Red Sox Extend Adrian Gonzalez

After months of anticipation, the Red Sox have signed Adrian Gonzalez to a contract extension, the team announced. The deal is for seven-years and $154MM, according to Sean McAdam of CSNNE.com

Gonzalez gets a $6MM signing bonus, $21MM per year from 2012-16 and $21.5MM in 2017 and 2018, according to ESPN.com's Buster Olney (Twitter links). The contract includes a partial no-trade clause, according to Olney. Gonzalez can block deals to two teams, according to Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports (Twitter link). Those teams are prohibited from acquiring Gonzalez and flipping him to the Yankees.

It's the second nine-figure contract the Red Sox have agreed to since December (Carl Crawford signed for $142MM) and the second-biggest guarantee in franchise history. Only Manny Ramirez ($160MM, eight years) signed for more guaranteed money.

The Red Sox progressed toward an agreement with Gonzalez's agent, John Boggs, after acquiring the first baseman from the Padres in a December trade. The sides didn't finalize a deal and talks continued earlier in the spring. As Alex Speier of WEEI.com pointed out in December, the Red Sox may have waited to announce the deal because they save on the luxury tax by waiting.

Gonzalez underwent shoulder surgery in October, so the delay also gave Boston time to evaluate his health. The 28-year-old has a .268/.362/.439 line in 41 plate appearances so far, though his career line is a more robust .284/.368/.506.

The extension means Gonzalez won't hit free agency after the season, when Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder are expected to test the open market for the first time in their respective careers. Ryan Howard, who signed an extension with the Phillies last April, would have been eligible after 2011 as well.


Leave a Reply

135 Comments on "Red Sox Extend Adrian Gonzalez"


Guest
4 years 2 months ago

YOU’RE KIDDING (GASP)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Member
Tirameenlasbolas
4 years 2 months ago

I heard he’s got a bad back.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

And that is terrible how? Seems to be market rate to me at an AAV of 22 mil. He is comparable to Texiera minus being a switch hitter and his AAV is 23.1 mil.

Member
TrueYankeeFanNYC
4 years 2 months ago

Tex is better. Be honest.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

That remains to be seen. Be unbiased.

Member
LifeLongYankeeFan
4 years 2 months ago

A-Gon I think is a little better but both are very good ballplayers. Teixeira is a breath of fresh air compared to the Giambino lol. However I haven’t seen Gonzalez play really but his stats show that hes good.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

Over their careers Tex has posted an OPS+ of 134 and Gonzalez a 136. Gonzalez did that at Petco. They both play very good defense. In my eyes they are pretty comparable even ignoring the fact that Gonzalez played most of his games in a pitcher friendly park with no one surrounding him for protection and Tex has played most of his games in hitter-friendly parks like Arlington and Yankee Stadium.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

“Over their careers Tex has posted an OPS+ of 134 and Gonzalez a 136. Gonzalez did that at Petco.”

OPS+ is park adjusted and several studies have shown the “protection” argument to be without merit.

Member
soxfan0928
4 years 2 months ago

They’re virtually the same player, Gonzo has a slight edge because he hits for a better average than Tex, but that’s about it. Gonzo is 2 years younger, so for the next 5 years, he probably puts up better stats. 2011 though? Tough to go wrong.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

Except that Tex has a higher career batting average

Member
soxfan0928
4 years 2 months ago

Again. Going back to the park factors. Over the past 3 years, Gonzo hit .310 with 70 HR in away games. In home games, he hit .257 with 37 HR. The only reason Tex has a higher career BA is because of Petco.

Member
Dodgerblue18
4 years 2 months ago

Ummm BA tracks how many hits you get compared to AB’s lol. The type of park doesn’t change that too much unless you’re in Coors Field. Simplest stat in the book. To put that even more simply for you, he just couldn’t hit as well at home. FACT.

Member
soxfan0928
4 years 2 months ago

Wow. Can someone tell me where to go to nominate this as the dumbest thing ever written on MLBTR?

Member
bomberj11
4 years 2 months ago

And we can also nominate dumbest person to ever like a comment for liking his post.

Member
Dodgerblue18
4 years 2 months ago

We can also nominate you for being a fan of the 2004 Red Sox.

Member
Dodgerblue18
4 years 2 months ago

I’d cry too if my team were 2-9. The post was meant to mock your idiocy.

Member
Hubbs2
4 years 2 months ago

Troll

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

“Ummm BA tracks how many hits you get compared to AB’s lol. The type of park doesn’t change that too much”

lol indeed

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

Is that A-Gon’s hit tracker at Petco placed on Fenway? If so, that is sweet and really shows the difference that the park could really make.

Member
Dodgerblue18
4 years 2 months ago

Too bad your cute little chart doesn’t factor in how high those outs and hits were in left field.

Member
MaineSox
4 years 2 months ago

Doesn’t matter, you were talking about batting average and not home runs. All of those outs beyond the wall would have been, at minimum, hits off of the wall.

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

they could be 20 foot high line drives and still not be outs. which would make them hits. which – ready? – would increase batting average

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

.284 to .285 over eight plus seasons is virtually the same average.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

@Jeff: please read my comment again “ignoring the fact that Gonzalez played most of his games in a pitcher friendly park…Tex has played most of his games in hitter-friendly parks like Arlington and Yankee Stadium” Operative word: “ignoring”. I know that OPS is park adjusted, hence my inclusion of ignoring the respective parks they have called home in the past and present. So in that sense, yes, a 134 and 136 OPS+ are very similar ratings.

I have always disagreed with the assessments made about protection and order in a lineup. I understand that numerical studies have shown that batting order and protection aren’t important, but to use the cliche argument that baseball is played on grass and not on paper I think is applicable in this situation. There is more to selecting a batting order than looking at a bunch of numbers on a spreadsheet. Some guys can hit from any spot in the lineup, others aren’t comfortable leading off for example. If you are a power threat and there are men on base and the guy behind you can’t hit for squat, do you think the opposition is going to try and get you out? No, they will take a chance on the weaker hitter. If the notion that order and protection don’t matter was the conventional wisdom among baseball managers, then why do they still put the best hitters in the middle of the lineup?

Member
care_bear
4 years 2 months ago

What studies are you referring to? Hmmmm a star player surrounded by star players has the same amount of protection as a star player surrounded by average players at best? Dont kid yourself.

Member
$1529282
4 years 2 months ago

You realize that one of the main points of OPS+ is that it’s park-adjusted, right? It’s irrelevant what parks they were hitting in; that stat basically says they’re nearly the same hitter. wRC+ gives the edge to Tex (135 to 131)… either way, the point is that arguing concretely for one over the other is pointless. They’re both great hitters.

Gonzo is younger and cheaper though, so I’ll take him over Tex any day.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

“Gonzo is younger and cheaper though, so I’ll take him over Tex any day. ” Argument over. I’m going to copy and paste the for the rest of the season whenever this question comes up.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

See my above reply to Jeff…since more than one person picked it up maybe I just didn’t express myself very clearly. What I truly meant was OPS+’s of 134 and 136 are very similar, and that I ignored the parks factors. Sorry for the mis-communication.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

He’s younger but not cheaper. You are forgetting the top prospects the Sox gave up.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

You’re forgetting that the Red Sox are getting a prime year of Gonzalez for 6.5 million.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

Isn’t it 5.5? And no I’m not. I never said he wasn’t worth the prospects or the money. I just said that he wasn’t cheaper than Teix. Those were, by all accounts, some pretty talented dudes sent to SD.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

If it’s 5.5 it’s even more worth it. I think that giving up the prospects was worth it to get Gonzalez before he went to FA where he would have commanded more money and years. Casey Kelly is a good pitching prospect but he isn’t a guarantee to be a top pitcher, plus the Red Sox rotation is pretty well set for a few years. Rizzo was expendable in getting Gonzalez. Fuentes is a decent prospect but the Red Sox already have a decent stock of outfield prospects. In purely contractual terms he is cheaper, but you can’t make a decent comparison dollar for dollar on what value the prospects have in the deal. You can only assume that either giving up the prospects was or was not worth the extra cheap year plus FA discount that the Red Sox received in trading for Gonzalez.

Member
BK
4 years 2 months ago

LOL Rotation looks pretty set for a few years indeed.

Member
dwarfcatt
4 years 2 months ago

Besides, Matt Stairs is better than both of them

Member
ellisburks
4 years 2 months ago

And a former Red Sox!

Member
4 years 2 months ago

Darn tootin!

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

OPS is a flawed stat. use wOBA

last four seasons, park adjusted:

teixeira: .393 .416 .406 .374
gonzalz: .394 .402 .442 .414

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

They are using OPS+, not OPS. Unless you meant to say, or are going to say, that OPS+ is flawed also

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

…what do you think OPS+ is a variant of

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

The keyword you just used was variant. As in, used slightly different. Just like how xFIP (or is it FIPx) is a variant of FIP. And I know you like one and not the other.

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

you don’t know that because that’s not true. i like them both, but don’t measure all things with equal precision. so i “like” one more than the other only in specific contexts

it’s like saying i only like one kind of drill bit. it’s not really true. i like them all for the specific tasks to which they’re suited. FIP is suited to a much wider number of analyses than xFIP

OPS+ is OPS, with adjustments for context. it’s still measuring the same exact thing as regular OPS – which is where the flaw lies – and then adjusting for park factors and scaling that measurement to other measurements of the same (flawed) sort around the league

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

I could have sworn you told me you don’t like xFIP at all. My mistake on that then.

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

yanksfan hates xFIP with a fiery passion. maybe you’re thinking of him. where did he go, anyway?

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

He’s been around, he prob will be here sooner or later.

Member
ellisburks
4 years 2 months ago

Probably still recovering from the huge comeback win last night. Damn Yankees! lol

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

Pretty sure I used OPS+, not OPS which obviously adjusts for park and league avg. But you basically confirm what I’m saying: They’re very similar players. They got similar contracts so I don’t see how this is a terrible contract like what Tirameenlasbolas initially posted before he or she edited. And like MorneauVP said, Gonzalez is younger so I’ll take him. I actually think the Red Sox come out ahead here because they committed less in terms of dollars and years to retaining a player of similar caliber. I think the loss in prospects is recouped by getting a year of Gonzalez in his prime for 6.5 mil. I like Casey Kelly but as TINSTAAPP states he is no sure thing and the rest of the pieces were expendable.

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

seriously, two of you? OPS+ is still OPS; it’s just adjusted for context. the stat doesn’t change and it’s still flawed

On-base percentage is a great statistic because it tells you something important, and in a clear language: at what rate did this player reach base? It doesn’t tell you how far he reached base (second base? third? home?), but only whether he did or did not.

Slugging percentage is another great statistic because it tells you something important, and in a clear language: how many bases did the batter gain for himself per at-bat? It doesn’t consider walks as either a positive or negative event (it simply strips them away as if they don’t exist). It also tries to establish the importance of the single and HR by weighting the HR four times as much as the single.

We have one statistic that is deficient in one area, and another one that is deficient in another. Why not simply combine them as: OBP plus SLG, and call it this new-age statistic named OPS? Might this statistic allow the deficiencies in OBP and SLG to cancel each other out? Let’s see.

From the preceding section, we know the run values of each event. For example, we know that the run value of the HR is 1.4 runs above average, and 1.7 runs above the run value of the out. In rate measures, like OBP, the value of the out in the numerator is zero. If we recast the run values of the most common events relative to the out (rather than relative to the result of an average plate appearance), we get the following:

HR 1.70, 3B 1.37, 2B 1.08, 1B 0.77, NIBB 0.62.

Those numbers are the values of each of our events (again, relative to an out, which now has a value of zero). If we apply these weights to the statistics of a league-average hitter, and divide by plate appearances, we end up with a rate of almost 0.300. This is a fairly convenient number for an average, but we can do better. Since we like OBP as a measure of a batter’s effectiveness, let’s scale our new statistic so that the resulting values are similar to OBP values. It turns out that, if we add 15% to this 0.300 figure, we get the league-average OBP. Therefore, we will add 15% to the weights of each event and define our new statistic as follows:

(0.72xNIBB + 0.75xHBP + 0.90x1B + 0.92xRBOE + 1.24x2B + 1.56x3B + 1.95xHR) / PA

Note: Depending on the specific analysis, the PA term (plate appearances) may exclude bunts, IBB, and a few of the more obscure plays.

Do we really need another statistic? Yes, we do. Instead of trying to take two statistics (OBP, SLG) and combine and correct their flaws in the hopes of getting one number, we prefer to start from scratch. Furthermore, by recasting the number onto the OBP scale, it makes it much easier for the reader to get a grasp on the number. wOBA is weighted on-base average

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

I know about wOBA and going to look more into it. However it is of one’s opinion on what stats they want to choose and what websites to look at them too

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

?

ok, but i don’t want to hear you telling people they shouldn’t use Wins or ERA or batting average then

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

I shouldn’t have to tell people not to use Wins. That should be a no-brainer. Batting average and ERA, up to them. I have and always will like ERA (and ERA+), and WHIP.

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

ah, we can determine who the best hitters are using batting average then. no problem with that?

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

Yes because that’s what I said right? Some people use it though.

See above by Billy:

Except that Tex has a higher career batting average

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

everyone knows that some people use it. why do you say stuff like that. like what was the point of saying “it is of one’s opinion on what stats they want to choose” in the first place?

it’s self-evident. so i assumed you said it to make some other point. what was the point?

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

No stat is a perfect stat. There are good stats (OPS+ to me, and I’m sure wOBA is when I get to look into it more) and bad stats (W-L, Saves) and decent stats (Batting average)

Anyone who uses the bad stats to judge who’s better than who (especially wins and losses and saves), is completely ignorant.

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

i would more or less equate goodness/badness to precision/imprecision

to that end, all stats fall on a spectrum of precision. my point has been and still is that OPS is significantly less precise than wOBA, just like batting average is significantly less precise than OPS

to quote a comment from one of those links:

Presumably a writer has decided to go with OPS, because that writer wants to understand the game better than the BA/RBI/HR trinity allows. So why, in the face of very clear reasons to switch to something better and with such better things very readily available, would someone keep using OPS?

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

I can see your links are gone now

Member
notsureifsrs
4 years 2 months ago

i don’t understand why we can’t link to stuff like that

Member
East Coast Bias
4 years 2 months ago

Working on it. You should be able to link to the main baseball sites soon. Just… don’t know how soon.

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

I am going to assume that NIBB is non-intentional walks?

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

I thought ‘+’ meant it was better? lol

Member
Amish_willy
4 years 2 months ago

It is pretty close and I’d take Adrian as well. It’s not like the Yanks didn’t give up anything to land Teixeira besides money, they’re first round pick went bye-bye (hello Mike Trout) – and even factoring in the bonus Adrian will get this year the Sox will pay their star slugger 7-8m less in his first year with the team then the Yanks.

Not sure if there are two players at the same position that are as similarly valuable as these two 1b. Both contracts go through each players age-36 seasons, so it will probably come down to which one ages best.

Not to piss off anyone below, but Adrian spent 5 years in SD and Teix the same in Texas. Adrian’s OPS+ was 141 to Teix’s 128 — With Adrian, the great unknown is what his end line looks like out of SD. In Teix’s two best homerun years he hit .301 & .292 and walked 72 & 81 times. As a Padre fan having watched him a ridiculous amount over the years, I think a similar average, 40-45 homerun’s and around 100 bb’s are the kind of numbers he could average over the next handful of seasons.

I don’t have much doubt that he’ll outhit Teixeira, but am more interested if he’s able to surpass Cabrera as the best hitting 1b in the AL. He should hit for more power & walk more then Cabrera, but with a lower average. Once you factor in Adrian’s defense, he’s probably the better overall player. Not surprisingly the trio make all about the same. If I had to pick one of the three I’d ponder between those two for some time but Teixeira would be 3rd no doubt.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

Good point about the Yankees losing their pick, would it really have been Trout? If so that’s a lot to give up, but that is revisionist history because it would have been difficult to tell Trout would develop so well.

In my eyes though, the Yankees seem to not place as much emphasis on the draft as the Red Sox do (based on how many draft picks each team has made in the past few years), so the relative values of draft picks between the two clubs isn’t the same. A better question would be which has sacrificed more to get their first baseman. I would say the Yankees sacrificed less to get Tex because they gave up something they don’t value very much (draft picks) and they also gave up something they have plenty of (money). The Red Sox gave up prospects, which they value highly, and still a ton of money, which they don’t have as much of in comparison with the Yankees. So in the end the Red Sox probably are more negatively impacted by the deals assuming the players perform at a similar level throughout their contracts.

Member
Amish_willy
4 years 2 months ago

Well the Angels took Trout with their Yankee comp pick, who knows if the Yanks would have chosen the same had they not given it up but they could have.

The Yankees definitely sacrificed less, and I think it took a 3rd place finish and no playoff trip for the Sox to give up what they ultimately did considering the previous off-season they were seemingly unwilling to give up Kelly. As a Padre fan I was very pleased with the return and was glad they moved him when they did. The whole one step back to take two steps forward thing.

The Angels really made out in the whole thing. First they get Teixeira for 2 months for practically free, they go on to win 100 games with him, then get a prospect like Trout (and whomever from the Supp round) for their trouble.

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

No he isn’t. They are very similar, but I’d give a slight edge to Gonzalez

Member
TheHotCorner
4 years 2 months ago

“Tex is better. Be honest.”

Seriously? They are too close to make that statement.

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

We’ll see… Gonzalez has yet to prove himself in the tougher division.

Member
Hubbs2
4 years 2 months ago

Uhh, no

Member
RedSoxDynasty
4 years 2 months ago

Didn’t see this coming! Shocking news!

Guest
4 years 2 months ago

yes, called this exactly, 7 years, 22 per.

Member
MB923
4 years 2 months ago

Want a medal?

Member
dc21892
4 years 2 months ago

So did the reporter that said this way back in December when the trade talks were going on.

Member
0bsessions
4 years 2 months ago

That sound you all heard was the sound of me finally exhaling. No matter how bad we continue to stink out loud this year, at least we’ve got a pretty solid team locked up going forward.

In regards to my exhalation, consider yourselves lucky I’m at work now, if I caught this news before brushing my teeth, we’d have a natural disaster on our hands.