Hanley Ramirez signs with Red Sox. 4 years/$88 million(5th year option could make it 5/$110 million
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
This change anyone's feelings on the deal?
Ken Rosenthal
Hanley Ramirez terms with #RedSox, per source: Four years, $88M with fifth-year vesting option valued at $22M.
Ken Rosenthal
Hanley Ramirez terms with #RedSox, per source: Four years, $88M with fifth-year vesting option valued at $22M.
I also really like this signing. However, keep in mind HIGH REWARD peppered with HIGH RISK. Id still push for Sandoval considering Middlebrooks spotty history and thinking that Cecchini is not ready. I'd still want to keep Bogaerts so Hanley could man LF. If we lose out on Lester, then Itd be possbile to include Boagaerts in trade for Hamels. Alhough Id rather part with others. So my thinking is Boagerts ss, Sandocval 3rd, Ramirez LF and sign Lester.
That has to represent a discount right? I am assuming if Ramirez was all about the money he could have made a lot more elsewhere.
HangingW/ScottCooper said:
Because there's some doubt he'd be worth $18M in the fifth year of the 5/$90M deal.
CaptainLaddie said:
Except that it's 4 years at 88, as opposed to 5 at 90. An extra year at 2 mil isn't much risk for the Sox, especially if you calculate interest in the money saved by not going 22 mil AAV the first four years. I'd much rather have 90/5.
Corsi said:
What? If you compare the deals he only has to be worth $2m in the 5th year to make them even now. And that's assuming the fifth year doesn't vest for another $22m.
Or what Bigpupp said.
Red Sox are going over the lux tax this year so I really don't care about 4 extra million in AAV. Having a possible out after 4 years is great protection for Sox. Essentially they pay for years 31 - 34 .
moondog80 said:
Except that it isn't an extra year at 2 million. It's an extra year at 18 million, when the risk of him not being worth his contract will be at its highest.
Helping Score this acquisition and Panda as well is Papi, very sure his influence, power and downright friendship helped seal these deals.
glennhoffmania said:
They're paying a slight premium during Years 1-4 in order to give themselves protection in a potential Year 5, when he's likely not worth $18M.
The years don't exist in a vacuum; he'll be declining as the contract progresses.
He was obviously never offered 5/90. The reporters had their numbers wrong because their sources didn't really know. This debate is useless, only a dipshit would prefer 4/88 over 5/90. Let's move on, it's a pointless debate.Spelunker said:
Corsi said:
Is this really a serious argument? The cost of not having to pay him $18m in year 5, assuming he doesn't reach the incentives so that the option vests, is paying him an additional $4m per year for the first 4 years. From an AAV perspective 5/90 is better. From a value perspective 5/90 is better. And this doesn't even include the possibility that this deal ends up being 5/110.
Doesn't this all hinge on what the terms of the option are? Isn't it likely that if he's worth his $22m in years 1-4 that the option will vest?Corsi said:
mloyko54 said:
What goes around comes around when you remember that Hanley was the centerpiece in the trade for now retired Josh Beckett. Perhaps the albatross of the Punto trade, even with Beckett retired, financially limited the Dodgers when it came time to retain him. Webster and DLR for the next 5 cost controlled years plus Hanley and Panda for Beckett, Crawford, A Gonz and Punto (plus what they are owed by the Dodgers) is a swap that I would make.
People should stop focusing on 5/$90, it was obviously never the deal.
I'd guess the option vests with 5-600 PA in year 4, which presumably would mean he was healthy and, one would hope, performing well enough that we'd like him back anyway.
I'd guess the option vests with 5-600 PA in year 4, which presumably would mean he was healthy and, one would hope, performing well enough that we'd like him back anyway.
Corsi said:
Well, it's smarter than preferring 4/88MM over 5/90MM (even though the latter is turning into its own straw man).
What are his reasons? (I can't stand listening to his screaming, but would appreciate a summary.)Omar's Wacky Neighbor said:
If that 5/90 report didn't get leaked no one would care or be comparing it. People on twitter were complaining last night thinking Ramirez was going to get 6 and 130-140 from the Sox. The 5/90 number should be irrelevent.
Corsi said:
No, it's an extreme scenario designed to show why 5/90 is obviously a better deal for the Sox (leaving aside of whether it was actually an option, which apparently it was not). Whether it's 5/90 or 10/90 or 90/90 or 10000/90, Ramirez is very unlikely to be worth with payout in the latter years. However, the savings in the first 4 years make it more than worthwhile from the Sox' perspective, and that benefit grows with each additional year.
I'm OK with 88/4. I would have liked 90/5 much more, but that wasn't in the cards.
Obviously 5/90 is preferable to 4/88 with the vesting option. Every moment spent even debating that question is a waste of time.
But I still like the 4/88+ deal quite a bit. I think he's a pretty good bet to earn that contract and the risk of him becoming a significant albatross is pretty minimal given the years.
But I still like the 4/88+ deal quite a bit. I think he's a pretty good bet to earn that contract and the risk of him becoming a significant albatross is pretty minimal given the years.
Hee Sox Choi said:
Of course, this is the correct answer. The bolded is the part people have been debating, as several folks here were giving the strong impression that they did, in fact, prefer the 4/88 structure.
Edit: Not my money. I'm just glad to have Hanley in any case.
The 4/88 is consistent with Ben's trend of paying higher AAV to keep the years shorter. Hard to dislike it; if (big if of course) he stays healthy he's a good bet to rake for most of this deal.
In a league with a salary cap 4/88 would have advantages over 5/90, but I don't think it is an issue here.
Of course 5/90 never existed so it doesn't really matter.
Of course 5/90 never existed so it doesn't really matter.
mloyko54 said:
In reality, yes. But the point was to discuss the general idea of AAV vs. length, and the total misconception that some people have about the issue.
InsideTheParker said:
Hanley has had immaturity issues in the past and he seems to think Hanley won't be happy playing left field. He thinks it's a huge waste of money if they aren't signing him to play third and that the Red Sox are trying to be the Yankees and since the Yankees suck right now, it's clearly the wrong approach.
In short, he has no idea what he's talking about. If he hates it, I like it even more.
So, 4/88 with a vesting option for 5/110. I wonder how easy that vesting option is.
edit: Even with a very easy vesting option, 5 years is still short years for a great offensive player. As long as the Sox aren't depending on him to play SS, it sounds like a good deal.
edit: Even with a very easy vesting option, 5 years is still short years for a great offensive player. As long as the Sox aren't depending on him to play SS, it sounds like a good deal.
nvalvo said:
Or that you probably wouldn't get to the point of signing a debatably below-market deal without having some concept of what the team has planned for you.
DrewDawg said:
I'm quite aware that it wasn't a real option. It was a response to him arguing that it 4/88 was a better deal than the rumored 5/90, because it was for fewer years. We've all moved on, but it was faulty logic that several of us were pointing out. Of course the 5/90 turns out to have not been real, but- ceteris paribus- no one should prefer the 4 year version of those two.