A Very Quick Thought On Josh Hamilton

Dave · November 7, 2012 at 10:53 pm · Filed Under Mariners 

The GM Meetings are going on down in California right now, and while these aren’t the hotbed of rumors that the Winter Meetings are — those happen in Nashville at the beginning of December — there’s still a collection of media and baseball executives in one geographic area. And that breeds conversation, and those conversations often end up spilling over to Twitter and MLBTradeRumors. Today’s rumor – the Mariners are going to be in on Josh Hamilton.

First, it was Jon Heyman linking the Mariners and Orioles as favorites for Hamilton’s services with a column this afternoon. Then, Bob Nightengale of the USA Today jumps in with the same story a few hours later, citing “several GMs” as his sources.

Other GMs predicting things doesn’t mean its going to happen. Being anointed a co-favorite to sign a player on November 7th doesn’t mean anything, especially since that guy isn’t likely to sign any time soon. Remember when people were saying the Mariners were the favorites for Prince Fielder last winter? Remember how that simply wasn’t true?

So, take these reports with the requisite grains of salt. Jon Heyman and Bob Nightengale are not reporting that the Mariners are close to a deal with Josh Hamilton, or that they’ve even made him an offer. They’re reporting what people in other organizations told them what they expect to happen. It’s interesting, but it’s speculative at best. Informed speculation perhaps, but still speculation.

That said, the Mariners interest in Hamilton does pass the smell test. The Mariners are talking up a big game about spending money this winter, with Jack Zduriencik noting that he believes payroll will go up, and Ryan Divish reporting the other day that payroll could be “higher than $91 million”, which would be a substantial increase over last year’s total. Even after re-signing Iwakuma and Perez, the M’s are in the $62 million range, which leaves plenty of money to go after a guy like Hamilton and still fill out the roster. Given that the usual spenders don’t seem overly interested in Hamilton, he’s probably going to have to woo a non-traditional bidder if he wants to land a huge contract, and the Mariners obviously need an outfielder who can hit.

So, there’s logic to it from both sides, and it probably works financially, depending on what else the team wants to do this winter. Of course, Jack can’t just concern himself with whether the price works for 2013, especially if the report that Hamilton is seeking 7/175 is accurate. At that price, he’s just not worth the investment anymore, even though they could fit $25 million into the 2013 payroll. I’m pretty sure the Mariners aren’t going to be interested at 7/175. But, if its 5/110 or 6/130, that’s probably the kind of deal where Jack starts to think about Hamilton as a legitimate option.

And at that kind of price, I’d probably be in favor of the deal. I’m fully aware of the risks that come along with Hamilton, both in terms of health, substance abuse, plate discipline, park factors, aging, and personality, but I think that these kinds of players can often be forced into taking too large of discounts for these risk factors. Last year, for instance, Jose Reyes signed for 6/106 despite being an in-his-prime middle infielder coming off a +6 win season, all because he had a history of leg problems and everyone was scared about his durability. As I wrote at the time of that deal, you can price that kind of risk into a contract and have it turn out to be a worthwhile value even if you assume that the risky guy is going to get hurt or miss time for one reason or another. Value is a balance of risk and reward, and you can’t just say that a player is “too risky” without also calculating the reward when he is in the line-up.

And, of course, Hamilton is a pretty fantastic hitter, even with a maddening approach at the plate. He’s basically Miguel Olivo or Delmon Young in terms of plate discipline, and his inability to adapt his approach is one of the reasons the Rangers are willing to let him walk this winter. But, unlike Olivo or Young, Hamilton is naturally gifted enough to make that approach work, as he can hit a borderline strike a long way. Hamilton isn’t a model for other hitters to follow, but at the same time, we shouldn’t look at his aggressive hackiness and decide that makes him worthless.

Hamilton comes with a lot red flags, and those red flags are almost certainly going to drive his price down from the 7/175 he might be looking for. I don’t think he’s going to get anywhere close to that. I think he might end up in the low-100s for five guaranteed years with some vesting options and incentives added on, which basically pays him like a four win player. And, warts and all, that’s what Hamilton was last year.

If the rumors intensify, I’ll go more in depth on Hamilton’s fit for the organization. But, as a starting spot, I’ll just point out that I’m provisionally on board, assuming that it doesn’t take a contract anywhere near what Prince Fielder got last winter. If they can keep the contract to five guaranteed years (or less) and transfer some of the risk back to Hamilton by making him hit playing time clauses to trigger money at the back end of the deal, then Hamilton could end up being a good value, even with all the risks that are attached.

I’d probably still rather have a guy like Nick Swisher, who is going to come a lot cheaper and is probably capable of providing similar production once playing time is accounted for, but Hamilton’s an interesting option as well. And, who knows, maybe the Mariners are crazy enough to add both. If they’re really planning on pushing payroll back over $90 million, that’d be a fun way to do it.


53 Responses to “A Very Quick Thought On Josh Hamilton”

  1. californiamariner on November 7th, 2012 11:44 pm

    These rumors should get hot and heavy, but oh that last sentence. Such a tease ;)

  2. Slats on November 8th, 2012 12:16 am

    Hamilton & Swisher – please get this done Jack Z!

    (For the right price of course!).

  3. _Hutch_ on November 8th, 2012 12:22 am

    For a contract like that I’d agree that you might have to bite, but for some reason I get the feeling that a few other teams would as well. There’s risk in just about every big ticket free agent signing, but they just seem to be compounded here. Setting aside the off-field issues (silly, I know), it seems like there’s less room for error and more room for age-related decline and extended slumps (see June, July) when you’ve got a plate approach that revolves around making inexplicable contact of pitches far out of the zone. (The dude led the league in O-Swing% and Swinging Strikes last year by a healthy margin.)

    If the team wants to make a “big splash” I’d rather they traded for the 25-27 years of Justin Upton rather than tying themselves to the mid-30s of a slugger who is already showing his age.

  4. dfrankster on November 8th, 2012 12:49 am

    Nice arcticle,and as alway’s Dave is on point.Looking at the M’s speed though,I wonder if going after a Bourn,plus a Morse sign/trade could keep the option’d players on the team,but upgrade the over-all OF depth at the same time,Ackley could be that guy that cover’s 1ST/2ND,and a corner in the OF in a heartbeat,Morse would be more than a good cover for RF/and 1B.

  5. maqman on November 8th, 2012 2:06 am

    He’s the only legitimate MOTO bat available as a free agent. If the price is right he’s worth the risk. The fans have been screaming for a big bat and he’s the biggest and would definitely sell some tickets. Taking him from the Rangers and keeping him from the Angels is another plus.

  6. Thirteen on November 8th, 2012 2:33 am

    A couple thoughts–

    I too would rather see a Swisher signing than a Hamilton signing, and as I discussed on LL I’d rather see a big trade than either. But a big trade may not be workable, and I do still think that Hamilton could work out quite well for these M’s provided that the contract isn’t an absurd length. There’s a downside in that it requires either a trade for a 1B or betting on Smoak or Carp (god this FA market is awful at 1B) that makes me prefer Swisher, but I too am provisionally on board.

    Morse is somewhat interesting, but he’s not really an outfielder and I think he’s only available if WSH manages to re-sign LaRoche. Still, interesting idea: go get Hamilton, then swing a trade for one of the mid-level upside 1B/OF guys like Morse, Belt and Morrison.

    The Angels may not have the cash for Hamilton in addition to their SP holes, and it seems like a sure bet that the Rangers are going to let him walk. Signing him to keep him away from our rivals should not be a priority. I’d consider that with Greinke, but not with Hamilton.

    Like I said, I’d rather we let the Orioles sign Josh and grab Swisher instead, or swing a big trade, but you work with what you have.

  7. stevemotivateir on November 8th, 2012 4:35 am

    It’s his health that would concern me the most. We already have a star outfielder who can’t stay healthy. Cabrera and Swisher appeal to me far more, but I can’t say it would be disappointing to see Hamilton in the middle of our line-up.

  8. 9inningknowitall on November 8th, 2012 5:10 am

    I like the idea of Hamilton being a Mariner a little but I am not sold on it. For cheap enough I wouldn’t have a problem but I just think his downward decline will be a lot faster than most star players. He is amazingly talented though.

  9. Spanky on November 8th, 2012 7:00 am

    I understand what I’m about to say may not be hard facts…but I live in the Dallas area and there were always rumblings from the Texas lockerroom that Hamilton was never very motivated to play. That some of his injuries were minor and that any other players would play through them but Hamilton just “needed” some time off. The team spent an inordinant amount of time making sure he was ready to play mentally and emotionally. This makes me not want to pursue Hamilton for such a high price and for the length of contract. Why else would Texas want to let their “leader” walk without a clear bat to replace him?

  10. Westside guy on November 8th, 2012 8:24 am

    I am not sure how I feel about Hamilton, but basing opinions on supposed locker room rumors is sketchy at best. Remember, we heard the EXACT same sorts of things about Brendan Ryan.

    What matters is how they play when they’re on the field. How well they live up to the 1950′s era machismo that seems to be prevalent in many locker rooms shouldn’t matter in the least.

  11. WalterNeff on November 8th, 2012 8:39 am

    The Mariners signing Hamilton? In a state that just legalized pot? :-)

  12. msfanmike on November 8th, 2012 9:02 am

    I thought Hamilton had already stated the Rangers would have a chance to match/beat any offer. If the Rangers show no interest whatsoever, that might paint a pretty clear “buyer beware” picture.

    The Rangers couldn’t get away with playing Possum on the entire league while leaking negative comments to help drive the price down, could they?

    Adams had some negative comments about Hamilton, yesterday. He is a FA and no longer tied to the Rangers, so maybe there is some truth to the rumors.

    I think Hamilton is one of those guys who will never allow people to get too comfortable with him or let them get to the point of relying upon him too much. Something will always “happen” to keep people on edge.

    He is too much of a risk to break open the piggy bank.

  13. Mariners35 on November 8th, 2012 9:28 am

    It’d be an interesting departure from the M’s org’s “Refuse to Abuse” / family-friendly / no-off-field-drama approach. (Just as Milton Bradley was.) Sure, the M’s have picked up players with one-off DUIs, and Bartender’s past pot use was correctly a non-issue, but Hamilton’s past substance issues seem a bit more… substantial.

    I wouldn’t lump him into the Mateo/Lueke Hall of Shame, certainly… but Hamilton’s off-field stuff does make me wonder if the M’s would pause a bit.

    Westside – I don’t think you can handwave it away by pointing to how well Ryan fit in here. Note that in Ryan’s case, it was much more a playing style thing. I don’t remember the rumors being about his being unmotivated or lazy; they were about being undisciplined, unfocused, and unwilling to snap into line into the stodgy manager and clubhouse they had there.

    I’m as tired of the play-through-injury macho nonsense as anyone, but if one takes character and team player rumors into account at all, the concern with Hamilton seems much more like laziness than simple poor club fit. That said, I don’t take the rumors like that too seriously. Much more interested in what the stance is with his more serious off-the-field and out-of-clubhouse problems. (Which, also, we only have so much information about.)

  14. shortbus on November 8th, 2012 9:41 am

    Walterneff’s question about Hamilton and Mary Jane raises another question: will the major sports change their policies on blazing up a fat one in locations where it becomes legal? It already angers me when players get suspended for using weed, but what if they can claim they did it in a location that it was legal? What purpose could the league have for punishing them?

    Of course if MLB did change its policy that would probably not help Hamilton stay away from it, so there is that.

  15. terryoftacoma on November 8th, 2012 9:54 am

    I love this time of year. Seeing who we sign or what trades are made. The key is sign or trade, not rumor. Rumor to me is noise and I don’t pay attention to noise.

    Z has said, in typical GM speech, that he’s sure he’ll have the funds available for the right player. I didn’t take that to mean the budget will increase, just that it could.

  16. TheMightyMariner on November 8th, 2012 10:03 am

    Nick Swish and Hamilton would be nice. It fast forwards our timeline to contend (which is much needed – Mariners fans have suffered a long time).

    I would carve a statue of Jack Z if he gets these two and Grienke. That would make us contenders now. It is a dream…it is a dream… :)

    Sadly, I can’t see any of this happening. We’ll be priced out. I wouldn’t mind seeing us deal for Chase Headley and then signing Hamilton or Swish.

  17. amnizu on November 8th, 2012 10:08 am

    I strongly doubt the M’s are doing anything more than kicking the tires on Hamilton and trying to get a response out of Rangers organization.

    Typically when they have money to spend they start out on the Phil Smart’s new Mercedes lot and end up buying a used Accord or Subaru Wagon instead. I expect the same to happen here.

  18. smb on November 8th, 2012 10:21 am

    Both, please! Adding that kind of talent without giving up Paxton, Walker, Franklin, Hultzen, etc is the way I want to add the veteran might of veritable and mighty veterans, if we must.

  19. MrZDevotee on November 8th, 2012 10:30 am

    I know people cite the park as a reason hitters shy away from Seattle (which supposedly will be fixed now)… But have you heard anything along the lines that AGENTS shy away from Seattle, or see them as a 2nd choice, because it’s pretty well known that Z won’t make a foolish contract offer?

    I mean, if I were an agent I’d be looking at the overspenders first (which I think Fielder did, although a contender was nice, too).

    Also, what weight do you think the MANAGEMENT puts on the possibility of moving the fences in at Safeco improving the offense.

    I still find it pretty revealing, and averse to the “we suck at offense” belief we’re ALL mired in, that the Mariners were 8th in runs scored on the road in all of baseball last year (ahead of Texas and St. Louis)… While dead last at home.

    8th in baseball in runs scored, plus 2nd in runs allowed (like we were) is a pretty awesome combination… (Though I think we should shoot for 14th or 15th in runs scored as more reasonable).

    Do we need a Hamilton, for anything more than fan hype-y-ness? Or are those dollars better spent elsewhere. (I like the prospect of Hamilton, but not when years 5 or 6 get in the conversation, and not when we can pretty much count on a bidding war.)

  20. MrZDevotee on November 8th, 2012 10:36 am

    Optionally, using your analogy, I’m more than okay if they avoid the Range Rover lot (ie, expensive lemons that don’t last) and instead opt for 2 or 3 Accords or Tacoma’s instead (reliable, overperforming mid priced things, that are known for lasting many years).

  21. Prosser Steve on November 8th, 2012 10:39 am

    WalterNeff’s comment dittos’s mine. Hamilton is a drunk waiting to happen.

  22. diderot on November 8th, 2012 11:12 am

    Even with Dave’s optimal terms, this is a terrible idea.
    This is an absolutely foolish way for Z to bet his career.

  23. Westside guy on November 8th, 2012 11:34 am

    Mariners35, the gist of my opinion is – with Brendan Ryan, it was all based on perceptions being put forth by a very old-school guy (LaRussa). With the Rangers having Nolan Ryan at the helm, most of what I hear out of their organization seems to be old-school… for example, I’ve heard Ryan talking about how pitchers are too coddled nowadays. This sort of Neanderthal thinking still permeates much of baseball.

    Heck, we heard Bobby Valentine making pretty much the same comments about Big Papi this very season… e.g. he wasn’t really hurting as bad as he let on, he should have been toughing out the pain rather than not playing, that sort of thing. I, for one, am going to discount that sort of comment unless there’s darn good supporting evidence of the claim.

  24. ck on November 8th, 2012 12:26 pm

    Hot Stove Time: In my humble opinion, it isn’t my money, so the M’s will have to spend to be competitive; and so, the M’s will have to pay fair market value for free agents ( and the market is set by greedy, Boras and clone agents); but, signing a free agent to fill a specific need is better than a trade, which diminishes overall team strength ( unless you have a true surplus, i.e. three good catchers, etc )
    My disappointment with the Mariners annual contract follies, is that they are so cheap, that a bad deal ( i.e. Silva, Figgins et al ) prevents them ( in their little minds ) from making any further moves.

  25. miscreant on November 8th, 2012 12:47 pm

    it’s all a bunch of propaganda. these cheap bastards ain’t gonna sign shit.

  26. Browl on November 8th, 2012 1:05 pm

    It’s worth noting that 4 WAR from Swisher 1n 160 games is less valuable than 4 WAR from Hamilton in 130, because the M’s 4th outfielder (Casper) is above replacement level.

  27. stevemotivateir on November 8th, 2012 1:13 pm

    ^What if Swisher played first exclusively?

  28. Chris Miller on November 8th, 2012 1:17 pm

    At Swishers age, 160 games isn’t a good projection. I’m thinking 135 or 140 even of he’s been durable.

  29. Browl on November 8th, 2012 1:27 pm

    Right. 160 is too much for just about anybody. I’m just responding to Dave’s point that they would provide similar production once playing time is factored in. The presence of Casper makes the more talented fragile guy more valuable to the Mariners specifically.

    Obviously Swisher would come cheaper, and he would provide more positional flexibility. The M’s first baseman is probably replacement level. That’s a good point. Still, Hamilton is probably worth more than Swisher. The question is, like always, how much more would it take to sign him.

  30. amnizu on November 8th, 2012 2:06 pm


    I’m glad at least one person caught the humor in my post :) . I duno if I’d call Hamilton a Range Rover, probably more like a Jaguar, you can pretty much bet on it leaving you stranded away from home and you better know a good mechanic.

  31. SunDevil1 on November 8th, 2012 3:11 pm

    To drag the auto analogy into the mud, perhaps Mariners management will parrot what FoMoCo is doing and hang an Aston Martin grille on a Focus. Why? To get the curious to come onto the lot for a look-see. (In the not-too-distant past, Jaguars were simply Fords with sexy sheetmetal.)

  32. msfanmike on November 8th, 2012 3:27 pm

    I think Miscreant’s comment probably wins the thread. Both in humor and acccuracy of prediction.

  33. MrZDevotee on November 8th, 2012 3:42 pm

    I’ll give him accuracy for the name “miscreant”. (said in good fun)

  34. MrZDevotee on November 8th, 2012 3:44 pm

    This just in from MLBTradeRumors:

    “The Mariners, who have young pitching, are said to be talking to the Royals and Twins, who have young hitting. Seattle would love to pry Wil Myers, Aaron Hicks, and/or Ben Revere loose.”

  35. roosevelt on November 8th, 2012 3:56 pm

    I don’t hold much confidence our stodgy Mariner Mgt. would do what it takes to sign either player.

    Also, keep in mind that Ham would cause the team to lose its #1 draft. When you are a krappy team, you don’t want to lose premium draft picks.

  36. Typical Idiot Fan on November 8th, 2012 4:06 pm

    “The Mariners, who have young pitching, are said to be talking to the Royals and Twins, who have young hitting. Seattle would love to pry Wil Myers, Aaron Hicks, and/or Ben Revere loose.”

    And, thus, the “Royals looking at James Paxton” rumor evolved from a fish to an amphibian.

    Not that interested in Hicks or Revere, but Myers? God yes.

  37. BackRub on November 8th, 2012 4:08 pm

    Based on WAR, Hamilton has been worth 24 million once in his career. Considering he is now past him prime and UZR didn’t like his defense last year, I’m not too excited about signing him for 5/110…

  38. Typical Idiot Fan on November 8th, 2012 9:09 pm

    That’s because the Rangers keep running him out in center field. Historically he’s been good in left, fine in right, and up and down in center. That wouldn’t be a problem for us, as we’d have either Guti or Saunders to roam the middle.

    Also, you can always DH him or stick him at first base if his defense starts becoming a liability long term. Hamilton’s value is mostly going to be in his hitting.

    I’m not saying I want to overpay him either, but a slight overpay wont matter so much as the length of the contract.

  39. Mr. G on November 8th, 2012 10:19 pm

    If the Mariners signed Hamilton and Swisher this off-season, how would that work with the 1st round draft picks? Would we lose a first and a second?

    By the way, I’ve heard some inside info that the organization isn’t willing to lose the first rounder.

  40. Typical Idiot Fan on November 8th, 2012 11:51 pm

    By the way, I’ve heard some inside info that the organization isn’t willing to lose the first rounder.

    Sorry, you’re going to have to cite your sources or face skepticism.

    As for your question, I’m curious about this as well. In the old days certain conditions led to the second round pick being given to a team as compensation, but I don’t know if those rules still exist. I think that all teams who made qualifying offers to players get a compensatory first round pick if their free agent is signed, with no further penalty to the signing team.

    It wouldn’t make sense under the new system to force teams to void their 2nd round selection as well. The only reason it was there in the first place was to compensate a second Type-A free agent team in the event that the first round pick was given to another team already. Since nobody “gets” those picks as compensation anymore, it wouldn’t fit the new model.

  41. Sports on a Shtick on November 9th, 2012 7:43 am

    USA Today reports the Rangers are only willing to go three years on a Josh Hamilton contract.

  42. heyoka on November 9th, 2012 9:48 am

    Roll the dice; might get snake eyes.

    Finally payroll can carry some new dead weight.

  43. Barron on November 9th, 2012 11:16 am

    From Buster Olney’s blog today…

    “They could revisit the talks they had with Seattle last winter, when the Mariners had the best offer on the table for Upton.”

  44. smb on November 9th, 2012 6:36 pm

    Hamilton, for all his publicly documented faults, is one of those rare people seemingly born to swing a bat at a baseball. I love the idea of adding that to the M’s offense while it’s subtracted from the Rangers’…and while I agree Seattle is maybe not the most advantageous setting for someone in an occasionally shaky recovery, I don’t think anything he’s done since he came back into everyone’s good graces and realized his baseball potential has been all that bad or surprising. I also do find him believable as a good guy with bad judgment, rather than a bad guy with bad judgment. This guy has the raw talent for multiple potential MVP seasons in him before he declines (probably precipitously), and the thing that helps me paint a rosy picture for myself most is to look at the payroll opened up by Ichiro leaving and what we could expect from 130-150 games of JH for not that much more than we were paying Ichiro to fail. I also think the clubhouse is potentially a really good fit for him, where he’d seem like a vocal leader compared to Ichiro, while not really being expected to completely and solely fill the role of ‘the guy’ in the clubhouse. I think 5-6 years, 120-130 is worth it, personally…I would much rather have even an average of 120 games of Hamilton than give up good talent to get (either) Upton and then watch him not even reach his potential. I don’t think it will happen, but I wish it would. In terms of FAs, he’s kinda like Prince to me…great bat, average to mediocre glove, but definitely makes the offense much better by being in the lineup.

  45. Miles on November 10th, 2012 10:52 am

    “Also, keep in mind that Ham would cause the team to lose its #1 draft. When you are a krappy team, you don’t want to lose premium draft picks.”

    If the M’s sign Josh Hamilton, they won’t be a krappy team anymore.

  46. BillyJive on November 10th, 2012 10:57 am

    The Aston Martin grille is actually on the new Fusion…not Focus….and they are a sweet ride!
    I’ll take Swisher over Hamilton thanks.

  47. qwerty on November 10th, 2012 11:40 am

    Melky and either Hamilton or Swisher…and I’d do the Paxton for Wil Meyers too.

  48. stevemotivateir on November 10th, 2012 2:53 pm

    ^If we landed Melky and Hamilton or Swisher, why trade for another outfielder?

  49. the tourist on November 10th, 2012 4:05 pm

    “Melky and either Hamilton or Swisher…and I’d do the Paxton for Wil Meyers too.”

    First: as Steve pointed out, getting Melky and one of the Type A Free Agents AND Myers gives the team too many (corner) outfielders.

    Second: Wil Myers would cost a lot more than James Paxton. He’d probably cost Taijuan Walker AND James Paxton.

    Third: I’d still make the Myers trade if it cost Walker and Paxton both (assuming we get some very minor, non-prospect as well), grab Melky, and keep the draft pick. Then take the money not spent on Swisher or Hamilton and pick up Greinke – and if Greinke is not available, Edwin Jackson.

  50. qwerty on November 10th, 2012 4:38 pm

    I was thinking of Swisher as a DH/1B/OFer…and Hamilton could play some CF in the rotation. Stockpiling OF talent.

  51. stevemotivateir on November 11th, 2012 7:57 am

    In all honesty, I’m just as curious about the plan with the middle infielders, as I am with potential FA signings. With Liddi, Catricala, Franklin, Triunfel, and Rodriguez already in Tacoma, and then guys like Romero and Miller likely forcing their way up soon, a body or two is going to have to disappear.

    Will that happen this off-season? Can guys like Rodriguez, Triunfel, and Liddi net anything in a trade? Is it too early to give up on those guys? I have the same question, same curiosity regarding Carp, and to a lesser extent, Robinson, Thames, and Peguero. With those last three names, I think we’ve seen enough and don’t expect much of a return, just wonder if they can net anything at all.

  52. IHaveALittleProject on November 11th, 2012 10:38 am

    Why no talk about Victorino? If he could be had for 2/$20M wouldn’t that be pretty good value for a 3-4 WAR outfielder?

  53. henryv on November 11th, 2012 10:52 am

    Why no talk about Victorino? If he could be had for 2/$20M wouldn’t that be pretty good value for a 3-4 WAR outfielder?

    He probably projects as a high-2/low-3 win.

    I’d be inclined to believe he gets a 2/$25 or 3/$33-ish… But he is about to be 32, so, like Hamilton, will probably diminish significantly over the contract. By the end of the contract he may be a 4th outfielder.

    But, yeah, you can get Victorino for 2/$20, that’s almost a no-brainer.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.