Skip to content

Anibal Sanchez wants a $90 million deal

Nov 8, 2012, 10:48 PM EST

Anibal Sanchez Getty Getty Images

We’re only a few days into free agency, but we have already heard multiple reports of outrageous contract demands. Just to name some recent examples, Josh Hamilton reportedly wants $175 million while Michael Bourn is looking for $100 million and Jeremy Guthrie is seeking $34 million. Well, we can add a new name to the list.

According to Jon Paul Morosi of FOXSports.com, free agent right-hander Anibal Sanchez is seeking a contract in the range of $90 million over six years. This would give him an AAV (average annual value) of $15 million, very close to C.J. Wilson‘s $15.5 million AAV as part of his five-year, $77.5 million deal with the Angels last offseason.

Sanchez probably won’t get six years guaranteed or $90 million, but he should do very well as one of the top pitchers available in free agency. While injuries were a factor early in his career, the 28-year-old right-hander has quietly logged at least 195 innings over the past three seasons while posting a 3.70 ERA. He also improved his stock after finishing strong following his trade to the Tigers this July, proving that he can be successful in the American League.

Morosi is hearing that the Tigers, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Rangers and Dodgers are among the teams who have expressed interest in Sanchez so far. The competition should be good news for his asking price and it only takes one team to throw things out of whack, but a deal similar to Wilson’s sounds more reasonable.

  1. 1943mrmojorisin1971 - Nov 8, 2012 at 10:57 PM

    Good luck with that.

    • dickclydesdale - Nov 9, 2012 at 12:33 PM

      I will offer them $20 per game &will even provide a hot dog after the game with water.

  2. dondada10 - Nov 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM

    Cue a “Well I would like to sleep with __________________, but it ain’t happening” commenter.

    • tfbuckfutter - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:07 PM

      “My wife”

      • jarathen - Nov 9, 2012 at 8:14 AM

        At least aim for a Kate Upton. Or Kate Beckinsale. Or any kind of Kate.

      • stex52 - Nov 9, 2012 at 10:14 AM

        Sadly for us, though, Anibel may get his wish.

  3. randygnyc - Nov 8, 2012 at 10:59 PM

    Same thing dickey is asking for (but only 4 years) according to local ny radio today. I’m surprised dickey is asking $15 million per. Sanchez too. Where does that put greinke at?

  4. chill1184 - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM

    Oh free agency and it’s absurd contract demands, dont ever change.

  5. tfbuckfutter - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM

    6 years for a guy who hasn’t ever topped 200 innings and has only 3 years coming close (albeit in a row)?

    Might be worth the gamble, but he does strike me as injury prone and the money seems a bit high for a guy with only 3 full seasons of service time…..but again, 3 in a row.

    Is a 110 ERA+ over the past 3 seasons worth $15million? Doesn’t seem like it.

  6. illadelphiasphinest - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:24 PM

    Seriously…….????
    Is this real life?

    • Old Gator - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

      Nope. It’s baseball.

  7. gibbyfan - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:26 PM

    It’s largely driven by oversized egos of owners who can’t help themselves.Flaunting the ability to outspend their counterparts just perpetuates a cycle. But my hope is that the addage live by the sword, die by the sword may come to have some relevance. As fragile egos are bolstered by very publicly dumping boatloads of $$$ on new toys, those same egos have to be a bit shattered when those toys turn out to be ill advised. These titans of industry have to be feeling a bit foolish when they wind up with an Arod or when as in the case of the Dodgers they openly boast about outspending everyone else and wind up with a 200 million payroll and not even making the first cut. I for one hope to see that continue to be plyed out until some sanity is brought back into the game.
    Can’t really blame the players for taking it if there reain very rich fools willing to dole it out.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Nov 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM

      Another Dodger knocker. Please point out how the Dodgers openly bragged about spending $200 million in 2012…. especially when a huge chunk of the money came AFTER the trade deadline.

      A note to people who use hyperbole to make their point: The only point you’re making is that no one should listen to you.

      .

      • gibbyfan - Nov 9, 2012 at 9:02 PM

        Among others,comments were made in an interview by the general manager about having no problem having the highest payroll in baseball. The exact figure was not mentioned nor did I say it was in my post. Also, I never mentioned when the comments were made nor do I see how it is at all relevent to anything. In my time zone it’s still 2012.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Nov 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM

        Here’s your quote, Gibby:

        “These titans of industry have to be feeling a bit foolish when they wind up with an Arod or when as in the case of the Dodgers they openly boast about outspending everyone else and wind up with a 200 million payroll and not even making the first cut.”

        So what you’re saying is that the Dodgers boasted about spending $200 million last year and they didn’t even make the playoffs. Except to you, a boast is Ned Colleti supposedly on the radio claiming that the Dodgers will be aggressive in light of their new ownership. Sounds more like reciting a fact than a boast. To me, calling yourself “The new sheriff in town,” is a boast. That was Dodgers GM Kevin Malone’s response to signing Kevin Brown to the first $100 million contract back in the early ’90s. But that’s just me, and that’s just semantics.

        Your main problem is claiming the Dodgers ran a $200 million payroll last year. Not quite, as according to ESPN, Dodgers payroll in 2012 was $93.6 million. I’m no mathematician, but that’s less that half of $200 million.

        http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/lad/los-angeles-dodgers

        Did the Dodgers pick up some contracts with 6 weeks remaining in the season that will push the payroll a lot higher for the years 2013-2015? Yes. But you want to talk about 2012, because your calendar says 2012, and the Dodgers made a push in 2012, and blah blah blah blah……

        Face it. Your astute analysis isn’t that astute and it doesn’t analyze jack diddly squat. Sorry, pal. Your statement was flawed and comes up rougly $110 million short.

  8. shawnamer - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:35 PM

    Sounds like an old saying. “Shit in one hand and wish in the other, see which one gets filled first.”

    • Old Gator - Nov 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

      Oh, those Chinese proverbs.

  9. Old Gator - Nov 9, 2012 at 12:04 AM

    Well, there you have the kind of demand that scared the Chihuahua until he peed on Scrooge McLoria’s Persian rug. The Feesh could have locked Sanchez up for a few years last orfseason for a lot less than this but, no-o-o-o, not this bunch. They figured it was better to cling to Tweeter like Pincher Martin and let Anibal go. Instead, the indispensible Mantis Man crapped out at the plate, ruined the outfield turf wearing crop circles trying to get under popups, and then got shipped off to the bionic repair slab yet again.

    • stex52 - Nov 9, 2012 at 10:09 AM

      Y’know, Gator, when I review the year it is remarkable the ineptitude with which Feesh management operated. It seems they started the year with so many things getting talked about and creating excitement. And it ended with such a whimper. Must have been hell to watch from your vantage point.

  10. xjokerz - Nov 9, 2012 at 4:25 AM

    Hope the tigers let him walk and sign some infield help or trading for Justin Upton would work just fine ;)

  11. btwicey - Nov 9, 2012 at 6:21 AM

    And I want a raise too

  12. crankyfrankie - Nov 9, 2012 at 6:39 AM

    I want a unicorn or pegasus.

  13. vols84 - Nov 9, 2012 at 8:26 AM

    In a related story, David Glass, owner of the Royals, shortly announced that the Royals would not pursue Sanchez.

  14. boyshole25 - Nov 9, 2012 at 8:45 AM

    Sox need to snag this guy

  15. simon94022 - Nov 9, 2012 at 9:25 AM

    For a team that needs pitching, Sanchez is a better option for the money than Greinke.

  16. djjackson81 - Nov 9, 2012 at 1:30 PM

    The market is so crazy with the millions of dollars these guys ask for playing a GAME FOR WORK. There asking demands are always huge when they think they are the shit. The lack of other starting quality pitcher allows Sanchez to reach for the moon. I would take less to play for a contender then run to the biggest spender and never make the playoffs. Dodgers can spend 300 million and probably still not win the west. Spend away Dodgers

  17. beelza - Nov 9, 2012 at 4:03 PM

    In the World Series Tigers were blanked twice. In a row. One of the worst run producing world series performances in mlb history. No thanks Annibal, I’d rather have a closer, corner outfield. But Annibal would make a great No. 2 way, way, behind Kershaw.

  18. joerymi - Nov 9, 2012 at 10:56 PM

    I love the absurd comment section here. At least wait to feign your outrage until a deal is actually signed.

    Most owners are billionaires, or groups of millionaires. Yet somehow, the comment section on Hardball Talk know business decisions better. And someone mentioned egos??

    Sure, baseball spending by these owners is much more liberal than the spending of their other business interests. Yet, all of these franchises increase in value, often times significantly. Yeah, what dopes they all are.

  19. sfm073 - Nov 10, 2012 at 3:23 PM

    I’m glad the Cardinals have built their team from within. The contracts for free agents has become so outrageous that if it doesn’t get under control eventually baseball is going to collapse or have a major strike.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Cubs shore up rotation with Jon Lester
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. M. Cabrera (4581)
  2. W. Miley (3454)
  3. M. Kemp (3284)
  4. C. Headley (2727)
  5. J. Lester (2666)
  1. E. Santana (2640)
  2. Y. Cespedes (2613)
  3. M. Scherzer (2508)
  4. I. Desmond (2304)
  5. C. Hamels (2163)