red sox close to getting hanrahan?

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

    Re: red sox close to getting hanrahan?

    As bad as Mark Melancon was last year for the Red Sox, he still was arguably better then Joel Hanrahan. Melancon had the better WHIP, WAR, xFIP, SIERA, K/BB, and GB%. The last 4 stats were not even close. All while pitching in a better hitters park and better league.

    So how in the world did Hanrahan beat Melancon so bad in ERA? Either luck or clutch. Which ever you choose to explain Hanrahan leaving 89.7% on base vs. 59.4% for Melancon. Switch those numbers and you can probably switch their ERA's. Throw in Hanrahan's .225 BABIP and we seem to be banking on that extreme luck to continue. Don't bet on it.

    I can't knock the trade yet since we don't know who is in it. But I see Hanrahan at 7 million a year having very little value with a solid chance at having negative value this season. There was maybe three closers last year who made 7 million dollars and earned their money[Paps, Nathan, and Soriano]. One made only 7[Nathan] and another is twisting in the wind as we speak[Soriano]. Unless a reliever is incredibly special, you should not waste your money or your trade chips on relievers. Sadly, it sure seems our GM doesn't understand this concept.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: red sox close to getting hanrahan?

    In response to BMav's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As bad as Mark Melancon was last year for the Red Sox, he still was arguably better then Joel Hanrahan. Melancon had the better WHIP, WAR, xFIP, SIERA, K/BB, and GB%. The last 4 stats were not even close. All while pitching in a better hitters park and better league.

    So how in the world did Hanrahan beat Melancon so bad in ERA? Either luck or clutch. Which ever you choose to explain Hanrahan leaving 89.7% on base vs. 59.4% for Melancon. Switch those numbers and you can probably switch their ERA's. Throw in Hanrahan's .225 BABIP and we seem to be banking on that extreme luck to continue. Don't bet on it.

    I can't knock the trade yet since we don't know who is in it. But I see Hanrahan at 7 million a year having very little value with a solid chance at having negative value this season. There was maybe three closers last year who made 7 million dollars and earned their money[Paps, Nathan, and Soriano]. One made only 7[Nathan] and another is twisting in the wind as we speak[Soriano]. Unless a reliever is incredibly special, you should not waste your money or your trade chips on relievers. Sadly, it sure seems our GM doesn't understand this concept.

    [/QUOTE]


    Unless theres someone else coming this way that fills a need. We traded scraps for him anyway.

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

    Re: red sox close to getting hanrahan?

    In response to Drewski5's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to EdithBRTN's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Posted by Nick Cafardo, Globe StaffDecember 22, 2012 04:16 PM

    ESPN's Jim Bowden has reported that the Red Sox and Pirates have finalized a Stolmy Pimental and Jerry Sands for Joel Hanrahan deal.

    The teams were talking a Pimental/Sands package and were also trying to expand it further, but so far it appears they've stopped at three players.

    Sands was acquired from the Dodgers in the Josh Beckett/Carl Crawford/Adrian Gonzalez deal last August 25th. Pimental was on Boston's 40-man roster and was once considered one of Boston's top pitching prospects.

    The Pirates wanted Jose Iglesias but Boston wanted to hold on to the young shortstop.

    If Hanrahan winds up in Boston, it would likely mean Andrew Bailey would be a set-up man to start the season or could also be trade bait.

    [/QUOTE]

    I'm just glad Doubront wasnt part of the deal!

    [/QUOTE]

           Doubront imo is a keeper.

           I like how Ben is building his bp.

           Look what a top bp did for the O's last year.

           The starters were nothing special.

     

Share