Josh Hamilton - 2013 free agent

[fearofpopvol1]

Dare I say, but if his slide continues for the rest of the season, that is going to have a large impact. If he finishes strong, I am sure he'll get between $100-150M.

[Ghosts of 1990]

Originally Posted by cincrazy

I wouldn't touch Hamilton with a 10 foot pole at this point. The mistake wasn't in trading Hamilton. Volquez just didn't work out. Not a bad risk by the Reds IMO, although it can certainly be argued they could've targeted a better package.

Hamilton is a huuuuuuuge risk, performance wise and off the field wise. A team would be CRAZY to give him 100 million over the life of a contract, but it's probably going to happen.

Hamilton has a WAR of 20 since the start of 2008 when he departed from Cincinnati. By comparison, Joey Votto has had a WAR of 25.2 since then. Jay Bruce has a WAR of 8.9 since then.

It was a huge mistake trading him. The first three years of that deal were extremely affordable.

Reds jumped the gun AND Volquez didn't work out.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Ghosts of 1990

Hamilton has a WAR of 20 since the start of 2008 when he departed from Cincinnati. By comparison, Joey Votto has had a WAR of 25.2 since then. Jay Bruce has a WAR of 8.9 since then.

It was a huge mistake trading him. The first three years of that deal were extremely affordable.

Reds jumped the gun AND Volquez didn't work out.

I don't know if it's fair to say they jumped the gun. Rather, they figured that if they had a wildcard with a lot of upside to play with, they'd rather it be a pitcher than a hitter (to say nothing about the clubhouse dynamic issues).

Obviously it didn't work out. From an outcomes standpoint, it was clearly a mistake. But given the state of pitching in our organization, it's hard to fault the thought process that led to the decision to trade him.

[reds44]

I don't see any way somebody hands Hamilton 7/150. I'll be surprised if he gets 5/100.

[cincrazy]

Originally Posted by Ghosts of 1990

Hamilton has a WAR of 20 since the start of 2008 when he departed from Cincinnati. By comparison, Joey Votto has had a WAR of 25.2 since then. Jay Bruce has a WAR of 8.9 since then.

It was a huge mistake trading him. The first three years of that deal were extremely affordable.

Reds jumped the gun AND Volquez didn't work out.

But they were going to have to trade him at some point. Like I said, my argument isn't "they should've have traded Hamilton." They should've. Now, maybe they should've waited longer. In hindsight, yeah, you can say that. But at the time, with an injury-plagued player with a history of drug problems not being that far in the past, why wait in trading him? Plus he was a clubhouse problem, which has been well-documented.

[Edd Roush]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I don't know if it's fair to say they jumped the gun. Rather, they figured that if they had a wildcard with a lot of upside to play with, they'd rather it be a pitcher than a hitter (to say nothing about the clubhouse dynamic issues).

Obviously it didn't work out. From an outcomes standpoint, it was clearly a mistake. But given the state of pitching in our organization, it's hard to fault the thought process that led to the decision to trade him.

Great way of putting it. I don't know if I could have stated it any better.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I don't know if it's fair to say they jumped the gun. Rather, they figured that if they had a wildcard with a lot of upside to play with, they'd rather it be a pitcher than a hitter (to say nothing about the clubhouse dynamic issues).

Obviously it didn't work out. From an outcomes standpoint, it was clearly a mistake. But given the state of pitching in our organization, it's hard to fault the thought process that led to the decision to trade him.

I was fine with the trade at the time for the reasons you stated.

I wouldn't mind having him back though.

[Unassisted]

Josh Hamilton still has an addictive personality.

ARLINGTON, Texas — Rangers outfielder and former Cincinnati Red Josh Hamilton was back in the lineup Monday night for the opener of a four-game series against Oakland after being diagnosed with a cornea problem caused by caffeine that he described as a sugar high "times 10."

Hamilton, who had missed five straight games, saw an optometrist Monday and was diagnosed with ocular keratitis, a drying of the cornea caused by too much caffeine and energy drinks.

"Drinking caffeine, coffee in the morning, coffee midday, Energy drink before the game, chocolate after the game. All these things were compounding and making it worse and worse," he said.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Unassisted

Josh Hamilton still has an addictive personality.

Looks like he picked the wrong week to start drinking caffiene.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by Chip R

Looks like he picked the wrong week to start drinking caffiene.

That might be the winner of the funniest comeback post of the year.

[mbgrayson]

I think Hamilton could get a very nice long term contract, if he agreed to a clause that allowed the team to terminate the contract in the event he relapses and begins using street drugs or alcohol again.

I know the Players Union doesn't like clauses that cancel contract in the event of an injury. However, this type of clause would only kick in if Hamilton himself decided to use intoxicants again. Given the regular testing regiman that MLB already has him on, the contract could simply state that the team's obligation to pay him is contingent upon him remaining elegible to play MLB (although that wouldn't cover alcohol use).

These type of contractual clauses may be percieved to reduce the risk level of signing Josh to a longer term deal.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by mbgrayson

I think Hamilton could get a very nice long term contract, if he agreed to a clause that allowed the team to terminate the contract in the event he relapses and begins using street drugs or alcohol again.

I know the Players Union doesn't like clauses that cancel contract in the event of an injury. However, this type of clause would only kick in if Hamilton himself decided to use intoxicants again. Given the regular testing regiman that MLB already has him on, the contract could simply state that the team's obligation to pay him is contingent upon him remaining elegible to play MLB (although that wouldn't cover alcohol use).

These type of contractual clauses may be percieved to reduce the risk level of signing Josh to a longer term deal.

There will be no clause, the PU won't open a door for a single player to gain extra years at the expense of the future and all the players who would be affected by a precedent being set.

Hamilton will make money, but like any other player that will be limited by his health and age as well as his skills

[PuffyPig]

Hamilton will go for too much money and too many years.

Only a large market team can accept the kind of risk Hamilton possesses.

There has always been a theory that his body will break down sooner than most due to excessive drug usuage.

He's a collasal risk period.

If I had the dough a 2-year $40-50M contract might be OK.

[Wonderful Monds]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

Hamilton will go for too much money and too many years.

Only a large market team can accept the kind of risk Hamilton possesses.

There has always been a theory that his body will break down sooner than most due to excessive drug usuage.

He's a collasal risk period.

If I had the dough a 2-year $40-50M contract might be OK.

It's already happening. Guy is missing whole series with sinus infections.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by mbgrayson

I think Hamilton could get a very nice long term contract, if he agreed to a clause that allowed the team to terminate the contract in the event he relapses and begins using street drugs or alcohol again.

I know the Players Union doesn't like clauses that cancel contract in the event of an injury. However, this type of clause would only kick in if Hamilton himself decided to use intoxicants again. Given the regular testing regiman that MLB already has him on, the contract could simply state that the team's obligation to pay him is contingent upon him remaining elegible to play MLB (although that wouldn't cover alcohol use).

These type of contractual clauses may be percieved to reduce the risk level of signing Josh to a longer term deal.

The situation you describe essentially exists already. The contract is not terminated, but the player doesn't get paid.

If Hamilton (or any other player) fails a drug test and gets suspended he would not get paid while he is suspended. This mitigates a lot of the risk for the team. If he is not eligible to play the team does not have to pay him. This applies to drugs of abuse as well as PEDs. Once his suspension is completed he would return to the team and be allowed to play and get paid.

Melky Cabrera is not getting paid during his suspension.