Would you trade the farm system for Hanley Ramirez if you were Theo Epstein?

by Bravesin07 on Dec 30, 2008 4:46 AM EST Comment 77 comments

I would because you don't know how good Clay Buchholz, Jacoby Ellsbury, Reddick, Pimentel, and Anderson are going to be. Hanley is basically a younger A-Rod with just slightly less power and if the Sox were going to move him to center, he would be similar to the early 90's Bonds or even Willie Mays. Hanley hitting in Boston would actually improve him compared to the playing in the pitchers park he's in now. I could see Hanley hitting .320-.340 in Boston with 40 HR's due to the green monster.

0 recs | Comment 77 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

No

No, because he will be a free agent in three years and they can get him anyway.

by wolviex18 on Dec 30, 2008 5:17 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hanley Ramirez ss
6 years/$70M (2009-14)

    * 6 years/$70M (2009-14)
          o signed extension with Florida 5/17/08
          o 09:$5.5M, 10:$7M, 11:$11M, 12:$15M, 13:$15.5M, 14:$16M
          o extension does not include a no-trade clause

Founder of the Johnny Giavotella fan club.

by doublestix on Dec 30, 2008 5:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

my bad

by wolviex18 on Dec 30, 2008 5:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just like they

got Teixeira? :)

Mitch Moreland - Rangers 2009 Minor League Player of the Year

by RangerMad on Dec 30, 2008 9:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

They have Lowrie. I would say yes if it filled a major hole.

by nivarsity on Dec 30, 2008 7:32 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

It fills the superstar hole doesn't it?

Who else on the team was 6 WAR last year?

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 7:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Really...?

WARP:

Pedroia (9.8) AL MVP
Youkilis (8.4)
Lester (7.9)
Dice K (7.8)
Ellsbury (6.4)
Papelbon (6.4)

http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=431787

Im not sure I would agree that 6W = Superstar, though…

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 8:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Non-BP WARP

http://www.fangraphs.com/winss.aspx?team=Red+Sox&pos=all&stats=bat&qual=0&type=6&season=2008&month=0

Only Pedroia makes the cut. I still don’t understand the reason for the difference in the WARP calculations, except that Fangraphs’ model uses a different replacement level.

As an aside, it really is incredible to witness how good Fangraphs has become.

by GuyinNY on Dec 30, 2008 9:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I know Nate Silver has recently adjusted his replacement level calculations… but I think much of it comes down to BP’s antiquated defensive metrics, which arent based on play by play. Their FRAA and FRAR suck pretty badly. I believe those are a major reason BP’s WARP seems a little wacky.

I agree, too, fangraphs is unbelievable. Every day they blow me away with something new. They even have great articles now, written by Tango and Dave Cameron from USS Mariner. Great stuff over there.

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And Hanley was a 7 WAR player by fangraphs. Not too many of those around.

Hanley is #4, behind Pujols, Utley and Chipper.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lowrie doesn't stop you from getting Hanley Ramirez

"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

by tyd3311 on Dec 30, 2008 8:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Hanley is a HOF-caliber superstar about to enter his prime who’s locked up long-term at a very reasonable rate. You’re supposed to snap these guys up. Lowrie’s not half bad, and looks like he can hold down SS for awhile. That doesn’t mean you steer clear of a transformative player.

by GuyinNY on Dec 30, 2008 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't agree

It’s an issue of resource allocation. If you have a solid young starting SS under your control for a while, use your prospects in another way. Great as Hanley is, the Red Sox are a playoff team without him, and getting him would clean out their system like a laxative.

by nivarsity on Dec 30, 2008 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't make and enema of Theo.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 1:09 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you're overanalyzing

hanley is a once in a generation type talent. most teams have to wait even longer than that before they stumble across players like this. the cardinals got lucky enough to get one. if you can get a player like that and you let jed lowrie and michael bowden stop you then you’re losing sight of the big picture. especially in boston where they clearly have the ability to restock the system fast, this is a no brainer. i’d give buchholz, ellsbury and bowden in less than 10 seconds.

by robcast23 on Dec 31, 2008 10:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by GuyinNY on Dec 31, 2008 12:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Once in a generation talent AND signed to a reasonable deal.

I could certainly see ways the Marlins could benefit despite that, but from Boston’s standpoint it would be exceedingly foolish not to do it. Of course, I think this thing never had any legs, anyway. Probably will be revisited in two years or so.

by alskor on Dec 31, 2008 1:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

TheSouthWing.com - A Magazine of essays, prose and poems

by OldProspects on Dec 31, 2008 2:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yea...

something like Buchholz, Anderson, Lowrie, Bowden, Reddick should get it done. A move like that would make Yankees fans cringe.

by joegonzo on Dec 30, 2008 8:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

A move like that would make Sox fans cringe.

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 8:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What would the Red Sox want back for Hanley now if they had kept him?

That is, if they’d consider trading him at all. I don’t see anyone on that list that has any chance to be as good as Hanley is now. And he’s still improving defensively.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Subtract Bowden and Reddick

for Bard and I think it could make the cut.

by METSMETSMETS on Dec 30, 2008 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

josh bard?

but they just signed him. . . :)

by SoCalSoxFan on Dec 30, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bard

the pitcher

by Rajah358 on Jan 2, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wrong

it would make Yankee fans cringe… joegonzo is correct if thats what the Sox dealt to get HanRam

I've got a McPheever, and only JoJo Reyes can help me!

by Buzz Bissinger on Dec 30, 2008 9:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think that's an easy "YES" for Boston and and easy "NO" for Florida.

I’d make them replace Buchholz with Lester, and replace Reddick with Almanzar or Navarro..or both.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 10:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

If the Mets can swindle one of the best players in our generation (and probably one of the best to grace the field) from the Twins for Gomez, Mulvey, Guerra and Humber, than how would a hitter (albeit it is Hanley…) land THAT much?

by METSMETSMETS on Dec 30, 2008 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Many reasons

He’s younger, cheaper, and already under control for the next 6 seasons. The Twins were only trading away one year of Santana plus the right to negotiate for a contract, not 6 seasons already under contract.

by jibs on Dec 30, 2008 8:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But...

his contract isnt all the affordable in a couple years for the Marlins…

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 10:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure it's affordable for the Marlins since they're not paying anyone else and it's

not relevant to his market value, since his highest and best use might not be on the Marlins.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Still

you need to weigh.

Johan Santana is probably a shoe-in to be in the Top 10 pitchers in the history of the game. IMO, he makes Top 5 (Clemens, Martinez, W. Johnson, Santana, Koufax).

Hanley, even though he’s young, even though he’s a SS, even though he’s on average $8 million less a year, he’s not even within the Top 50, IMO

by METSMETSMETS on Dec 30, 2008 11:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Santana isn't even as good as Maddux or Unit.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or pedro or clemens...

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Dec 31, 2008 1:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thats 4 current players who he's definitely NOT a shoe in to be better

TPJ...you're dead to me

by billybeingbilly on Dec 31, 2008 1:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Top 10?

I find your claim a bit specious. Off the top of my head, better pitchers than Santana :
Seaver, Maddux, Young, W. Johnson, R. Johnson, Mathewson, Koufax, Martinez, Carlton, Rivera, Feller. Add Clemens, depending on PED’s.

Johan Santana would need to maintain his current level of performance for another 5-7 seasons to really enter into these ranks.

by GuyinNY on Dec 31, 2008 2:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Or

Or enter into a truly stunning 1-2 year peak (25W, 250+IP, 10+CG, -2.30 ERA type stuff.)

by GuyinNY on Dec 31, 2008 2:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Problem with the latter possibility

is that Santana is not a dominant “complete game” type pitcher. He’s got 9 complete games in his entire career (for comparison, CC had 10 last year and Halladay had 9).

by jibs on Dec 31, 2008 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Precisely

That’s precisely why I don’t think Johan Santana really belongs in that conversation. Being fair, Santana did show the ability to pitch deep late last season, but I doubt that the Mets will ever loosen his reigns for an extended period.

Santana could well make the HOF someday, but I really doubt he’ll be on anybody’s “Best of All Time” list.

by GuyinNY on Dec 31, 2008 12:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"Historical ranking" has nothing to do with it

I disagree with these “top 10” and “not within the top 50” rankings you’re putting out there, but even if they were true they’d have zero bearing on trade market value. Dan Haren and Erik Bedard had a much bigger trade return than Santana did, and it’s because they were under team control for a longer period of time than Santana. Since Hanley is under control for 6 more years at a rate far below what he could command on the free agent market, his trade value now towers over Johan’s trade value going into 2008.

by jibs on Dec 31, 2008 9:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by GuyinNY on Dec 31, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

but even the Haren and Bedard deals didn’t require an arm, a leg and 3 testicles. (Pardon the language)

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 2, 2009 1:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I think this rumor was DOA to begin with – at least by the time we heard of it, but there was no way the Sox were going to pay that price. Apparently the core of what the Marlins wanted was something like Buchholz and Ellsbury. I dont know if that is what the Sox offered or what the Fish asked for, but the price was deemed much too high.

In fact, I cant imagine there was a whole lot to this other than a discussion or two between Beinfest and Theo. Which means nothing, because that’s what these guys do all day long, every day… The Sox ask about absolutely everyone, too…. but it is fun to hear things like this.

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 9:48 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

that's just it

EVERYONE is asked about….i bet the twins field a few inquiries a year about joe mauer and justin morneau, despite having them locked into twin-friendly contracts for years….i’m sure the braves got the same thing back in the mid-90s with their rotations that included Maddux, Smoltz, Glavine, Neagy, and Millwood….that one GM called another and asked what it would take to get a guy is not really surprising….heck, how many of us are in dynasty/keeper leagues where all offseason we field questions on guys that are hard to imagine any fantasy owner trading, but if you’re that other owner, you’d kick yourself if you could have acquired pujols or arod or hanley for guys on your roster that you don’t value as much as those guys….

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

by biggentleben on Dec 30, 2008 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mauer is only signed through 2010

which means we’ll lose him after that. so fielding offers on him next offseason might not be unrealistic.

1941 .406

by FrozenTed9 on Dec 30, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Baby Jesus will retire a Twin....

If they have to have a 30 million dollar payroll, 20 of it would still be devoted to Mauer. If he gets dealt the masses will burn down the new stadium.

Relax, all right? Don't try to strike everybody out. Strikeouts are boring! Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
Crash Davis

by Terry Ryan Jr on Dec 30, 2008 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I hope they retain him, and the masses would be justified in burning the new stadium

since they’re paying for it.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 1:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and if mauer ever moves

the twins will let him go to free agency for some ridiculous contract (a la torii) rather than trade him so they don’t have to face the wrath of the fans….santana was a tremendous talent (and still is), but he was nowhere near the fan favorite that hunter was, so it made sense not to move hunter….they’ll take the picks for mauer rather than face the fans if they traded him….

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.

by biggentleben on Dec 31, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What does it take?

If I am the Marlins I ask for:

  Bucholz
  Ellsbury
  Lars Anderson
  Luis Exsposito
  Bowden

If your the Sox would you give that up? I am not sure…

by NYSOX on Dec 30, 2008 10:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't do that if I'm the Marlins. I'd insist on Lester at the expense of any of those guys, probably

Buchholz. As a personal preference I’d also want Navarro and Almanzar instead of Exposito and Bowden.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think thats pretty close to what was asked for

Radio reports the Fish wanted Buchholz and Ellsbury+. Im not sure Anderson would qualify as that plus – He’s a top 15 prospect after all – but probably Bowden/Masterson and a couple other nice pieces.

Interesting, that probably means the Sox wanted to put HanRam in CF. That was a discussed move when he was prospect here, and you know… he’s not a very good SS.

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Mike (CT): I have heard rumors of the Red Sox having talks with the Marlins for Hanley centered around Clay Buch and Ellsbury. This can’t be anything more than smoke on the water right? The Marlins would never do this before 2011 when they start owing him bigger money right?

Rob Neyer: (12:04 PM ET ) I think there was another young player mentioned in there, too. And apparently the Marlins would not do this. But it doesn’t hurt to talk a little.

In the Neyer chat.

The Marlins have no reason to deal HR, and any conversations would start with Lester or a 6/7 to 1deal.

by laxtonto on Dec 30, 2008 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I think this Lester talk is insane. If the talked about deal involved Lester we would have heard it. Neyer would have said Lester and others. Clearly the Fish could make an acceptable deal around Buchholz and Ellsbury even if many of the posters around here seem to doubt that – Not that this deal was ever going to happen anyway – but every indication is they didnt ask for Lester.

Oh yeah, Lester isnt under team control as long or signed to a team friendly deal, so that would probably put the Marlins off some, too..

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

look at Hanely's deal

The Marlins have been one of the most profitable teams in all of baseball the last 5 years, and now have a new stadium under construction. Lester and his 2.072 years of service time would not be that big of a deal. They would still have 4 years till FA.

Why would you trade a cost controlled all-star SS for anything less than a bonified major leaguer? It is not like he is about to be a FA or not does not have a team freindly deal. No way FL makes a deal without a young proven cheap high quality MLB player. Lester would be the only one to fit that criteria. Now considering they would have to be blown away to deal him accept the fact that it will cost even more than that.

by laxtonto on Dec 30, 2008 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stadium delayed

and as I said above, the deal isnt all that cheap on the Marlins scale. Of course Im arguing that the Marlins would never do this deal, but the Sox do have one of the best farm systems in baseball and tons of good young players. Im quite confident the Fish could find a deal without Lester… or Papelbon… or something else like that.

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

Interesting, that probably means the Sox wanted to put HanRam in CF. That was a discussed move when he was prospect here, and you know… he’s not a very good SS.

HR has dramatically improved his defense and ranked 15th last year out of all SS in +/-, so I would not expect him to CF. More likely a stop gap in CF.

by laxtonto on Dec 30, 2008 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe Lugo for Byrnes revisited?

by alskor on Dec 30, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe...

Thats an extra 2 million a season that the Sox would have to pick up, but they get away from Lugo.

Might actually be done with or without a HR trade just to dump Lugo and get insurance for Ellsbury.

by laxtonto on Dec 30, 2008 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wholeheartedly approve

Now that I’ve agreed to this trade, we just need to tell both front offices that it’s official…

"That is like saying my ‘upside’ is Brad Pitts face, with Einstein’s brain, and Ron Jeremy’s unit. It is nice to dream, but that ceiling isn’t going to happen." (King Billy Royal)

by drjayphd on Dec 30, 2008 10:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lester & Lowrie...

…would be a starting point. Or Lester and Pedroia.

by sabernar on Dec 30, 2008 12:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hee hee....but the first one is actually where I'd start if I'm Beinfest.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 30, 2008 12:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If I'm Theo

I offer three choices:

Either Masterson or Buchholz
Bowden or Lars
Ellsbury or Lowrie
Almanzar or Reddick or Exposito or…well, someone else

Considering they just traded their previous star for their CF of the future, they might not be inclined to go after Ellsbury, even though they had previously been interested. If I’m the Marlins and accept the deal, I take:

Buchholz, Lars, Lowrie, and Almanzar and see if the Sox can throw some money my way. That’s a pretty good haul, and a deal I expect could be made on both sides. Hanley’s going to start making real (if below his market value) money in a couple years, so if the Marlins want to hit their home run, they should trade now.

by whonichol on Dec 30, 2008 12:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Er, that's 4 choices...

by whonichol on Dec 30, 2008 12:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think he means

that the marlins can pick three of those players mentioned… I dunno.

by Navi's_Navy on Dec 30, 2008 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

oh

didn’t ead the entire post

by Navi's_Navy on Dec 30, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see any of the players listed being anywhere near as good as Hanley.

A 6 WAR player is worth way more than 3 WAR players. I’m not buying Tango’s value is value thing….maybe because I don’t understand it.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 1:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That sould be more than three 2 WAR players

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ohh yes

I would trade my farm system plus my front office for the guy.

by CoolCat23 on Dec 30, 2008 5:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Yes

it gives them great speed, power, average, defense, and OBP. All five tools, right?

Don't forget to send your broken maples to the US Forest Service.

by 306008 on Dec 30, 2008 6:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Beckett

I think they should trade Beckett for him … oh wait.

Rios is the next Juan Gonzales, thats right, I said it.

by KaoticKlown on Dec 30, 2008 6:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Dreaming

It’s nice to dream, isn’t it?
I say we hold on to these prospects. Don’t get me wrong, I love Hanley, but we’ve got some quality prospects in the system right now. Give them a chance to mature.

Ripken.....thanks for the memories...

by bodyiq on Dec 30, 2008 8:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'd trade a lot

Buchholz and Ellsbury to start, Lester is off the table. Mix in Bowden or Anderson then add in Kalish’s Reddicks Almanzar etc.

by Ralpho316 on Dec 30, 2008 8:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If Hanley is really being auctioned, I hope Oakland offers:

Cahill
Gallagher
Sweeney
Barton
Brown
Rodriguez

i think that trumps the Boston offer.

It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver

by WaddellCanseco on Dec 31, 2008 1:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

id do that

Id see if i could swap out gallagher for gio tho

Some of the most violent things I’ve ever seen were at Raiders games. And I’ve been to jail. - leopold bloom

by designatedforassignment on Dec 31, 2008 5:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marlins = proving ground for potential big city superstars

The Sox use Ramirez to get a “just entering his prime” Josh Beckett and win a title. HR gets more seasoning with the Marlins, proves himself worthy of being in a large market, and then they move him back to Boston for a bunch of minor league players.

Who is to say that some of the young guys going to the Marlins won’t end up back in Boston once the guys who don’t pan out have been weeded out of the group?

In related news, this is a big year for Andrew Miller and Cameron Maybin to prove themselves worthy of getting traded back to Detroit for Porcello. Porcello should make his way back to Detroit after a couple of solid years in the Florida sun.

by FRANCHISEv2 on Dec 31, 2008 9:23 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lowrie isn’t a roadblock to Hanley, because Hanley isn’t a SS. That’s where the Marlins have him, but defensively, he’s a mess. He’s got a bat that will play at any position, but a glove that belongs elsewhere on the infield (or OF) and for a team that values up the middle defense like the Sox do, you can bet your last dollar they were looking to put him somewhere other than SS. With Ellsbury in the deal, hanley would make a spectacular CFer.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 31, 2008 5:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

FWIW, Hanley was much improved last year

Hanley ranked as the 15th best SS in baseball last year at +3 on the BIS +/- system. Aftert scoring a pathetic -37 in 2007 and a mediocre -6 in 2006.

To me 2007 (when he had should issues, etc) was the outlier year, and that hes somewhere around league average defensively.

Check out my baseball analysis blog FANalytics

by jbluestone on Dec 31, 2008 6:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

It's a lose-lose deal

Red Sox get a big improvement at one position, and stagnate growth in other areas. Marlins give away incredible player and get lesser parts that they may already have.

by METSMETSMETS on Jan 2, 2009 1:39 AM EST reply actions 0 recs