Tribe Avoids Arbitration for Hannahan

One year, no word on monetary value as of yet.

4 months ago USSChoo 46 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I have a feeling the final figure will be a little closer to $1mil than the $1.3mil projected.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 12:20 PM EST reply actions

Joe Smith, too

by APV on Jan 17, 2012 12:41 PM EST reply actions

Projection from MLBTR was $1.6mil. Seems likely.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions

Seems high. One good season ever?

by Jay on Jan 17, 2012 5:44 PM EST up reply actions

I should have said that it wasn’t what I thought he was really worth, just what I thought he’d get.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 8:41 PM EST up reply actions

MLBastian Indians have agreed to terms with RHP Joe Smith, avoiding arbitration. Don’t know terms yet.

Also, anyone else think it’s crazy to give “Oviedo” $6 million?

by westbrook on Jan 17, 2012 12:42 PM EST reply actions

Yeah, a bit.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 12:57 PM EST up reply actions

If you believe MLBTR, it appears that we may have avoided arb with Choo for $4.9mil.

Fear the Fedora.

by MooneysRebellion on Jan 17, 2012 1:07 PM EST reply actions

Smith 1.75, Choo 4.9, Hannahan 1.135

by APV on Jan 17, 2012 1:26 PM EST up reply actions

Where are you finding the 1.75 on Smith? I know Bastian confirmed the other 2.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 1:30 PM EST up reply actions

Nevermind, got it. Bastian via Hoynes.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

Also, the 4.9 for Choo must mean we’ll see Asdrubal top 5, no?

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 1:32 PM EST up reply actions

Masterson getting $3.8mil and C Perez $4.5mil via Bastian tweet (sorry, unable to link here at work).

Fear the Fedora.

by MooneysRebellion on Jan 17, 2012 2:03 PM EST reply actions

Always seemed to me like Cabrera and R Perez would be the hardest

by APV on Jan 17, 2012 2:05 PM EST up reply actions

The volatility of their performances (Raffy, more than ACab) in the past would make it seem that way.

Fear the Fedora.

by MooneysRebellion on Jan 17, 2012 2:16 PM EST up reply actions

With Cabrera, it just seems like a question of weighing the benefits of negotiating a long-term deal at this time, something both sides might presumably be interested in. For Perez, it is what I would guess is the biggest gap between how the club values the player and how the player values himself (and I mean no offense to Perez in saying that).

by APV on Jan 17, 2012 3:44 PM EST up reply actions

For both Cabrera and Choo, there is also a logic on both sides to doing a two-year deal, trading a little cost certainty and savings for a little security.

by Jay on Jan 17, 2012 5:45 PM EST up reply actions

Puts us a little over $1mil beyond what MLBTR guessed at with Asdrubal and Raffy to go. I’m guessing we’re looking at $23mil combined on these guys.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 2:51 PM EST up reply actions

VMart apparently with a torn ACL, out for 2012. Central just got a whole lot more interesting.

Fear the Fedora.

by MooneysRebellion on Jan 17, 2012 3:31 PM EST reply actions

Wow. This unleashes all kinds of mixed emotions.

by ken from alexandria on Jan 17, 2012 3:34 PM EST up reply actions

Hoo-boy! As much as VMart is a class act, I and bare no ill will against him or his knee, this will do just fine.

"Sounds like 'Take the Z-Train' to me." -- Antoine Batiste

by T.O. Tribe on Jan 17, 2012 3:34 PM EST up reply actions

Sorry, bear.

"Sounds like 'Take the Z-Train' to me." -- Antoine Batiste

by T.O. Tribe on Jan 17, 2012 3:35 PM EST up reply actions

He started his Spring DL trip a little early this year. Get better soon, Vic (as soon as the Tigers are out of contention).

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 3:41 PM EST up reply actions

Makes the Tribe search for a 1B bat incrementally harder, but obviously closes the gap in the AL Central

by APV on Jan 17, 2012 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

I was going to ask how, but then I realized that the 1B FAs are now being targeted as possible DHs in Detroit. Got it.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions

Pena to Detroit.

I’m calling it.

"sometimes the internet is hard for me." - ClemsonGirl

by world dictator on Jan 17, 2012 7:30 PM EST up reply actions

Someone made a good point in the other thread about years.

Matt LaPorta is the bane of my existence.

by USSChoo on Jan 17, 2012 8:41 PM EST up reply actions

That’s too bad. Baseball careers are short enough as it is.

by YoDaddyWags on Jan 17, 2012 3:48 PM EST up reply actions

Eh, isn’t this basically right on schedule?

by Jay on Jan 17, 2012 5:45 PM EST up reply actions

He just turned 33 I believe, so it’s about time his years of playing catcher caught up to him.

"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools" -Hemingway

by notthatnoise on Jan 17, 2012 10:33 PM EST up reply actions

Led all catchers in games played, 2004-2007.

Second in Innings Caught behind Jason Kendall.

by Jay on Jan 18, 2012 2:50 AM EST up reply actions

There are 161 catchers ahead of Victor in career games played at the position, and with 26 games at catcher in 2011, VMart wasn’t going to be racing up the list. Indeed, he had only 5 years of catching 100+ games.

No, it’s not particularly surprising that he got hurt, but only the youngsters on this site, who have not advanced enough in years to understand how quickly they evaporate, who could revel in the toll that age takes.

by YoDaddyWags on Jan 18, 2012 8:12 AM EST up reply actions

I’m not reveling in it.

I’m not sure why you make 100+ the cutoff point. He averaged 132 games at catcher for those four seasons, which is a little over five games per week. He was close to that same pace for the end of 2003 and start of 2008, so it’s really five seasons of heavy work at that position.

That’s definitely an above-average workload for a starting catcher, and unlike most catchers, he remained in the lineup on most off-days. Playing 1B is definitely not the same thing as getting a day off.

by Jay on Jan 18, 2012 12:12 PM EST up reply actions

100 was the cutoff point only because three digits are easy to distinguish from two, when you’re squinting at the screen. If you go by another arbitrary but easy to distinguish number, 1000 or more innings at catcher in a season, Pudge Rodrigues did that 11 times, Pierzynski 10, Posada and Varitek 8, Ramon Hernandez 6 and Yadier Molina 5, to note active (through 2011) catchers; Victor did it 4 times.

Not really arguing; as I say, there’s no surprise in his getting injured. Also, I don’t really think of you as a youngster.

by YoDaddyWags on Jan 18, 2012 12:45 PM EST up reply actions

And apologies for that confusion: that general comment, tacked on to my reply to you, was made thinking of some other posts, not yours. I’ve made that mistake before, to no end of grief; I should have made my reply clearer.

by YoDaddyWags on Jan 18, 2012 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

I never for a moment thought you were calling me a youngster.

by Jay on Jan 19, 2012 1:38 AM EST up reply actions

Sounds recently familiar.

There seems to be a general recognition that catching is less conducive to extended health and peak playing time than other positions. But due to the value attached to catchers who can hit, it doesn’t seem to follow that you don’t really want your best hitter at catcher if you want to get the most “best hitting” out of him.

I know I’ve mentioned it before, but – that seems like a not too rational bet. You generally shouldn’t build your lineup around your catcher’s badass bat.

by mcrose on Jan 18, 2012 2:05 PM EST up reply actions

Kind of amazing Kendall leads that category

by APV on Jan 18, 2012 8:45 AM EST up reply actions

Especially with the absolutely horrific broken ankle injury he had in Pittsburgh,

by emd2k3 on Jan 18, 2012 10:14 AM EST up reply actions

Plus the fact that he’s been swinging a wet newspaper at the plate for many, many years.

by JulioBernazard on Jan 18, 2012 10:22 AM EST up reply actions

He lost his power, but he had a .356 OBP over those four seasons. For a catcher, that’s more than serviceable. No question his durability was part of his value.

by Jay on Jan 18, 2012 12:13 PM EST up reply actions

I’ve been thinking that Baseballs economic system hurts the Martinez’ & Santana’s of the world. A small market team like the Indians doesn’t give a sh_t about his post control years and will therefore ride him like a chap nag behind the plate during the years that they control him.

by stuart dean on Jan 18, 2012 6:32 PM EST up reply actions

Cheap nags, not chap nags.

by stuart dean on Jan 18, 2012 6:38 PM EST up reply actions

Well, using that arbitrary but oh so convenient benchmark of 1000+ innings catching, the AL from 1961-70, before free agency, had 104 team-seasons and 31 instances of catchers doing yeoman duty, or just under 30% of the time. Leaders were Bill Freehan of the Tigers, who did it 6 times; Buck Rodgers of the Angels 5; and Earl Battey of the Twins 4.

From 2001-2010, with 140 team-seasons, catchers topped 1000 innings 57 times, or just over 40%. Leaders: Posada, NY, 7 times; Pierzynski 7 (2 with the Twins, 5 with Chicago); Varitek, 5 with Boston; Ramon Hernandez, 5 (3 Oak, 2 Bal); Ivan Rodriguez, 4 with the Tigers; and VMart, 4 with the Tribe.

Catchers are generally being ridden harder in this era, it seems, but it doesn’t look like small-market teams—nor Christina Aguilera, I would guess—are driving the phenomenon.

by YoDaddyWags on Jan 18, 2012 7:21 PM EST up reply actions

It occurs to me that the era of the ‘60s, which I chose randomly, had 2 expansions; it’s possible that a stretched out talent base didn’t produce the level of talent that managers would want to put in the lineup day after day. I’d look at the 1950s, but the animals need to fed now.

by YoDaddyWags on Jan 18, 2012 7:30 PM EST up reply actions

How many players are likely to last more than seven years anyway?

Hindsight is 20/20. No team can operate based on a concern over a player five years into the future. Maybe one year, but that’s about it. The game is too uncertain, and needless to say, flags fly forever.

by Jay on Jan 19, 2012 1:40 AM EST up reply actions