Hanrahan deal done

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    First mistake of the off season. I wish somebody would handcuff Cherington the next time he wants to trade for a questionable closer.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheExaminer. Show TheExaminer's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to notin's comment:

    Even if Hanrahan is a bust the sox paid almost nothing for him



    Agree, but he wont be. I think he'll be solid.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ADG. Show ADG's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to BosoxJoe5's comment:

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    Wow, nice to see desperate financial condition benefit the incompetent Cherry. Basically, it was a swap of the more expensive Hanrahan for Melancon. De Jesus for Holt. Pimental and Sands are Pimental are truly farm scraps.

    It works for the Pirates and the Red Sox, becuase of the Pirates budget.



    You realize Sands has a much higher upside than De Jesus who was DFA and not claimed by any teams.



    Sands was a throw in w/ the LAD deal.  He was never part of our plans.  Ive heard that his AAA success was a mirage and he doesnt have major league batspeed.

    The deal was practically Melancon for Hanraham.  The rest were throw ins.  I just read a quote from teh Pirates GM speaking of the trade.  He doesnt even mention Sands and Pimental.  He goes on for a bit about how he thinks Melancon is better than his 2012 performance (I would hope so).  He even compares the Melancon acquisition to how he acquired Hanraham a couple of years back.

    I honestly dont know how good Sands actually is.  Its possible that you are right and he has major league upside.  However, its pretty clear that he was an afterthought in this trade.  Personally, I think the Sox probably should have kept him.  It sounds like a straight up Melancon for Hanraham swap would have gotten it done.



    He played in Albuquerque the last two years which is a hitters park, but his numbers were good the year before that in A/AA. He will be given every opportunity to start for them.

    YearAgeTmLgLevAffGPAABRH2B3BHRRBISBCSBBSOBAOBPSLGOPSTBGDPHBPSHSFIBB 2008 20 Dodgers GULF Rk LAD 46 185 146 29 30 4 0 10 33 5 0 29 43 .205 .346 .438 .784 64 4 5 0 5 0 2009 21 2 Teams 2 Lgs Rk-A LAD 73 308 267 63 84 16 4 19 58 1 1 37 60 .315 .401 .618 1.019 165 3 2 1 1 1 2009 21 Ogden PION Rk LAD 41 185 163 41 57 9 2 14 39 0 1 22 28 .350 .427 .687 1.114 112 1 0 0 0 1 2009 21 Great Lakes MIDW A LAD 32 123 104 22 27 7 2 5 19 1 0 15 32 .260 .361 .510 .870 53 2 2 1 1 0 2010 22 2 Teams 2 Lgs AA-A LAD 137 590 502 102 151 28 5 35 93 18 2 73 123 .301 .395 .586 .981 294 14 9 0 6 8 2010 22 Great Lakes MIDW A LAD 69 287 243 48 81 16 3 18 46 14 2 40 61 .333 .432 .646 1.078 157 5 3 0 1 6 2010 22 Chattanooga SOUL AA LAD 68 303 259 54 70 12 2 17 47 4 0 33 62 .270 .360 .529 .889 137 9 6 0 5 2 2011 23 Albuquerque PCL AAA LAD 94 418 370 78 103 21 3 29 88 3 1 38 86 .278 .344 .586 .931 217 11 3 0 7 2 2012 24 Albuquerque PCL AAA LAD 119 522 452 84 134 17 4 26 107 1 0 59 106 .296 .375 .524 .900 237 11 3 0 8 1 5 Seasons       469 2023 1737 356 502 86 16 119 379 28 4 236 418 .289 .376 .562 .938 977 43 22 1 27 12

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Part of me wanted to see if melancon could build on his late-September success.  Decent trade for both teams.




    I was kind of hoping Melancon wouldn't be in the deal myself.



    I'm reading that Melancon was the deal.  I thought it centered around Sands and Pimental; however, I'm reading now that Melancon was the player they wanted.

    They are impressed w his stuff and saw an opportunity to buy low.  It looks to me; however, that they didnt buy low and paid full price.  Making this a RS win.



    Except that Melancon makes dirt and Hanrahan makes likrb $5-6mill

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    good trade, clears up some space on the 40 man, makes our BP a monster and gives us good IF depth in case someone goes hurt. I read up a little bit on Brock Holt, great contact stick can run the bases and is pretty adept defensively. Definitely an upgrade in terms of depth (could even end up being better than Ciriaco too..).

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Iceman4. Show Iceman4's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    and good that they are naming Han the closer early..........being decisive.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from IowaSoxFan. Show IowaSoxFan's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    So, some are questioning the acquisition of Hanrahan because he is questionable?  Although dominant in 2011 and all of 2012 other than September, he is questionable?  Yet, the Bailey was not?  The current options are not questionable?  I would say Hanrahan offers much more "certainty" than Bailey or any other current Sox pitcher (or Melancon for that matter). 

    I am not sure what the beef is with this trade.  If they Sox would have kept Bailey in the closer role, and he failed, BC would have been ripped for relying on him with all of his questions.  If Sands would have been given an opportunity, and failed, BC would have been ripped for relying on him and not addressing the 1st base question in the off-season.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to IowaSoxFan's comment:

    So, some are questioning the acquisition of Hanrahan because he is questionable?  Although dominant in 2011 and all of 2012 other than September, he is questionable?  

    I am not sure what the beef is with this trade.  




     

    So Hanrahan was dominant in 2012, except for September? He didn't have one single month with a xFIP below 3.73, yet he was dominant the entire time? If dominant means the luckiest pitcher in baseball, then yes he was dominant. He had a LOB% over 90% pre September and a BABIP below .220.

     

    Also, isn't a pitchers last month their most important? Some have questioned his health based on his control late in the season. We could be buying damaged goods.

     

    The two reasons I am against this trade is the entirety of Harahans season, but especially his performance late. And the likelyhood he is going to get 7 million dollars next year. I would have preffered that money be spent elsewhere. Whether towards a closer[Wilson-Soria-Madson] or another position.

     

    As for closer, bullpen was the strength of the team. If Bailey had failed we could have tried someone else. My question to you would be what if Hanrahan fails, then what? Are we doomed? The extra fail option wasn't worth what we gave up in money and players.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to BMav's comment:

    In response to IowaSoxFan's comment:

    So, some are questioning the acquisition of Hanrahan because he is questionable?  Although dominant in 2011 and all of 2012 other than September, he is questionable?  

    I am not sure what the beef is with this trade.  




     

    So Hanrahan was dominant in 2012, except for September? He didn't have one single month with a xFIP below 3.73, yet he was dominant the entire time? If dominant means the luckiest pitcher in baseball, then yes he was dominant. He had a LOB% over 90% pre September and a BABIP below .220.

     

    Also, isn't a pitchers last month their most important? Some have questioned his health based on his control late in the season. We could be buying damaged goods.

     

    The two reasons I am against this trade is the entirety of Harahans season, but especially his performance late. And the likelyhood he is going to get 7 million dollars next year. I would have preffered that money be spent elsewhere. Whether towards a closer[Wilson-Soria-Madson] or another position.

     

    As for closer, bullpen was the strength of the team. If Bailey had failed we could have tried someone else. My question to you would be what if Hanrahan fails, then what? Are we doomed? The extra fail option wasn't worth what we gave up in money and players.



    what?! we gave up NOTHING for him.. who cares what his salary is going to be? we're not going over the threshold so it doesn't really matter does it? especially when the roster is pretty much rounded out.. like you said, our BP is stacked.. so if he doesn't work? we slot Bailey in and move everyone else a spot up. and since we gave virtually nothing to aquire him if that does happen then its not a big deal. This trade can only help our team. our BP was stacked before we got him and it will be even better with him included.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to mef429's comment:



    what?! we gave up NOTHING for him.




     

    We gave up 2 top 25 prospects in a very deep system for him. Plus a former closer with arguably better stats last year who was dirt cheap and controilled. That may not be a lot, but its not ""NOTHING"".

     

     

    who cares what his salary is going to be? we're not going over the threshold so it doesn't really matter does it? especially when the roster is pretty much rounded out..

 

We are closing in on the threshold, so it sure does matter. And if the team refuses to cross the tax limit, its hugely important.

As for being rounded out, we still need atleast 1 more bat, maybe two if we don't sign Napoli. Also, we need some surplus room to allow a trade at the deadline.

 

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    My only theoretical problem with this trade is that Hanrahan is only controlled for 1 year.  But at 7-ish he's not expensive, he has the potential to be a top closer, I think the Sox have a decent chance to make the playoffs and if so will need a closer....and I don't think we've dealt valuable chips for him (though time will tell).

    Another astute, inexpensive acquistion by the Sox.....maintaining all our key prospects, giving up no draft picks, and only taking on short-term contracts.

    I miss the "Ben has no plan" posts....

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    Perhaps this was Ben's reasonable way of fixing the starting rotation in a market where decent starters are getting paid like aces and demanding top return in trades.  By building a beast of a bullpen, the Sox improve their starters by requiring fewer quality innings from them, and by making sure they can close out games they have leads in late.  They had trouble doing that all of last season.  It will help team morale, players and starters, if when they get a lead the bullpen can hold it almost every time.

    Hanrahan better than Melancon.  Holt better than DeJesus.  Had to give up Pimentel and Sands to improve the other two spots.  Pirates save money, and may end up with the better end of the deal in the long run.  Then again, they may not.  Decent deal for both teams, IMO.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to parhunter55's comment:

    Perhaps this was Ben's reasonable way of fixing the starting rotation in a market where decent starters are getting paid like aces and demanding top return in trades.  By building a beast of a bullpen, the Sox improve their starters by requiring fewer quality innings from them, and by making sure they can close out games they have leads in late.  They had trouble doing that all of last season.  It will help team morale, players and starters, if when they get a lead the bullpen can hold it almost every time.

    Hanrahan better than Melancon.  Holt better than DeJesus.  Had to give up Pimentel and Sands to improve the other two spots.  Pirates save money, and may end up with the better end of the deal in the long run.  Then again, they may not.  Decent deal for both teams, IMO.




    Totally agree, Par.  "Ace" starters are almost impossible to acquire even if you're willing to pay the huge price in money and prospects.  So what can you do?  Hope Lester returns to near-ace status, Buch stays healthy, Lackey recovers, Dempster is decent, etc.  With a good and deep bullpen - esp. Aceves and maybe another long man -  that gives the Sox a chance.

    If not, there might be hope in our prospects and better bets the Greinke next winter.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to Softlaw1's comment:

    Wow, nice to see desperate financial condition benefit the incompetent Cherry. Basically, it was a swap of the more expensive Hanrahan for Melancon. De Jesus for Holt. Pimental and Sands are Pimental are truly farm scraps.

    It works for the Pirates and the Red Sox, becuase of the Pirates budget.




    Saved drivel.

    "Pimental and Sands are Pimental..."

    Classic clown nonsense.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to Drewski5's comment:

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    Part of me wanted to see if melancon could build on his late-September success.  Decent trade for both teams.




    I was kind of hoping Melancon wouldn't be in the deal myself.



    I'm reading that Melancon was the deal.  I thought it centered around Sands and Pimental; however, I'm reading now that Melancon was the player they wanted.

    They are impressed w his stuff and saw an opportunity to buy low.  It looks to me; however, that they didnt buy low and paid full price.  Making this a RS win.



    Except that Melancon makes dirt and Hanrahan makes likrb $5-6mill




    Not to mention years of team control.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to BMav's comment:

    First mistake of the off season. I wish somebody would handcuff Cherington the next time he wants to trade for a questionable closer.




    I'd say it's yet another considered, low cost, good bet that cost 0% of the Sox future....like all the others so far.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    Wow, nice to see desperate financial condition benefit the incompetent Cherry. Basically, it was a swap of the more expensive Hanrahan for Melancon. De Jesus for Holt. Pimental and Sands are Pimental are truly farm scraps.

    It works for the Pirates and the Red Sox, becuase of the Pirates budget.

    [/QUOTE]


    Saved drivel.

    "Pimental and Sands are Pimental..."

    Classic clown nonsense.

    [/QUOTE]

    Let's hope the Clown will, for the first time, be consistent and honest i.e. his clownish view of the Dodgers trade referred to all the players (bar Loney, his new Golden Boy) coming back as "farm scraps".

    Hmmm.  2 are would be top 5 Sox prospects if Rubby hadn't just slipped over the prospect line, and 2 others have effectively brought us Hanrahan.  As ever, time will tell....

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to mef429's comment:

    good trade, clears up some space on the 40 man, makes our BP a monster and gives us good IF depth in case someone goes hurt. I read up a little bit on Brock Holt, great contact stick can run the bases and is pretty adept defensively. Definitely an upgrade in terms of depth (could even end up being better than Ciriaco too..).


    This trade improves the Red Sox bullpen only if Joel Hanrahan can outperform Mark Melancon. I share the sentiments of MLB Trade Rumors columnist Mike Axisa, who in today's chat wrote: "I will say that I think there's a decent chance Melancon is better than Hanrahan in 2013."

    http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=917d945a83/height=550/width=580

    I value four years of Mark Melancon over one year of Joel Hanrahan.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    good trade, clears up some space on the 40 man, makes our BP a monster and gives us good IF depth in case someone goes hurt. I read up a little bit on Brock Holt, great contact stick can run the bases and is pretty adept defensively. Definitely an upgrade in terms of depth (could even end up being better than Ciriaco too..).



    This trade improves the Red Sox bullpen only if Joel Hanrahan can outperform Mark Melancon. I share the sentiments of MLB Trade Rumors columnist Mike Axisa, who in today's chat wrote: "I will say that I think there's a decent chance Melancon is better than Hanrahan in 2013."

     

    http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=917d945a83/height=550/width=580

    I value four years of Mark Melancon over one year of Joel Hanrahan.




    Melancon had a couple good seasons before coming here... kinda like Hanrahan...

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    We gave up 2 top 25 prospects in a very deep system for him. Plus a former closer with arguably better stats last year who was dirt cheap and controilled. That may not be a lot, but its not ""NOTHING"".

     

    2 prospects who really had no future with the team. Sands was definitely not in our plans and we can all agree on that.. pimental COULD have had a future with the sox but his loss isn't a detriment to our future. Dejesus was replaced by Brock Holt who looks to be a huge upgrade over Ivan. Melancon was the only integral part of our team who we lost in the deal. and even that is debatable, he really sucked last season. Once he came back from pawtucket he didn't do so bad but what he gave us can easily be replaced by the excess BP arms we currently have (and ones who could potentially end up with the team before all is said and done EX: Atchison & Rich Hill). Take Melancon AND Hanrahan from our BP and its still a really good looking BP and would be a force in the league. Now add in one of the better closers in the league and it puts it over the top. Both teams made out in this trade.

     

    We are closing in on the threshold, so it sure does matter. And if the team refuses to cross the tax limit, its hugely important.

    As for being rounded out, we still need atleast 1 more bat, maybe two if we don't sign Napoli. Also, we need some surplus room to allow a trade at the deadline.



    If we don't sign Naps then that gives us 13 mil to play with to find another 1Bman. If we do then its still likely we can sign 1 more bat without going over the luxury tax threshold. a backup 1Bman/OF'er is certainly an area that won't require a big monetary commitment.. Even if you skimp on that area then it won't affect the team much..

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    good trade, clears up some space on the 40 man, makes our BP a monster and gives us good IF depth in case someone goes hurt. I read up a little bit on Brock Holt, great contact stick can run the bases and is pretty adept defensively. Definitely an upgrade in terms of depth (could even end up being better than Ciriaco too..).



    This trade improves the Red Sox bullpen only if Joel Hanrahan can outperform Mark Melancon. I share the sentiments of MLB Trade Rumors columnist Mike Axisa, who in today's chat wrote: "I will say that I think there's a decent chance Melancon is better than Hanrahan in 2013."

     

    http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=917d945a83/height=550/width=580

    I value four years of Mark Melancon over one year of Joel Hanrahan.



    well, the sox can still sign him to a multiyear deal.. and even at the extra cost you'll be getting extra production so its a wash in my book. Lots of people were bashing Melancon last season (not saying you were specifically Hill) and now he was such a HUGE part of our team and they're sad to see him go?

    Melancon can be replaced (i dont see Hanrahan as his replacement because Melancon wasn't our Closer...) pretty easily.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from bt33. Show bt33's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    napoli will get wrapped up or the 13m will be there to make an alternate move, albeit likely for a player (or 2) of lesser quality. there are also moves to be made should the threshold come into play, though that is unlikely. yes, they are bumping against the threshold right now, but they are also not far from a complete roster (1B/OF maybe?) and we are also not privy to their plans for players like aceves; bailey; ellsbury; bard; iglesias; salty; lavarnway; morales; and mortensen, some of them arbitration eligible players who could represent some 20-25 million in salary. it is very possible that there could be a few trades made before spring traning and/or prior to the trade deadline later in the season as they continue to tinker with the roster.  

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    good trade, clears up some space on the 40 man, makes our BP a monster and gives us good IF depth in case someone goes hurt. I read up a little bit on Brock Holt, great contact stick can run the bases and is pretty adept defensively. Definitely an upgrade in terms of depth (could even end up being better than Ciriaco too..).



    This trade improves the Red Sox bullpen only if Joel Hanrahan can outperform Mark Melancon. I share the sentiments of MLB Trade Rumors columnist Mike Axisa, who in today's chat wrote: "I will say that I think there's a decent chance Melancon is better than Hanrahan in 2013."

     

    http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=917d945a83/height=550/width=580

    I value four years of Mark Melancon over one year of Joel Hanrahan.



    I do as well, but it is more complicated than that.  Melancon came back well in September, but the season was lost at that point.  If a game is on the line in April, I am not convinced that he will not revert to the bad Melancon.

    They also aren't exactly interchangeable either.  Hanrahan is a legit closer.  If you measure them on K/W, H/9, etc., I think Melancon will look fine in PT, but there is no way he'd have ever closed.

    And last, but not least, I love his parting words-

    Melancon told Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe (Twitter link) a few weeks ago that his biggest problem in Boston was manager Bobby Valentine.  Abraham expects Melancon to do well in Pittsburgh now that he has a fresh start

    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#eHShL7VuFWiUi7GG.99 

    Is there anyone out there that doesn't hate Valentine?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: Hanrahan deal done

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to mef429's comment:

    good trade, clears up some space on the 40 man, makes our BP a monster and gives us good IF depth in case someone goes hurt. I read up a little bit on Brock Holt, great contact stick can run the bases and is pretty adept defensively. Definitely an upgrade in terms of depth (could even end up being better than Ciriaco too..).



    This trade improves the Red Sox bullpen only if Joel Hanrahan can outperform Mark Melancon. I share the sentiments of MLB Trade Rumors columnist Mike Axisa, who in today's chat wrote: "I will say that I think there's a decent chance Melancon is better than Hanrahan in 2013."

     

    http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=917d945a83/height=550/width=580

    I value four years of Mark Melancon over one year of Joel Hanrahan.



    I do as well, but it is more complicated than that.  Melancon came back well in September, but the season was lost at that point.  If a game is on the line in April, I am not convinced that he will not revert to the bad Melancon.

    They also aren't exactly interchangeable either.  Hanrahan is a legit closer.  If you measure them on K/W, H/9, etc., I think Melancon will look fine in PT, but there is no way he'd have ever closed.

    And last, but not least, I love his parting words-

    Melancon told Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe (Twitter link) a few weeks ago that his biggest problem in Boston was manager Bobby Valentine.  Abraham expects Melancon to do well in Pittsburgh now that he has a fresh start

    Read more at http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/#eHShL7VuFWiUi7GG.99 

    Is there anyone out there that doesn't hate Valentine?



    cody ross...

    valentine killed this team...he was horrible.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share