Keeping The Hottest Hitter In The World
There was an interesting little discrepancy in the reporting of two different writers on a particular player recently -- so little, in fact, that I'll be floored if anyone caught it. Just over a month ago today, SI.com's Jon Heyman wrote that .362/.411/.633-hitting Josh Hamilton -- whose 4-for-5, one-walk performance in last night's walk-off thriller secured his place atop baseball's wins above replacement leaderboard -- "look[ed] wise" in rejecting a three-year, $24 million offer that he purported the Rangers made "several months ago." Eleven days later, Anthony Andro of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram countered in writing that the Rangers hadn't negotiated with Hamilton since 2009; a pretty stark contrast in reports, all things considered.
Who's right on this issue? I don't know. I'm not down there in the room. I'm not ringing up baseball executives at 1 a.m. asking whether Jon Daniels still has a reputation of being difficult to work with. (Congrats to those of you who caught the reference.) All we really do know is that Hamilton (a) is, by several measures (including his 170 OPS+, which is the highest of any player in the post-Senators history of the franchise), enjoying a beyond-elite-level season in which offense is down near 20-year lows league-wide, (b) is currently something like a 70-30 favorite to win the Most Valuable Player award, and (c) is in line for a significant arbitration-aided raise going into his penultimate season before becoming free agent-eligible.
One of the most frequently applied frameworks for estimating what an arbitration-eligible player should receive is the 40-60-80 rule -- that is, a player entering his first year of arbitration eligibility should, in theory, bank 40 percent of what he would command on the open market (as determined by WAR x $4.0-4.5 million, or thereabouts), 60 percent in his second year, and so forth. However, employing this model here would easily put Hamilton's 2011 salary north of the $15 million mark, and would require him submitting an arbitration figure closer to $20 million, which has never happened before and obviously isn't going to happen now; that shouldn't even surprise us, because the 40-60-80 model breaks down at the extremes. Tom Tango has even said as much.
And here's where we have to tap into our basic intuition and knowledge about the arbitration process to advance any further, because here's the rub: Josh Hamilton is setting up to be one of the most unique arbitration cases in a very long time. Above all else, baseball's salary arbitrators lean upon comparisons to determine the outcomes of disputes -- comparisons of the player in question to his same-position peers at similar points in their careers, comparisons of salaries, comparisons of career games lost to the disabled list, etc. But Hamilton is such an extreme outlier in so many different respects that it borders on impossible to render an semi-accurate prediction, because his highs and lows have proven as extreme as those of anyone in baseball over the last three years.
Coming off an MVP-caliber season, I have to think that Hamilton's camp strongly considers submitting a $10-11 million offer, which would be nigh-unprecedented territory for a four-year player like Hamilton who earned just $3.25 million this season; the only other four-year player I can think of who attempted to extract such a huge pay increase was Felix Hernandez, and his arbitration hearing this past January was averted with a five-year, $78 million deal. Hamilton won't get that, of course, but a settlement just north of $8.5 million seems very reasonable in my head, after which you're talking about $10-plus million in 2012, Hamilton's final year of arbitration eligibility.
And if you want to keep Hamilton beyond 2012 (at which point he'll be entering his age-32 season and decline phase), you're looking at a guy who would require an extremely competitive offer to stay (that is, nearly equivalent to or better than the next-best offer), and somebody who's going to point to the Michael Young contract as the negotiating benchmark. That is where the bar has been set for inordinately large position-player contracts in this organization. And in spite of the stated willingness of Chuck Greenberg and Nolan Ryan to get some sort of long-term deal with Hamilton, I'm not sure if it's even more dangerous to go that route than it would be with Cliff Lee.
For right now, we can sit back and fully appreciate Hamilton for what he is -- a transcendent player whose season might well compare favorably to those of an early-2000s Alex Rodriguez before we hit October. We can appreciate the hell out of this team for pulling off one of its most dramatic comebacks of the last 10 years last night. We can appreciate this march towards the playoffs, because we just don't know if there will ever be another one quite like. But none of that obviates the point that the Rangers, regardless of what unfolds before Halloween, have some very, very interesting decisions coming up this winter with some potentially huge long-term implications.
Analysis, Game Recaps, The Season
Reader Comments (25)
"And if you want to keep Hamilton beyond 2012 (at which point he'll be entering his age-32 season and decline phase), you're looking at a guy who would require an extremely competitive offer to stay (that is, nearly equivalent to or better than the next-best offer), and somebody who's going to point to the Michael Young contract as the negotiating benchmark."
And we all know the worth of the Face's contract in strict terms of pay vs. performance.
Note to self. Better revisit the leadership analysis article below again.
The team killer (for any team not named the damn Yankees) is aging FA contracts. They command the biggest dollars and the most years just as they begin to decline. Witness my truly favorite Ranger Michael Young. Great contract; declining performance.
I am guessing that with the new financially well heeled owneship Hambone will become the next Michael Young.
Stop, take a breath, and Enjoy this moment.
Hamilton's gotta be A.L. MVP this season. The Rangers have a tough tough and I mean TOUGH decision on what to do. Luckily, this team has real ownership now so I gotta trust them to do the right thing with Hamilton.....he's getting older, but he's still a great player.
I don't know why the Rangers would try to lock in Hamilton to a long term deal right now unless they got a great bargain. Why buy at the absolute top of the market for a player with this many question marks? They control him through 2012, and they should take full advantage of that fact. Just deal with the arbitration process and see what happens next year.
The Rangers can afford to pay Hamilton the equivalent of $16 million per year in 2013 and 2014. Sign him.
I hope the Rangers DH Hamilton tonight. Too many games in CF will be a problem soon. The Rangers put him in the corner this season for a reason. Or maybe even sit him on the day game Sunday. He struggles during the day anyway and it's going to be crazy hot.
Great game by him last night, though. Wow. Could someone post a link to a video of his catch at the wall?
It's always dangerous to give players big contracts. Can't live in that fear, and if you do then become OAK and trade everyone off. I, at least, don't want to see that happen with this franchise; and with new ownership it doesn't look like it will.
Regarding Hamilton's decline phase... if he truly is a HOF/elite level player, then he'll age differently. It is likely going to take locking him up through his age 37 year, and if he's truly the once in a generation type player he's showing this season... it's a no brainer. Sign him.
2009 seems like the aberation, and there are health risks with any player. Lock Hamilton up. He's special.
Under no circumstances would I sign Hamilton to a long term deal. Go year to year, he's too risky.
With Young already under contract, signing both Hamilton and Lee long term pretty much means you won't be able to keep Cruz, maybe Kinsler? Just throwing it out there.
Hamilton would likely either take a 2 year deal or a 6 year deal. If Hamilton would actually take that 5 for 78 deal I would have to strongly consider it. You pay a little more in the front half, but if he continues like this you save some in the back half.
I know in some places this would be a tarring offense, but I'm really thinking its time for Young to be DH and for us to get someone who can actually play the position well at 3b, oh and its also time to DFA Guzman.
Maybe someone should be talking about the contract status of Darren O'Day. He's the most valuable guy flying under the radar right now, and they could lock him up cheap. He's shown he can be consistent, and he's got the kind of stuff that seems about as low risk for a massive drop-off as a reliever can have.
@tball and jd21: The closer Josh gets to FA the more likely he is to enter FA. Don't sign him for 5 years but a 3 year deal this winter would do. Maybe add an optional 4th year. But would Josh sign such a deal?
hambone will take less he doesnt care about the tons of money
"hambone will take less he doesnt care about the tons of money"
He has already turned down two previous attempts to extend him. The first time he complained about how low the offer was. The guy is going to want bucks and years.
Once again the problem is years. He will want five to seven all at very top (think Michael Young) dollars. However, he has had two excellent years with one not so good year between them. Way to much risk. IF the Yankees want him; they've got him along with Lee and eventually Andrus.
Deal with it.
This is why it is critical to keep the pipeline for all positions, not just pitching, well stocked.
If Nolan and Chuck want to keep the 'best possible fan experience" they absolutely have to find a way to keep Hambone for at least 5 more years, maybe even longer if its worth it at the time. He has become arguably the favorite player for nearly every person in the ballpark....when he steps to the plate everybody in the park makes sure to watch because they never know when he may hit one completly out of a stadium. He has become the face of the Rangers (sorry MY) and has to stay a Ranger for life. I think we all just hope that the Yankees don't ever get an opportunity to make him an offer in free agency. I think it is probably more important to sign Hambone to a long term deal than resign Cliff Lee, but both would be ideal
This will be Hamilton's only shot at a super premium contract. I wouldn't settle for less than market value if I were him. I think the Rangers would be wise to go year to year with him for the time being. Things could change one way or another. JD will have to make a tough call this fall with Cliff Lee. How that turns out could potentially have a bearing on the Ranger's approach to Hamilton. Having three guys by 2012 consuming about $60 million dollars in payroll (potentially Young, Lee, and Hamilton) is a risky proposition.
If Hamilton does sign a big contract elsewhere, I just hope that our fans don't boo him when he plays here.That always strikes me as very sad.
By "here" I mean Arlington, of course. It's most unlikely that he'll ever play in Melbourne...
"By "here" I mean Arlington, of course. It's most unlikely that he'll ever play in Melbourne..."
So Anthony I guess you have given up on that international overseas franchise hope........................
3 for $30-34m seems like the right split the difference number. For the club, it locks Josh up for his 33-y-o season, and doesn't overpay too much for it. If he gets hurt or fades, he's off the books around when Nellie and Kinsler start getting really expensive. If he doesn't, you get the extra year and still two comp picks. If he can still mash but has to move to DH, he can be extended for longer at a rate that may make sense for both club and player. For Josh, if he stays healthy and productive, it costs him a little money, but still leaves him a chance to get a fat 4-for-$60m contract from someone. Yet it insures him against a 2011 injury that costs him a ton in arb 2012 and renders him unable to get the big time contract he's angling for, ensuring that he's set for life whatever happens after this season. Also, perhaps front-loading such a contract (with, say, and $8m bonus and the rest paid evenly over 3 years) provides enough advantage versus dealing with two more arb hearings that he takes the offer. Win-win, I think.
Solution: Follow the Kinsler Model... Screw arbitration... Offer 6 at 80 mil and negotiate from there... Believe it or not, you can use the inconsistency as a bargaining chip... I agree with not giving him the monster extension at 32... That would be stupid... Extend him now... This guy has figured it out... This is not an abberition, as one pointed out, but a guy who now knows his swing... Give him his money now and avoid the potentially-harmful arbitration process... Pay him while he's in his prime and give him a comfort level he's never had... He's a Ranger and seems primed to assume Young's leadership role when the day comes where Mikey will have pass the torch... God Bless the Texas Rangers!!!!
Oh, my God... That Lunenberg Report guy is a genius... I bet he's handsome, too... And charming... My piece of advice, watch the movie Twinsitters... Its brilliant... And remember, the Rangers rarely go to arbitration nor like to, so an extension this offseason is likely...
Oh, my God... That Lunenberg Report guy is a genius... I bet he's handsome, too... And charming... My piece of advice, watch the movie Twinsitters... Its brilliant... And remember, the Rangers rarely go to arbitration nor like to, so an extension this offseason is likely...
Oh, my God... That Lunenberg Report guy is a genius... I bet he's handsome, too... And charming... My piece of advice, watch the movie Twinsitters... Its brilliant... And remember, the Rangers rarely go to arbitration nor like to, so an extension this offseason is likely...
Oh no. If we don't sign him, the Yanks will get him. We have to sign him. He is A TEXAS RANGER.