off of 7 mil per year. sorry.
Omar Vizquel: your starting shortstop for the 2009 AL all-star team.
Again:
He was worth a little over 18 million free agent dollars in 2008.
I’m not sure why this concept is so hard to understand. It’s the limit of what would be reasonable, not what I’d want him to sign to.
You said it'd represent fair value
Which is simply not true.
Yeah, by one measure Hamilton’s performance is equal to $18 million / year. But the difference between what he would get on the open market and what he will get paid under the system is not part of Hamilton’s valuation, its essentially an asset owned by the Rangers.
If you wanted a maximum permissible 5-year deal for the Rangers, it is what Hamilton’s valuation for the next 4 years minus the Rangers system discount (roughly 100% 2009, 75% 2010, 50% 2011, 25% 2012, assuming a linear transition through arbitration), and the full $18 in 2013. That’s the maximum permissible contract, because it transfers 100% of the risk to the Rangers.
Basically, it makes no sense under any circumstances to use that $/win added valuation in determining his contract, other than approximating what he’ll make 5 years from now.
Yes, it would represent fair value.
That is not the same as what I would like the Ranger to pay for Josh Hamilton.
Woah! Thanks to Joey, I looked up Byrd.
He was worth $16.3 mil in ‘08, and $10.6 in ’07. Sheesh…that’s a ton of value for someone who is often maligned here.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
Problem is
there were times in both years when he was worth $30M and times he was worth $1. Still, the good outweighed the bad, and his defense was valuable. I think he’s a good trade chip this summer since he doesn’t really fit in the long term plan.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
I'm going to take back
my happy thoughts on your diary to the right if you’re serious about $90 million. That’s way too much. I think you must be kidding, you’re too smart for that.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
What am I serious about?
That his 2008 season and projections are in the 90/5 ballpark? Because that’s what I said and I am serious.
Never said that’s what I’d want him signed to.
The way you worded your post
everyone thought that’s what you meant. Glad you’re still sane.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Dude...
The 40 Trumps All!!!
I hate Michael Young.
"There are no weak opinions with the dirkatron, it’s all scream-across-the-parking-lot echelon." -hightowersmith
by thedirkatron on Feb 12, 2009 11:10 PM CST up reply actions
I'm guessing that
you glanced at his Fangraphs value for last year and multiplied out $18M and five years.
Probably not the worst idea in the world, but given his supposedly impending shift to right and the risk involved, I’d be much happier with something like the 5/45 that could turn into 6/60 like dirkatron mentioned above.
I wonder if he’d go for something with a lower base salary that included a lot of incentives based on playing time.
I looked a little bit at his projections, as well.
But mostly, yes, that was the nuts and bolts of it. I wasn’t giving a contract I’d be happy with, I was giving the estimate of his value for the next five years.
If we extend Hamilton now we better get a crazy good discount.
Cause otherwise it just makes sense to wait on him.
He’s a great story and a tremendous talent, but he’s also got a TON of risk attached to him, with his injury history and- let’s just go ahead and say it- his potential for drug-related relapse.
Plus it’s not like he’s super young. We’d be buying out his early-30 years, not his mid-to-late 20’s, and early-30’s years are always risky.
We already control his next four seasons, so there’s no rush.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
I hate Michael Young.
"There are no weak opinions with the dirkatron, it’s all scream-across-the-parking-lot echelon." -hightowersmith
Bingo.
Plus it’s not like he’s super young. We’d be buying out his early-30 years, not his mid-to-late 20’s, and early-30’s years are always risky.
I think people forget (because he hasn’t been in the majors long) that Hammy will be 28 in May. Now, Hamilton is a stud and a big cog in the Rangers’ future success, but to break the bank on Hammy would be foolish.
We see what happened with FOTF; fool me once…
I think I’d offer him a incentive-loaded (especially a certain No. of ABs) contract that tops out at five years, $50 million.
My 2009 New Years Resolution: Quit feeding the trolls.
Man, a rare reply fail on my part.
Meant as a reply to A. Tron.
My 2009 New Years Resolution: Quit feeding the trolls.
I don't think Hamilton is interested in an extension right now
He was asked at FanFest if he would sign an extenision with the Rangers if they offered and he kinda dodged the question. He uncomfortably said something like ’we’ll see’. Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions here, but I left there thinking that he will not be with the Rangers after his contract is up. Even if he didn’t mean anything by it, I just wish he would have answered the question more like Kinsler. Kinsler came out and said he admired how Biggio stayed with one team for his entire career and hopes he can do the same. It could be complete BS, but I liked that he said it.
For what it’s worth, after the Chris Davis Q&A, I feel like there is no doubt he signs somewhere else when his contract expires. He defended having Scott Boras as an agent and even said “look what he did for Teixeira.”
by Anonymous New Guy on Feb 13, 2009 8:59 AM CST reply actions
Who cares what they want?
They are under team control for 4 & 6 years…
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
You're over-analyzing those comments
Hamilton seems uncomfortable with money in general. I think he still doesn’t carry around much cash and probably doesn’t really want to talk about how much money he can make when he’s trying to do many other more important things.
Davis defended his agent. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have Boras as an agent. Whether he is here past 6 years from now depends on what Davis wants and what Hicks will offer. Davis isn’t Tex. If he wants to stay here and Hicks is willing to pay a reasonable amount, he’ll stay. The same thing happened with Tex except he didn’t want to stay. Every time I’ve heard Davis talk about being here, he genuinely sounds happy here and enjoys playing here. Things can change 6 years down the road, but he isn’t one of the money hungry Boras clients who will listen to everything Boras says and test FA no matter what.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Heh
I think with Kenny Rogers, A Rod and Varitek, there have been some high profile blunders by Boras recently, and he has lost some of his luster, at least with us here on the sidelines. Of course, if you look at the body of work, even this offseason, the guy still is a beast.
Don't forget Manny
Boras engineered Manny’s departure from Boston so LA would pick up his option years and then decided he could get more on the FA market.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Yeah, good point.
Some of it appears to be Manny being crazy though. Turning down, what was it, $20 or $25 million for one season? Yikes.
by FuturePants on Feb 13, 2009 10:43 AM CST up reply actions
How did he screw up A-Rod?
By getting him the two biggest contracts in MLB history?
By getting him traded while in the midst of what was at the time the most expensive contract in baseball history?
And don’t give me the whole, “The Yankess were fed up with Boras and A-Rod had to step in!” angle.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
I hate Michael Young.
"There are no weak opinions with the dirkatron, it’s all scream-across-the-parking-lot echelon." -hightowersmith
by thedirkatron on Feb 13, 2009 9:48 PM CST up reply actions
Yep
Tex NEVER wanted to stay with the Rangers – people were continuously deluding themselves into thinking he actually liked it in Texas. It wasn’t the money that made him leave (though it helped). He simply did not like playing here.
I wasn't comparing him to Tex
All I’m saying is that CD basically said I chose Scott Boras as my agent because look how much money he got Tex.
by Anonymous New Guy on Feb 13, 2009 10:11 AM CST up reply actions
But he chose Boras before he got all that money for Tex.
The 40 Trumps All!!!
I hate Michael Young.
"There are no weak opinions with the dirkatron, it’s all scream-across-the-parking-lot echelon." -hightowersmith
by thedirkatron on Feb 13, 2009 9:49 PM CST up reply actions
I am aware of that
He just used the deal that Tex got as evidence for why guys chose Boras. Since it was Rangers FanFest and CD plays first base for the Rangers, I guess he thought Tex was an obvious comparison.
by Anonymous New Guy on Feb 16, 2009 8:37 AM CST up reply actions
I disagree
I think CD is all about the money…but that’s just me.
by Anonymous New Guy on Feb 13, 2009 10:09 AM CST up reply actions
Yeah, kind of
Why else would you choose Boras?
He just seems like that kind of guy…you know, the Chris Chris Addison Douche Bag type.
by Anonymous New Guy on Feb 13, 2009 10:19 AM CST up reply actions
I disagree
After meeting him a few times over the past couple of years, I don’t see that at all. Definitely not anything like what Tex was like when he was here, especially in the second half of his Rangers career.
You pick Boras because he has been the best at getting the contract you want. Its still up to the player to ultimately decide where he wants to play and what contracts he wants to offer. With the recent screw-ups of Boras, I think players are also going to stop taking his word as gospel now and see the potential risks of not accepting guaranteed money.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
I hope so,
but the countless good contracts Boras has negotiated may make it easy to look past his recent blunders.
I think Tex is just a jackass…that’s different from a Chris Chris
by Anonymous New Guy on Feb 13, 2009 10:49 AM CST up reply actions
I don't think Davis will play here for peanuts
If he signs an extension here, he’ll still get paid which is why I thin kit depends on Hicks’ willingness to pay up like he showed with Tex (though probably not going to need to pay that much). It will still take a good contract to keep Davis here, but we won’t need to hand out one of the top contracts in baseball to get that done.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Smoak...
is going to make the Rangers FO feel like they don’t need to keep Davis.
My guess is he will be dealt for pitching the year before he is a FA, similar to what happened with Teix. Which sucks because I really like Davis and think he will be a hell of a masher and wish the Rangers would keep him and Smoak. Nice thing is that nothing has to be done for a few years and we can just enjoy watching both of them play the next 4 or 5 years.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
I wouldn't guarantee that
I think we might see a McCann/Salty situation play itself out with Davis and Smoak.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
My fear is Smoak will wind up traded
And Davis will leave via FA, leaving us to start all over again in 6 years.
Yeah. Spies. They're little guys with beady eyes and long fingernails. They plant bugs that can pick up the hush of a man's heartbeat - or the whisper of a falling hair.
Start all over again?
It took us less than a year to go from Tex to Davis and have Smoak waiting. The starting over process saw some crap thrown at 1B for the last months of 2007 and the first few months of 2008 and then we got Davis’ great bat here.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
Well
There are a few guys in the system now who could make good 1B bats sooner or later I guess (Clark Murphy, namely). Who knows, he could factor into the Smoak/Davis decision in a couple years.
Yeah. Spies. They're little guys with beady eyes and long fingernails. They plant bugs that can pick up the hush of a man's heartbeat - or the whisper of a falling hair.
You're basing this assumption on the fact that you've met him a couple of times?
The dude is in Year 1. Let’s see how much of a gentlemen he is after he’s put up skins and gets paid in Year 6.
You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, do you Saxy boy?
by oc on Feb 14, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions
Things can change, I never said otherwise
but if the Rangers were going to offer an extension to Davis, it would probably be after next season. Do you see Davis becoming Tex in one season?
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw
I've always thought
its always best to assume that Boras’ clients will test FAs, and that you can’t buy out years of FA unless you grossly overpay.
You should just plan to get your 6 years out of a Boras client, and plan on them leaving.
Get off my lawn.
Eventually
There will be an exception.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
Why make your plans
around exceptions? Why not just play the percentages?
6 good years out a prospect isn’t bad. It would be bad if you thought you would keep them and didn’t capture the trade value out of a prospect, and ended up with just the compensation draft picks.
Get off my lawn.
I'm just sayin
Eventually there will be an exception, may not be Chris Davis, but it’s gonna happen.
"My mother always taught me that if the only thing you have to say is,
‘(Expletive) Dave Samson,’ then don’t say anything at all.
So I’m not going to say anything at all.
Is my mother the greatest or what?"
- Mariners GM Bill Bavasi, after signing Ichiro to a $90 million contract
Well there have been
guys in the past who were Boras clients who didn’t go to free agency.
It’s just a rare enough occurance that planning on it happening is a bad gamble.
Better to make your best trade, and then, if you still want the player, pick him up in free agency.
Get off my lawn.
Agree
Baseball players know that signing with Boras will get them a reputation as money-hungry. So if they don’t actually want that money and will take discounts, then there’s no point in just risking your reputation without the positive side-effect of cashing in.
by Andy Seiler on Feb 13, 2009 10:28 AM CST up reply actions
Concur...
and if you can somehow convince one of them to sign and stay then consider it a pleasant surprise.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
Ergo my earlier post.
CD will be here for 6 more years, no more, but maybe less.
Hammy is a huge healthy/performance/backslide risk…play out part of the 4 years, see how he holds up, and then talk extension.
"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008
Yep.
I think thats the way to plan dealing with CD. If you can lock him up longer to a deal that makes sense, fine, but most likely that won’t happen.
Just plan on shopping him in that last year and a half you have him to maximise his value.
Get off my lawn.
You may be right about Hamilton
It just wasn’t what I wanted to hear from him.
by Anonymous New Guy on Feb 13, 2009 10:14 AM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
