Ryan Hanigan

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    Gedman was not drafted: he was signed as an amateur FA in 1977.

    Some catcher's we drafted since we obtained Gedman with (I think) 1000+ MLB games:

    2001 Shoppach 2nd round

    1996 Hillenbrand 10th round

    1991 Hatteberg 1st round

    1989 Wedge 3rd round

    1988 John Flaherty

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Gedman was not drafted: he was signed as an amateur FA in 1977.

    Some catcher's we drafted since we obtained Gedman with (I think) 1000+ MLB games:

    2001 Shoppach 2nd round

    1996 Hillenbrand 10th round

    1991 Hatteberg 1st round

    1989 Wedge 3rd round

    1988 John Flaherty




     

    But on that list, only Flaherty caught 1,000 games in MLB. 

     

    None of the others even came close to 500.  Hatteburg played more games at 1B.  Wedge barely played, and Hillenbrand spent his entire career at 1B and 3B. Shoppach has less that 400 and counting, but won't get anywhere near 1,000.

     

    1,000 games might be a lot, but as no one even came close to half of it save one long time backup catcher (who did pass it), my guess of Gedman might be more correct that I initially suspected.  When the most durable catcher in the last 34 years from your farm is John Flaherty, his exception to my statement is more proof that disproof...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Gedman was not drafted: he was signed as an amateur FA in 1977.

    Some catcher's we drafted since we obtained Gedman with (I think) 1000+ MLB games:

    2001 Shoppach 2nd round

    1996 Hillenbrand 10th round

    1991 Hatteberg 1st round

    1989 Wedge 3rd round

    1988 John Flaherty

     




     

     

    But on that list, only Flaherty caught 1,000 games in MLB. 

     

    None of the others even came close to 500.  Hatteburg played more games at 1B.  Wedge barely played, and Hillenbrand spent his entire career at 1B and 3B. Shoppach has less that 400 and counting, but won't get anywhere near 1,000.

     

    1,000 games might be a lot, but as no one even came close to half of it save one long time backup catcher (who did pass it), my guess of Gedman might be more correct that I initially suspected.  When the most durable catcher in the last 34 years from your farm is John Flaherty, his exception to my statement is more proof that disproof...

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I guess 1000 is harder to reach than I imagined.

    Shoppach had 547, but you are right, he won't get near 1,000.

    I think Hatteberg's injury cut his catching numbers down, but he would not have reached 1000 either.

     

    I think young catchers are hard to project, so the Sox have chosen to trade for their best ones.

    I remember trading for a once top catching prospect named Kottaras (sp?), but he turned out to be more like a Lavarnway than a Varitek.

    I think with Vazquez, Swihart, Denny and a lesser extent Lavarnway & Butler, we are at the highest point in catching prospect value in my lifetime.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At the end of 2014, Brentz might be compeltely worthless, or a sought-after commodity ready to step in.  Obviously the former happens much more often withg prospects his age, but there is also  a vast greay area in between those 2 statuses.

     

    The Sox certainly do have issues producing RHH power corner infielders and outfielders.  Before Middlebrooks, who was the last one?  Has there been another significant RHH power hitting corner player since Bagwell?  But if there is one area they are actually less productive in, it has to be catcher.  GRanted, big disadvantage, as teams only start one catcher at a time as opposed to four corner players, but really when you look how they draft, catcher is a problem.

     

    Since Epstein took over as GM and right through Cherington, the team has drafted exactly three corner infielder or corner outfielder in the first two rounds - Brentz, Matt Murton and Hunter Morris (who did not sign).  They have also only drafted 2 catchers in that period - Jonathan Egan (2004 - washed out) and Swihart.   They typically draft up the middle, and move players around as they need.  So the corners are inherently negleted, but catcher should not be.  Yet somehow, who was the last catcher from the Sox farm system to catch 1,000 games in MLB?  Do we have to go back to Gedman for this?  (Hasty typing, no research,  Apologies.)

     

    They have 2 good ones now they have hope for.  One or neither could pan out.  But this is a true position of weakness in the farm and has always been.

     

    My expectations for Brentz are not so great that I think he is really worth keeping and rolling the dice on. 

     

    However, I still think a Franklin Morales / Nick Hundley swap is a good and realisitic alternative.  Interestingly, Hundley was the last non-Hanigan to lead the NL in CS%.   Details as to why this deal makes sense for both teams are on another thread.  "Offseason Spolier II - Rotten to the Core."

    [/QUOTE]

    I like Hundley as well, but if we trade Dempster or Peavy, as I think we should and will, we will want Morales as our 6th starter.

    On catching draftees, we did draft Denny with the 81st pick, Jordan Weems with the 111th pick in 2011, and 3 catchers in the top 9 rounds in 2008, but your point is well taken.

    On Brentz, I think he will not pan out in the bigs. I could be wrong, but I'm fine with trading him while he still has value. I wouldn't hand him away, but I do think getting Hanigan or Hundley for him would be a nice trade for us.

    [/QUOTE]


    Id put Workman as my 6th starter before Morales. Id also wait until after 2014 to even consider a WMB or Brentz trade. You can give up something else for Hanigan. Id rather have Hundley though.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    ReWould you rather have Hundley over Hanigan?   Or would you rather have Hundley at the cost of Morales over Hanigan at the cost of Brentz?

     

    Those are two very different questions, and really, since all the proposed trades are based on message board chatter and nothing else,  there may be very little substance to any of them. 

     

    Hundley is nice for example, but is he as nice if the Padres insist on Brentz?  And is Hanigan so bad if the Reds are willing to take Morales?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from raider3524. Show raider3524's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Would you rather have Hundley over Hanigan?   Or would you rather have Hundley and Brentz over Hanigan and Morales?

     

    Those are two very different questions, and really, since all the proposed trades are based on message board chatter and nothing else,  there may be very little substance to any of them. 

     

    Hundley is nice for example, but is he as nice if the Padres insist on Brentz?  And is Hanigan so bad if the want Morales?

    [/QUOTE]

    i'd take hundley...but i'd still like to trade morales for somthing...it's just me talking..but i don't like morales...when i watch him it's like you can't depend on him...

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    Id put Workman as my 6th starter before Morales. Id also wait until after 2014 to even consider a WMB or Brentz trade. You can give up something else for Hanigan. Id rather have Hundley though.

    I think they like Workman in the pen, but I'm fine with Workman a notch ahead of Morales.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to raider3524's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Would you rather have Hundley over Hanigan?   Or would you rather have Hundley and Brentz over Hanigan and Morales?

     

    Those are two very different questions, and really, since all the proposed trades are based on message board chatter and nothing else,  there may be very little substance to any of them. 

     

    Hundley is nice for example, but is he as nice if the Padres insist on Brentz?  And is Hanigan so bad if the want Morales?

    [/QUOTE]

    i'd take hundley...but i'd still like to trade morales for somthing...it's just me talking..but i don't like morales...when i watch him it's like you can't depend on him...

    [/QUOTE]

    I like Morales, but his health issues keep getting in the way.

    Since I think we will trade a starter this winter, I do not think Morales is going anywhere.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BMav. Show BMav's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to notin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Hundley is nice for example, but is he as nice if the Padres insist on Brentz?  And is Hanigan so bad if the Reds are willing to take Morales?

    [/QUOTE]

    I can see Hundley being a possibility. Not as high on him as you though. Here is a new article that might add fuel to your trade theory.....

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/nov/30/padres-mlb-insider-trades/

     

    Says they have a trade or two lined up for either a lefty reliever or lefty bat. And who happens to be potentially available in trade for the Red Sox? Morales, Nava or Carp.

     

    Of course, could just as easily be for Chris Denorfia. Or for some other teams lefty. But I think interesting none the less.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    For what it's worth, Steamer* projects a 2014 WAR** of 2.1 in 113 games for A.J. Pierzynski, 2.2 in 97 games for Ryan Hanigan, and 1.3 in in 89 games for Nick Hundley.

    This season 2.2 WAR was valued at about $11.2 million and the value is expected to jump next year with this offseason's influx of new television revenues. Cincinnati may not have Hanigan in its 2014 plans, but I can't see the Reds non-tendering this valuable asset who is projected*** to earn only $2.3 million in 2014. The Reds should have no problem finding a trade partner after tendering Hanigan a contract.

    * http://steamerprojections.com/blog/about/

    ** Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=746&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4952&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3376&position=C

    *** MLB Trade Rumors' projected arbitration salaries: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2014.html

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    For what it's worth, Steamer* projects a 2014 WAR** of 2.1 in 113 games for A.J. Pierzynski, 2.2 in 97 games for Ryan Hanigan, and 1.3 in in 89 games for Nick Hundley.

    This season 2.2 WAR was valued at about $11.2 million and the value is expected to jump next year with this offseason's influx of new television revenues. Cincinnati may not have Hanigan in its 2014 plans, but I can't see the Reds non-tendering this valuable asset that is projected*** to earn only $2.3 million in 2014. The Reds should have no problem finding a trade partner after tendering Hanigan a contract.

    * http://steamerprojections.com/blog/about/

    ** Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=746&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4952&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3376&position=C

    *** MLB Trade Rumors' projected arbitration salaries: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2014.html

    [/QUOTE]

    Agreed, Hill. They will not let him go for nothing.

    I'm thinking they may want even more than just Brentz.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    For what it's worth, Steamer* projects a 2014 WAR** of 2.1 in 113 games for A.J. Pierzynski, 2.2 in 97 games for Ryan Hanigan, and 1.3 in in 89 games for Nick Hundley.

    This season 2.2 WAR was valued at about $11.2 million and the value is expected to jump next year with this offseason's influx of new television revenues. Cincinnati may not have Hanigan in its 2014 plans, but I can't see the Reds non-tendering this valuable asset that is projected*** to earn only $2.3 million in 2014. The Reds should have no problem finding a trade partner after tendering Hanigan a contract.

    * http://steamerprojections.com/blog/about/

    ** Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=746&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4952&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3376&position=C

    *** MLB Trade Rumors' projected arbitration salaries: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2014.html

    Agreed, Hill. They will not let him go for nothing.

    I'm thinking they may want even more than just Brentz.

    I suspect the Reds could command far more than Bryce Brentz, whose SoxProspects rankings has taken the downward trajectory of its earlier rankings of Brandon Jacobs (who is two years younger than Brentz). Jacobs landed three-and-a-half months of a pricey 36-year-old reliever whose 2014 option was declined; Brentz is unlikely to land one less expensive year of Hanigan at a more critical position.


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    Agreed, Hill. They will not let him go for nothing.

    I'm thinking they may want even more than just Brentz.

    I suspect the Reds could command far more than Bryce Brentz, whoseSoxProspects rankings has taken the downward trajectory of its earlier rankings of Brandon Jacobs (who is two years younger than Brentz). Jacobs landed three-and-a-half months of a pricey 36-year-old reliever whose 2014 option was declined; Brentz is unlikely to land one less expensive year of Hanigan at a more critical position.

    I guess it depends on how high the Reds have Brentz pegged, but the Reds would also save a little money in the deal.

    I think we could get Hanigan for Brentz and a mid level proespect like Coyle or Alex Wilson or maybe P Light or Kukuk.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    For what it's worth, Steamer* projects a 2014 WAR** of 2.1 in 113 games for A.J. Pierzynski, 2.2 in 97 games for Ryan Hanigan, and 1.3 in in 89 games for Nick Hundley.

    This season 2.2 WAR was valued at about $11.2 million and the value is expected to jump next year with this offseason's influx of new television revenues. Cincinnati may not have Hanigan in its 2014 plans, but I can't see the Reds non-tendering this valuable asset who is projected*** to earn only $2.3 million in 2014. The Reds should have no problem finding a trade partner after tendering Hanigan a contract.

    * http://steamerprojections.com/blog/about/

    ** Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=746&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4952&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3376&position=C

    *** MLB Trade Rumors' projected arbitration salaries: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2014.html

    [/QUOTE]


    This makes sense.  That leads me to wonder why the Reds signed Brayan Pena to begin with.  Why not just go with Hanigan to back up or platoon with Mesoraco?  Hanigan appears to be the better overall catcher over Pena.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from crazyworldoftroybrown. Show crazyworldoftroybrown's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    From what I've been reading the Catchers Position is one of the strongest in years in the Draft.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    For what it's worth, Steamer* projects a 2014 WAR** of 2.1 in 113 games for A.J. Pierzynski, 2.2 in 97 games for Ryan Hanigan, and 1.3 in in 89 games for Nick Hundley.

    This season 2.2 WAR was valued at about $11.2 million and the value is expected to jump next year with this offseason's influx of new television revenues. Cincinnati may not have Hanigan in its 2014 plans, but I can't see the Reds non-tendering this valuable asset who is projected*** to earn only $2.3 million in 2014. The Reds should have no problem finding a trade partner after tendering Hanigan a contract.

    * http://steamerprojections.com/blog/about/

    ** Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=746&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4952&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3376&position=C

    *** MLB Trade Rumors' projected arbitration salaries: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2014.html

    This makes sense.  That leads me to wonder why the Reds signed Brayan Pena to begin with.  Why not just go with Hanigan to back up or platoon with Mesoraco?  Hanigan appears to be the better overall catcher over Pena.

     

    The Cincinnati Reds website still lists Ryan Hanigan atop the depth chart at catcher:

    http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/team/depth_chart/?c_id=cin

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to hill55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    For what it's worth, Steamer* projects a 2014 WAR** of 2.1 in 113 games for A.J. Pierzynski, 2.2 in 97 games for Ryan Hanigan, and 1.3 in in 89 games for Nick Hundley.

    This season 2.2 WAR was valued at about $11.2 million and the value is expected to jump next year with this offseason's influx of new television revenues. Cincinnati may not have Hanigan in its 2014 plans, but I can't see the Reds non-tendering this valuable asset who is projected*** to earn only $2.3 million in 2014. The Reds should have no problem finding a trade partner after tendering Hanigan a contract.

    * http://steamerprojections.com/blog/about/

    ** Wins Above Replacement as reported at FanGraphs:

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=746&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=4952&position=C

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3376&position=C

    *** MLB Trade Rumors' projected arbitration salaries: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/11/projected-arbitration-salaries-for-2014.html

    [/QUOTE]


    This makes sense.  That leads me to wonder why the Reds signed Brayan Pena to begin with.  Why not just go with Hanigan to back up or platoon with Mesoraco?  Hanigan appears to be the better overall catcher over Pena.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Basically, the save about $1mill and give the reigns to the guy they daelt Yasmani Grandal to pave the way for...

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    Hanigan wasn't non-tendered.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc1944. Show MadMc1944's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hanigan wasn't non-tendered.

    [/QUOTE]

    HFX It would appears they know they can move Hannnigan pretty easily for some pieces.

    It appears the Sox may make a move for AJ, JPA or Hanny. This also may be the time to move Lava in a trade to the Reds or expand the trade perhaps by adding Lakey or Buch or Webster, WMB, etc. for perhaps Cueto.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    Red Sox To Sign A.J. Pierzynski By  Tim Dierkes [December 3 at 7:11am CST]

    The Red Sox have agreed to a deal with catcher A.J. Pierzynski, tweets Jon Heyman of CBS Sports.  Pierzynski is represented by Steve Hilliard of Octagon.  The contract seems to close the door on Jarrod Saltalamacchia, who was acquired by the Sox at the 2010 trade deadline and is now a free agent.Terms are not yet known on Pierzynski's contract, but it's fair to suggest he could find two years withCarlos Ruiz getting three and Dioner Navarro getting two.  Pierzynski, 37 later this month, signed a one-year deal with the Rangers last offseason and went on to hit .272/.297/.425 with 17 home runs in 529 plate appearances.  As MLBTR's Steve Adams mentioned inPierzynski's free agent profile, he offers good power for the position and has displayed perhaps the best durability behind the dish in baseball.  Pierzynski will be paired with David Ross in Boston.  The contract represents the first free agent deal of the offseason for the World Champion Red Sox, who still need to address first base at the least with Mike Napoli a free agent.  The Twins and Blue Jays were reportedly among the other teams showing interest in Pierzynski this offseason.

    Pierzynski is already the seventh catcher to sign a Major League deal, following Brian McCann (Yankees),Carlos Ruiz (Phillies), Dioner Navarro (Blue Jays),Jose Molina (Rays), Brayan Pena (Reds), andFrancisco Pena (Royals).  Saltalamacchia now appears the only starting option on the free agent market, though it's possible the newly non-tendered J.P. Arencibia could get significant playing time with a new team in 2014.  In addition, the Reds seem likely to tradeRyan Hanigan.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2013/12/rays-to-acquire-ryan-hanigan.html

    interesting ...

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    Hanigan & J Molina is a nice catching tandem.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from southpaw777. Show southpaw777's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hanigan & J Molina is a nice catching tandem.

    [/QUOTE]


    I thlught Lobaton did a pretty good jon last year. Came up with some big hits. Of course TB knows much more than me about him. Molina and Hanigan will be a solid tandum behind the plate.

    Im interested in the players and if theres a 3rd team.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Ryan Hanigan

    In response to southpaw777's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Hanigan & J Molina is a nice catching tandem.

    [/QUOTE]


    I thlught Lobaton did a pretty good jon last year. Came up with some big hits. Of course TB knows much more than me about him. Molina and Hanigan will be a solid tandum behind the plate.

    Im interested in the players and if theres a 3rd team.

    [/QUOTE]

    True about Lobaton. Maybe he will be dealt away.

    Too bad we couldn't have J Molina. He's an awesome pitch framer and defensive catcher.

     

Share