Out of the Past

Hanley trade article. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/trading-hanley-ramirez/ Trading Hanley Ramirez by Joe Pawlikowski - June 22, 2011 We all knew this day was coming. There was a notion that maybe this time it would be different; maybe with the new stadium in place the Marlins could afford to keep Hanley Ramirez and his rising salary. But even with that in mind his eventual trade seemed inevitable. It would be a tough sell, of course, as it is any time a team trades its franchise player. The current circumstances might make it a bit easier. The Marlins struggles lately are well documented. After a hot start that had them 10 games over .500 in late May, they’ve dropped 22 of their last 26 and currently sit in the NL East cellar. Things can only get better, but so much has gone wrong this season that it’s unreasonable to expect a full return to their early season performance. The team’s failures, combined with Ramirez’s own struggles, could make it easier for the Marlins to part ways with him and the remainder of his contract. It might not happen at the deadline, but it certainly could happen following this season. Buster Olney got the conversation started this morning with this tweet. Jeffrey Loria might love Ramirez, but he also loves not paying players a lot of money. Never in his tenure as Marlins owner has he paid a player $15 million, which is what Ramirez will earn next year. (He had signed Carlos Delgado to a contract that would exceed that milestone in its final year, but then traded him after the first year.) With $45.75 million already committed to five players in 2012, and with a number of players in arbitration, the Marlins very well could trade one of their higher priced players. As the highest priced one coming off what will almost certainly end with numbers below his established norms, Ramirez stands the best chance of having a new home in April, 2012. Let’s ignore for a second the question of whether the Marlins should trade Hanley. Given ownership’s track record, the question is largely moot. They have their own manner of operating, and unless the new stadium drastically alters it, signs point to them at least considering a Ramirez trade. If they were to put him on the market, they would certainly attract suitors. But what could they get in return? The first issue affecting a trade is Ramirez’s position. He has a career -9.1 UZR/150 at shortstop, and other defensive metrics rate him around the same level of futility. As Olney later tweeted, other teams believe that “Hanley is too big now to be [an] effective shortstop.� Of course, they could be saying that with the intent of driving down his price, but given his poor defensive marks the sentiment does make sense. Unless he can handle center field, that might be another reason for the Marlins to explore a trade. They have an up and comer in Matt Dominguez slated for third base, and then have young budding stars Logan Morrison and Mike Stanton in the corner outfield positions. Ramirez’s bat, at least at its peak, will play anywhere, so finding a team with a need at either third base or left field shouldn’t be much of an issue. The second issue is his performance relative to his contract. From 2012 through 2014 the Marlins owe Ramirez $46.5 million. That wouldn’t be a problem under normal circumstances, even if he moved off shortstop. Under the current circumstances, though, he’s not quite as valuable as when the Marlins signed him to an extension. After establishing himself as a .400+ wOBA player from 2007 through 2009, he dropped to .373 last year before completely falling off the cliff this year. There is time to recover, but even if he does his overall numbers will look poor in comparison to the standard he set. A trade, then, would amount to a bet by the acquiring team that Ramirez will return to form and provide elite numbers in the middle of the order. What would they be willing to surrender for that? Chances are it will be something less than what the Tigers trade for Miguel Cabrera, which amounted to their two top prospects. Two top-ten prospects would surely be included, and there could be a third. Even while teams are coveting their prospects more than in the past, it’s hard to see any team holding back on a trade that could net them a player such as Ramirez. The entire idea of trading Ramirez is premised on his return to form this season. If he goes on to produce a .400 wOBA from now through September, chances are he’ll have suitors lining up. If he doesn’t, the Marlins are in a tough position. Would they accept a smaller package of players in order to dump Ramirez’s salary? That’s not an easy question to answer in any case, but the alternative is to continue paying him $15 million per season for production that might not reach that level. At this point we can still expect a return to form by Hanley. Unfortunately, those expectations are lowered if he continues producing at a level below the baseline he set. This is a question we likely won’t have to revisit until the off-season. Given Ramirez’s performance so far this year, combined with with his relatively poor 2010, plus his positional challenges, chances are teams won’t be knocking on the Marlins door in July. After the season, though, there is a good chance that the Marlins listen to offers, even if Ramirez doesn’t return to form. Given the way the Marlins operate, and given the list of teams that would like to add Hanley, even at a left fielder, it could make for one of the better off-season story lines.

The best time to judge a 3 year contract is 2 2/3 months in. That contract looked like a bad deal the second it was signed. Buck has had one good year in his career.

That's not really what I meant. I meant that it's easier for an organization to find a 4 WAR 1B/corner outfielder than to magically find a ~4 WAR SS. Hanley would be really difficult to replace (assuming he goes back to being Hanley). Look at SS's last year; there are only about a handful of consistently productive SS's in the big leagues. And Hanley has, arguably, been the best one in the big leagues, aside from a couple of months this year. Also, Hanley's defensive #'s would probably look a lot better if he were playing LF (making his WAR look better), instead of SS; SS is a more demanding position. There are more 1B than SS with very high WARs but that doesn't mean they're easier to get. Using your example, if in 2010 Hanley had played LF and played it at a defensive +/- of 0 his WAR would have being 3.3. +3.7 WAR at SS -0.7 Bonus in the 3.7 for playing SS +0.8 Penalty in the 3.7 for playing poor SS -0.5 Penalty for playing LF ==== +3.3 Hanley in LF playing at a +/- of 0

I think that's poor usage of the WAR statistic. Why? Is there an issue with comparing the WAR of players of different positions? People do it all the time. I can see a problem of comparing pitchers with positions players. In that case, Hanley's 3.7 was tied for 48th among all positions players. According to baseball-reference, a 5.0 WAR player is an all-star and a 2.0 WAR player is a starter quality player. So I guess a 3.7 WAR player is between an all-star and a common starter... so a 3.7 WAR is good but not very good... and not worth $15 million a year. Because if Hanley was playing a different position, you could easily assume that his WAR would look better. Also, a 3.7 WAR SS is a lot more valuable than, say, a 4 WAR 1B/corner outfielder. The positional adjustment component in the WAR calculation adjusts players' WAR for the value of playing different positions thus allowing you to compare players who play different positions. The positional adjustment for a SS and a 1B are +0.5 and -1.0, respectively, and Hanley's 3.7 WAR and the 1B's 4.0 WAR, in your example, already include the +0.5 positional adjustment for Hanley and the -1.0 adjustment for the 1B. I may be wrong but I don'think so.

I think that's poor usage of the WAR statistic. Why? Is there an issue with comparing the WAR of players of different positions? People do it all the time. I can see a problem of comparing pitchers with positions players. In that case, Hanley's 3.7 was tied for 48th among all positions players. According to baseball-reference, a 5.0 WAR player is an all-star and a 2.0 WAR player is a starter quality player. So I guess a 3.7 WAR player is between an all-star and a common starter... so a 3.7 WAR is good but not very good... and not worth $15 million a year.

In 2010 he regressed to the point where he did not have a "very good" season... he had a "good" season. Even if he returns to the 2010 Hanley, he's not a $15 million a year player. You mean his .853 OPS 2010 - 2nd in MLB at SS behind only Troy "hey, I get to play at Coors" Tulowitzki - merely "good" season? But defensively he was horrible. Using the average of Rtot (-8) and Rdrs (-16), he was one of the 3 or 4 worst defensive SS in MLB. His WAR was 3.7 which is good, not very good. His WAR was top 3 among shortstops last year. His WAR was tied for 73rd among all players.

In 2010 he regressed to the point where he did not have a "very good" season... he had a "good" season. Even if he returns to the 2010 Hanley, he's not a $15 million a year player. You mean his .853 OPS 2010 - 2nd in MLB at SS behind only Troy "hey, I get to play at Coors" Tulowitzki - merely "good" season? But defensively he was horrible. Using the average of Rtot (-8) and Rdrs (-16), he was one of the 3 or 4 worst defensive SS in MLB. His WAR was 3.7 which is good, not very good.

So he wasn't late. I HATE the media.

If you get high ceiling mlb ready or close to mlb ready prospects and if Beinfest will have the $15 million saved on Hanley to spend on other players then I see no reason not to trade him. I would encourage such a trade. Hanley is having a rough season, but he is a rare talent, the franchise talent. But it's not only this season. It's the $15 million salary and last season's performance too. In 2010 he regressed to the point where he did not have a "very good" season... he had a "good" season. Even if he returns to the 2010 Hanley, he's not a $15 million a year player. If he returns to the 2009 Hanley, then yes. But that's a risky bet. I would rather have the top MLB ready prospects and the $15 million to spend.

If you get high ceiling mlb ready or close to mlb ready prospects and if Beinfest will have the $15 million saved on Hanley to spend on other players then I see no reason not to trade him. I would encourage such a trade.

On the Lebatard show they said Jack just benched hanley for tonight. Jack said he didn't like how Hanley was running yesterday. Good thing someone in the organization noticed. Hanley looks injured to me. But he says he's healthy. I don't believe him. According to the Palm Beach Post he benched Hanley because he was late for the team meeting. The line about not running well was a decoy. From the Herald: Asked before the game why Ramirez wasn’t in the lineup, McKeon said he “didn’t like the way [Ramirez] ran the bases [in Sunday’s 2-1 loss to the Rays].’’ “I don’t know [if he’s hurt],’’ McKeon said. “Just gave him a day. I just want to see if we can do something — do something different.’’

I have a feeling that the Hanley-McKeon face-off is going to get ugly by the end of the season. I expect it to either be really good or really bad. I say it's a 98% chance it's bad. Get ready for never-ending Hanley bashing in the media and on here the rest of the season.

On the Lebatard show they said Jack just benched hanley for tonight. Jack said he didn't like how Hanley was running yesterday. Good thing someone in the organization noticed. Hanley looks injured to me. But he says he's healthy. I don't believe him.

I don't see why you think Morrison and Stanton have overachieved. Also, the guys who have overachieved haven't done so spectacularly (aside from Anibal). I can put Stanton in the "As Expected" bucket. I think Gaby has greatly outperformed his expectations. Last year his WAR was 0.5 in 151 games. This year it's 2.9 in 70 games. The guy is having a fantastic season.

Coming into the season not many unbiased people considered this to be very good team. I think the consensus was this was a low 80's win team but the best pitcher is injured and the best position player fell off a cliff. If you look at the more important players, about the same have over and under achieved. Buck - As expected Gaby - Over Infante - Under Hanley - Under - Fell off a cliff Dobbs - Over LoMo - Over Coghlan - Under Stanton - Over Boni - Over JJ - Injured Anibal - Over Ricky - As expected Volstad - Under Vazquez - Under Nunez - As Expected

www.google.com and type the name.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Renteria

I hate Loria but this article is pure garbage. I don't know how Jeff Passan can write for a national website. He's horrible.

What does demoting Coghlan do? He's still better than all the scrubs on the bench. And better than Bonifacio once his current little hot streak ends, as well. He's not that good, nothing has changed. Right now he kinda sucks, but it's not as if there's anyone in the organization who's an upgrade over him. Send him down and replace him with a crappy bench player. Maybe he'll regain some sort of composure in the Minor Leagues. This season is a mess, so we might as well try all we can to make next season one that actually entices people to show up to the new ballpark. Coghlan has struggled but I would keep playing him every day because we need to determine whether he'll be a cog in 2012 and going forward or if he is what he has being the past year and a half.

Buck's OPS is not so bad for a catcher.

Nolasco is owed $20.5M for '12 and '13. I see him as a league average starter and I don't think that's worth $10.25M per year. He only has one season with a WAR above 1.4. Hanley is owed $46.5M for '12, '13 and '14. If in those seasons he OPSes about .900 and plays his poor to very poor defense he'll probably be about a 5.0 to 5.5 WAR guy and I wonder if that's worth $15.5M per year.

I think our main issue is Coghlan leading off. There's not a single main issue. There are several issues. Some injury related (JJ and Hanley) but most production related. Buck, Infante, Hanley (when healthy), Coghlan, Vasquez, Volstad and the bench have all played poorly.

Taking a quick look at his batted balls allowed compared to his career batted balls allowed his babip should probably be a bit higher than what it is and this season the Marlins are one of the top 2 or 3 defensive teams in the NL but you're saying that when Volstad pitches they play poor defense behind him and he has bad luck? I don't buy it.

Volstad isn't as bad as you make him seem, CyggyMarlin. He isn't good either He's 24 years old and has had 4 bad starts out of 12. The team pretty much consistently fails him. This is about the 55th time you say something like that about Volstad. So lets look at where he ranks among NL pitchers: ERA+: 56th out of 60 NL pitchers ERA: 58th out of 60 NL pitchers WHIP: 52nd out of 60 NL pitchers

Considering he missed ST and needed April to knock some rust off, I would be happy with Mikey reaching 30 this year...No where to go next year but up That's what is even crazier. And I'm pretty sure it's the only reason he's been slightly "negative" as a right fielder, according to UZR. If he could have been healthy this entire year, he could have very well been a 5+ WAR player. As it is, he still has an outside shot. According to baseball-reference, he's +19 in Rdrs/yr and +12 in Rtot/yr. Yeah, just saw that. Like I said above, I wonder what +/- says, since there's a sizable discrepancy there. Maybe one of the 2 above sites hasn't updated recently?? I check the baseball-reference defensive stats almost every weekday and I think it's updated daily.

Comparing the HR% to the first half isn't what you should do. You should compare it to career HR%. Career pre HR derby vs. career after HR derby.. or career pre HR derby vs. season after HR derby?