Making History: Panda and Hanley just had the 2nd and 3rd worst first seasons in free agency history

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
Sadly, he didn't actually cost that much to acquire (for the White Sox). Judging by what the Reds actually received a far lesser package than what the Sox gave up for Kimbrel could have potentially landed them Frazier.
I think Frazier made sense for the Red Sox. They could have played him in LF over Castillo and strengthened the offense (Frazier has experience in the OF and the Royals were supposedly considering Frazier for LF). There is a pretty good chance that Castillo is a 4th outfielder type who will have a negative effect on the Red Sox offensive output (the Red Sox only have, arguably, 2 quality starting outfielders: Bradley and Betts, thus meaning that Frazier would have been a significant upgrade). If Panda sucks again in 2016, the Red Sox would have the option of moving Frazier to 3b. Thus, Frazier would have augmented the Red Sox's flexibility, improved their offense, and provided a safeguard in case Sandoval continues to decline.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,505
Scituate, MA
With the Reds finally realizing they suck, could the Sox be a fit for Votto? Votto has a full no trade clause and an awful contract, but it may be the only way to get rid of Hanley...
From Cot's:
10 years/$225M (2014-23), plus 2024 option
  • 10 years/$225M (2014-23), plus 2024 club option
    • signed extension with Cincinnati 4/3/12
    • 14:$12M, 15:$14M, 16:$20M, 17:$22M, 18-23:$25M annually, 24:$20M club option ($7M buyout)
    • award bonuses, including $75,000 for All-Star selection
    • full no-trade clause
Votto is 32, but could earn a significant chunk of the remaining 7 years on this deal in the first 3-4 years.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,845
Honolulu HI
With the Reds finally realizing they suck, could the Sox be a fit for Votto? Votto has a full no trade clause and an awful contract, but it may be the only way to get rid of Hanley...
From Cot's:
10 years/$225M (2014-23), plus 2024 option
  • 10 years/$225M (2014-23), plus 2024 club option
    • signed extension with Cincinnati 4/3/12
    • 14:$12M, 15:$14M, 16:$20M, 17:$22M, 18-23:$25M annually, 24:$20M club option ($7M buyout)
    • award bonuses, including $75,000 for All-Star selection
    • full no-trade clause
Votto is 32, but could earn a significant chunk of the remaining 7 years on this deal in the first 3-4 years.
Votto's contract is way too long but in 2015 he was an NL MVP finalist and arguably the best player in baseball in the second half of the season (.535 OBP/ .617 SLG). With the Reds in full rebuild mode they'd have to be crazy to not to sell high on Votto this offseason.
Of course Hanley adds negative value to any trade and will only increase the cost in prospects...
I doubt it's possible, but if there is a way to get him without giving up Devers/Moncada/Benintiendi/Espinoza I think you'd have to seriously consider it..
 
Last edited:

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,508
Not here
With the Reds finally realizing they suck, could the Sox be a fit for Votto? Votto has a full no trade clause and an awful contract, but it may be the only way to get rid of Hanley...
From Cot's:
10 years/$225M (2014-23), plus 2024 option
  • 10 years/$225M (2014-23), plus 2024 club option
    • signed extension with Cincinnati 4/3/12
    • 14:$12M, 15:$14M, 16:$20M, 17:$22M, 18-23:$25M annually, 24:$20M club option ($7M buyout)
    • award bonuses, including $75,000 for All-Star selection
    • full no-trade clause
Votto is 32, but could earn a significant chunk of the remaining 7 years on this deal in the first 3-4 years.
I do not want to bet on anyone being good that long. I would much rather just move Ramirez to DH after Papi retires and let Sam Travis, Travis Shaw, and Blake Swihart figure out who's gonna play first.

I doubt it's possible, but if there is a way to get him without giving up Devers/Moncada/Benintiendi/Espinoza I think you'd have to seriously consider it..
You really don't. It's one thing to make big expenditures to find premium players at positions of weakness. That's why Price and Kimbrel make sense. Even with all the bullshit, the Sox had the fourth best offense in the majors last year, and there are more players who are probably going to improve than are probably going to decline.

Bottom Line:
We don't need to take extraordinary measures to have a really good, potentially great offense.
Selling Ramirez now would be selling low.
We might need the resources we'd be spending on Votto to get something else.
 
Last edited:

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,274
Votto has a full no trade clause and has said he won't waive it. But just for fun, let's say a straight up Hanley/Votto swap, with no cash, who says no? Assuming the Sox exercise Votto's 7 million buyout in 2024 (!), that's the equivalent of 16.3 mil for 8 years of Votto. That's a long time, and he's already going to be 32 in 2016. Manny was 3 years younger when they made an 8 year commitment to him. But...16 mil isn't a lot of money these days, not for the Red Sox anyway.

I think maybe both sides say no? The Sox don't like the commitment and the Reds don't like the optics of trading away their best player for a perceived albatross?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
Votto has a full no trade clause and has said he won't waive it. But just for fun, let's say a straight up Hanley/Votto swap, with no cash, who says no? Assuming the Sox exercise Votto's 7 million buyout in 2024 (!), that's the equivalent of 16.3 mil for 8 years of Votto. That's a long time, and he's already going to be 32 in 2016. Manny was 3 years younger when they made an 8 year commitment to him. But...16 mil isn't a lot of money these days, not for the Red Sox anyway.

I think maybe both sides say no? The Sox don't like the commitment and the Reds don't like the optics of trading away their best player for a perceived albatross?
What remains on his deal is 8/199 or 9/212 if the option is picked up (which might just be a condition of waiving the NTC), so I don't know where your 16.3M over 8 years comes from. That's a shade under $25M per season in real dollars with the luxury tax AAV being $22.5 since he got $26M combined in the first two years of the deal. There's no way the Red Sox would make that kind of commitment to a 32 year old free agent 1B even with the caveat that he could move to DH at some point. I'm not sure why they'd trade for it, even if the only cost is dumping Hanley. Hanley has 3/66 remaining and only has to be a serviceable 1B for a year before they can slide him to DH. Even if his option for 2019 vests, they're still rid of him before he turns 36 whereas they'd still have Votto at a higher cost for 4-5 more years.

From the Reds perspective, they're firesaling because they want to get younger and cheaper and re-build. Swapping Votto for Hanley gets them slightly younger and slightly cheaper, but it doesn't really aid any kind of a rebuilding effort. I'm sure they can do better than that.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,274
What remains on his deal is 8/199 or 9/212 if the option is picked up (which might just be a condition of waiving the NTC), so I don't know where your 16.3M over 8 years comes from. That's a shade under $25M per season in real dollars with the luxury tax AAV being $22.5 since he got $26M combined in the first two years of the deal. There's no way the Red Sox would make that kind of commitment to a 32 year old free agent 1B even with the caveat that he could move to DH at some point. I'm not sure why they'd trade for it, even if the only cost is dumping Hanley. Hanley has 3/66 remaining and only has to be a serviceable 1B for a year before they can slide him to DH. Even if his option for 2019 vests, they're still rid of him before he turns 36 whereas they'd still have Votto at a higher cost for 4-5 more years.

From the Reds perspective, they're firesaling because they want to get younger and cheaper and re-build. Swapping Votto for Hanley gets them slightly younger and slightly cheaper, but it doesn't really aid any kind of a rebuilding effort. I'm sure they can do better than that.
Start with the 199 but subtract (22.75*3) for Hanley's salary. 130.75/8=16.3475.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,274
So we're supposed to ignore the other $66M that otherwise would have gone to Hanley but still has to be paid? That makes no sense.

No money changes hands. Reds pay Hanley. I think Cincy says no, but do the Sox say no too?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
No money changes hands. Reds pay Hanley. I think Cincy says no, but do the Sox say no too?
Yes, Reds pay Hanley. But the Red Sox still pay the $22M per year that they were contracted to pay Hanley to Votto instead (he's due $20M in '16, then $22M, then $25M).

The Red Sox would be agreeing to pay an additional $132M for Votto, but pretty much all of it will be paid in the years after Hanley would have been gone (2019-2023). That's not $16.3M a year. That's still $25M a year. You can't count 2016-2018 in your calculation unless you also include the other $66M.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I do not want to bet on anyone being good that long. I would much rather just move Ramirez to DH after Papi retires and let Sam Travis, Travis Shaw, and Blake Swihart figure out who's gonna play first.



You really don't. It's one thing to make big expenditures to find premium players at positions of weakness. That's why Price and Kimbrel make sense. Even with all the bullshit, the Sox had the fourth best offense in the majors last year, and there are more players who are probably going to improve than are probably going to decline.

Bottom Line:
We don't need to take extraordinary measures to have a really good, potentially great offense.
Selling Ramirez now would be selling low.
We might need the resources we'd be spending on Votto to get something else.
I'm not entirely sure how you can opine that that the Sox should make big expenditures to find premium players at positions of weakness, and then argue that the resources to be spent on Votto should be held onto to because the Sox might need something else.

Hanley hasn't played one professional baseball game at 1B, but he has played poor defense everywhere else on the diamond he's been placed. I was completely on-board for moving him to 1B during last season, but the fact that he isn't even necessarily playing 1B in winter ball is seriously concerning.

Add to that, the Sox are losing their best, most consistent, and most professional hitter after 2016. The Red Sox have no MLB players except for David Ortiz who currently profile to hit more than about 15 HR from the left side. Devers just turned 19 and hasn't played above A-ball. Benintendi hasn't played above A-ball either, and has less than 200 professional at-bats.

A 1B who can play credible defense, who can provide power from the left side, and who can hit #3/4 with a high-OBP and good HR numbers seems to match a clear position of weakness after 2016 when David Ortiz hangs up his cleats.

The Sox succession plans for a bat to eventually replace Big Papi fell apart completely as the Sox traded Anthony Rizzo away for Adrian Gonzalez, traded Adrian Gonzalez away for salary relief, watched Lars Anderson's prospect star fall to earth, and then traded him away too.

So I guess I don't see the problem with paying for Votto, if he would be willing to waive his no-trade. Because although he would be a big expenditure, acquiring him would be paying for a premium player at a position of weakness. Isn't that what the Sox should do?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,274
Yes, Reds pay Hanley. But the Red Sox still pay the $22M per year that they were contracted to pay Hanley to Votto instead (he's due $20M in '16, then $22M, then $25M).

The Red Sox would be agreeing to pay an additional $132M for Votto, but pretty much all of it will be paid in the years after Hanley would have been gone (2019-2023). That's not $16.3M a year. That's still $25M a year. You can't count 2016-2018 in your calculation unless you also include the other $66M.

I see what you mean, but I'm looking at it as additional dollars, as if Hanley is a total sunk cost. Which he's not, of course, not yet anyway. So you're right, maybe that's not the right way frame it.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
No money changes hands. Reds pay Hanley. I think Cincy says no, but do the Sox say no too?
If one of the Reds' goals is to get cheaper in the short-term as well as get a prospect haul for Votto to hasten their rebuild, taking Ramirez does absolutely nothing for them. Now if money goes the other way that changes the calculus but it also makes it far less likely from the Sox end.

Votto would be an absolute dream scenario. His worst seasons rival some of Hanley's best, and he is already versed in the position we're hoping that Hanley can maybe pick up and maybe be serviceable at. I don't see it as being valuable enough to the Reds unless the Sox kick in a king's ransom which then kills the deal for them.

*edit* I just had another thought... What if Sandoval is the guy that gets moved instead of Hanley? His contract is cheaper than Hanley's. Hanley has played 3B before (albeit not well, but Sandoval had terrible defense there last season as well). Frazier was just traded so the Reds can use a 3B (or maybe they try to move Panda to 1B). Ramirez moves to DH once Papi is gone, and then Votto to DH once Hanley is gone. Thoughts?

Maybe this should be broken out to a "bring me the head of Joey Votto" thread
 
Last edited:

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,692
Rogers Park
Votto would be an absolute dream scenario. His worst seasons rival some of Hanley's best, and he is already versed in the position we're hoping that Hanley can maybe pick up and maybe be serviceable at. I don't see it as being valuable enough to the Reds unless the Sox kick in a king's ransom which then kills the deal for them.
He may be versed at 1B, but he's pretty bad at it. He has never posted a positive dWAR for a season per Fangraphs and his best showing is a +0.3 per BR. (Not that I'm expecting Hanley to improve on that.)

He'd be a strong candidate for the impending DH spot.
 

timlinin8th

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2009
1,521
He may be versed at 1B, but he's pretty bad at it. He has never posted a positive dWAR for a season per Fangraphs and his best showing is a +0.3 per BR. (Not that I'm expecting Hanley to improve on that.)

He'd be a strong candidate for the impending DH spot.
No doubt, but I'll be honest I expect the worst from the "Hanley to 1B" scenario - read: potentially worst fielding season by a 1B all-time bad. That is absolutely coloring my expectations. I also expect more bad D from Panda. I'm extremely pessimistic about our corner IF D moving forward anyways so at least offset it with a big bat.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,508
Not here
I'm not entirely sure how you can opine that that the Sox should make big expenditures to find premium players at positions of weakness, and then argue that the resources to be spent on Votto should be held onto to because the Sox might need something else.

Hanley hasn't played one professional baseball game at 1B, but he has played poor defense everywhere else on the diamond he's been placed. I was completely on-board for moving him to 1B during last season, but the fact that he isn't even necessarily playing 1B in winter ball is seriously concerning.

Add to that, the Sox are losing their best, most consistent, and most professional hitter after 2016. The Red Sox have no MLB players except for David Ortiz who currently profile to hit more than about 15 HR from the left side. Devers just turned 19 and hasn't played above A-ball. Benintendi hasn't played above A-ball either, and has less than 200 professional at-bats.

A 1B who can play credible defense, who can provide power from the left side, and who can hit #3/4 with a high-OBP and good HR numbers seems to match a clear position of weakness after 2016 when David Ortiz hangs up his cleats.

The Sox succession plans for a bat to eventually replace Big Papi fell apart completely as the Sox traded Anthony Rizzo away for Adrian Gonzalez, traded Adrian Gonzalez away for salary relief, watched Lars Anderson's prospect star fall to earth, and then traded him away too.

So I guess I don't see the problem with paying for Votto, if he would be willing to waive his no-trade. Because although he would be a big expenditure, acquiring him would be paying for a premium player at a position of weakness. Isn't that what the Sox should do?
Offense isn't a position of weakness.

First base isn't a position of weakness.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
No doubt, but I'll be honest I expect the worst from the "Hanley to 1B" scenario - read: potentially worst fielding season by a 1B all-time bad. That is absolutely coloring my expectations. I also expect more bad D from Panda. I'm extremely pessimistic about our corner IF D moving forward anyways so at least offset it with a big bat.
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. But think about it. On what basis do you assume a player who could handle the shortstop position (moving left and right; gloving ground balls, line drives and pop ups; receiving throws to 2nd base...) is incapable of playing a good 1B? In Ramirez' case I guess it's because he (a) wasn't a great SS, or (b) he sucked as a left fielder. Think about that and decide if that's the basis to jump to the conclusion he'll suck at 1B. We're talking 1B here...the lowest position on the spectrum!

In 2017 Ramirez becomes the DH. For all I know they'll pick up a great 3B and move Sandoval to 1st (and the jumping to conclusions can start all over again).

I understand pessimism in the generic Red Sox fan, but there's a reasonableness limit to making yourself feel miserable. You expect the worst. I expect the best. We'll see who's closer to reality by July.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. But think about it. On what basis do you assume a player who could handle the shortstop position (moving left and right; gloving ground balls, line drives and pop ups; receiving throws to 2nd base...) is incapable of playing a good 1B? In Ramirez' case I guess it's because he (a) wasn't a great SS, or (b) he sucked as a left fielder. Think about that and decide if that's the basis to jump to the conclusion he'll suck at 1B. We're talking 1B here...the lowest position on the spectrum!

In 2017 Ramirez becomes the DH. For all I know they'll pick up a great 3B and move Sandoval to 1st (and the jumping to conclusions can start all over again).

I understand pessimism in the generic Red Sox fan, but there's a reasonableness limit to making yourself feel miserable. You expect the worst. I expect the best. We'll see who's closer to reality by July.
I think there's a wide swath of fans who are in the middle. There are good reasons for optimism and pessimism. And there are good reasons for not knowing what we'll get out of Hanley at first and at the plate given his downward trajectory after the first month or so of 2015. I just hope that the Sox are prepared to move on from Hanley, almost no matter what the cost is, by a date certain next season. And Panda, for that matter. There's a point when the sample size gets larger and more meaningful, and the trend gets undeniable. And the team's prospects get put at risk. At the very least, that all seems possible to me, and I hope they will be prepared to cut bait if the pessimistic camp proves to be violently correct.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,845
Honolulu HI
Offense isn't a position of weakness.
First base isn't a position of weakness.
Votto was a better hitter (wOBA) than Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera last year. In fact, he is a better hitter for his career than both. In 2015, he was a better hitter than every hitter in the majors not named Bryce Harper.
You don't acquire players like Votto just because you have a hole at 1B (though I think many would disagree with you about that), you acquire him because he hits at a level that is all but unrivaled among his peers. You acquire him because he is probably the correct answer to the question "who is the best hitter of the post-steroid generation (highest wOBA since 2004)".

Question: If you could acquire Miguel Cabrera for a Hanley salary dump and Travis would you do it? By your logic the answer should be "of course not", after all his contract is worse (same age and $240M remaining) than Votto's and he is arguably the lesser player (lower wOBA for both his career and in 2015). And yet I think most here would probably be much more excited if Miggy's name suddenly emerged as a viable option. The reason: Votto has spent his whole career in Cincinnati and as such he also happens to be the correct answer to the question "who is the most underrated player of the post-steroid generation."

If one side says no to a trade, it's generally irrelevant what the other side says, no?
Cincinnati never could afford that contract to begin with and they are about to begin a multi-year rebuild. This very well could be their last chance to get out of the back end of a deal that will probably begin to reach it's nadir at the same time as they have a chance to be good again. Teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox can still compete while carrying an albatross 25M AAV contract - I'm not sure Cincinnati can. Trading Votto now (in the offseason after an MVP caliber season) could end up being crucial to their plans for a rebuild. Would they do it for something like "Hanley/Travis/Marrero"? I don't know. I think that depends on whether or not any other team is willing to offer more. But there aren't many teams who can afford that contract, so their options will be limited.
As far as the no-trade clause goes, it would be hard to imagine that Votto would choose to play out the rest of his career in a multi-season long rebuild rather than help the team of his childhood idol (Votto has consciously modeled himself after Ted Willliams) compete for a championship.
 
Last edited:

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,851
Votto was a better hitter (wOBA) than Mike Trout and Miguel Cabrera last year. In fact, he is a better hitter for his career than both. In 2015, he was a better hitter than every hitter in the majors not named Bryce Harper.
You don't acquire players like Votto just because you have a hole at 1B (though I think many would disagree with you about that), you acquire him because he hits at a level that is all but unrivaled among his peers. You acquire him because he is probably the correct answer to the question "who is the best hitter of the post-steroid generation (highest wOBA since 2004)".

Question: If you could acquire Miguel Cabrera for a Hanley salary dump and Travis would you do it? By your logic the answer should be "of course not", after all his contract is worse (same age and $240M remaining) than Votto's and he is arguably the lesser player (lower wOBA for both his career and in 2015). And yet I think most here would probably be much more excited if Miggy's name suddenly emerged as a viable option. The reason: Votto has spent his whole career in Cincinnati and as such he also happens to be the correct answer to the question "who is the most underrated player of the post-steroid generation."



Cincinnati never could afford that contract to begin with and they are about to begin a multi-year rebuild. This very well could be their last chance to get out of the back end of a deal that will probably begin to reach it's nadir at the same time as they have a chance to be good again. Teams like the Yankees and the Red Sox can still compete while carrying an albatross 25M AAV contract - I'm not sure Cincinnati can. Trading Votto now (in the offseason after an MVP caliber season) could end up being crucial to their plans for a rebuild. Would they do it for something like "Hanley/Travis/Marrero"? I don't know. I think that depends on whether or not any other team is willing to offer more. But there aren't many teams who can afford that contract, so their options will be limited.
As far as the no-trade clause goes, it would be hard to imagine that Votto would choose to play out the rest of his career in a multi-season long rebuild rather than help the team of his childhood idol (Votto has consciously modeled himself after Ted Willliams) compete for a championship.
You're right. We should be discussing trade options like Mike Trout for Castillo/Marerro/Bandetini, or kicking the tires on Chris Sale for Henry Owens and Rick Porcello.

Hanley, who turns 32 in 6 days, just finished a year where he hit 11 percent below league average, halved his walk rate, and demonstrated no defensive ability in the outfield. Travis Shaw, a 25 year old 1B. was league average at AAA for over 600 plate appearances; including this year. Marrero, also 25, has been below AAA average, and hasn't played well at the MLB level so far. Oh, and the Reds won't get salary relief until 2018, because Ramirez's contract is set at 22 million from 2016-2018, while Votto gets paid 20-22-25 million respectively.

Unless the GM of the reds is drunk and wasted on some drug that I don't even know of, there's no chance that the Reds would be interested in Hanley/Travis/Marrero.

You don't acquire players because "they're awesome!". You acquire players because a) you have the required pieces to make an acquisition, and b) the acquisition fits well into the roster. Facts supporting (a) and (b) engender interesting discussion.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,776
....and (c) both teams are actually (not just hypothetically in the minds of another fan base) motivated to make a trade.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,464
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Regarding Votto ..

Is he , along with that hideous contract actually an asset? in other words , if they could trade him for nothing would they do it? I think it unlikely .. But I also think it wouldn't take much coming back as well. Another thing to consider is that the Reds seem to have rather undervalued him over the years - denigrating his on base skills as "cluttering up the base paths". So I'd at least kick the tires. But I don't see a Hanley and Travis combination. Hanley is going to have to play 1B on an NL team .. Thus blocking Travis. So if Hanley is in the package then someone like Moncada would have to be included.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,925
Henderson, NV
You're right. We should be discussing trade options like Mike Trout for Castillo/Marerro/Bandetini, or kicking the tires on Chris Sale for Henry Owens and Rick Porcello.

Hanley, who turns 32 in 6 days, just finished a year where he hit 11 percent below league average, halved his walk rate, and demonstrated no defensive ability in the outfield. Travis Shaw, a 25 year old 1B. was league average at AAA for over 600 plate appearances; including this year. Marrero, also 25, has been below AAA average, and hasn't played well at the MLB level so far. Oh, and the Reds won't get salary relief until 2018, because Ramirez's contract is set at 22 million from 2016-2018, while Votto gets paid 20-22-25 million respectively.

Unless the GM of the reds is drunk and wasted on some drug that I don't even know of, there's no chance that the Reds would be interested in Hanley/Travis/Marrero.

You don't acquire players because "they're awesome!". You acquire players because a) you have the required pieces to make an acquisition, and b) the acquisition fits well into the roster. Facts supporting (a) and (b) engender interesting discussion.
I believe he was talking about Sam Travis, not Travis Shaw, but it doesn't change the point enough to make that much of a difference.
 

kazuneko

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,845
Honolulu HI
You're right. We should be discussing trade options like Mike Trout for Castillo/Marerro/Bandetini, or kicking the tires on Chris Sale for Henry Owens and Rick Porcello.

Hanley, who turns 32 in 6 days, just finished a year where he hit 11 percent below league average, halved his walk rate, and demonstrated no defensive ability in the outfield. Travis Shaw, a 25 year old 1B. was league average at AAA for over 600 plate appearances; including this year. Marrero, also 25, has been below AAA average, and hasn't played well at the MLB level so far. Oh, and the Reds won't get salary relief until 2018, because Ramirez's contract is set at 22 million from 2016-2018, while Votto gets paid 20-22-25 million respectively.

Unless the GM of the reds is drunk and wasted on some drug that I don't even know of, there's no chance that the Reds would be interested in Hanley/Travis/Marrero.

You don't acquire players because "they're awesome!". You acquire players because a) you have the required pieces to make an acquisition, and b) the acquisition fits well into the roster. Facts supporting (a) and (b) engender interesting discussion.
Not sure if you read any of the posts prior to mine, but my response was part of a hypothetical discussion about whether or not the Sox would be wise to say yes to a straight-up swap of Hanley for Votto. Some posters were opposed to this, suggesting that the team didn't have a big enough need for either increased offense or a new first basemen to take on Votto's long and expensive contract. My point was that Votto is the type of superstar that had to be considered regardless of need. Actually your suggestion that Votto is a Trout-like talent that the Sox could never get for my more realistic (at least than the original hypothetical, which was a straight swap) trade idea suggests that you agree that people dismissing the straight swap were underrating Votto's value.
 
Last edited:

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,444
First base isn't a position of weakness.
The current projected starter has never played a game there professionally and hit like a utility infielder in the second half last season. Maybe his bat rebounds and maybe he can play passable defense, but I don't see how anyone can be this confident until at least, say, mid-March or so.

And Votto said he's not waving his no-trade, for the record.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The current projected starter has never played a game there professionally and hit like a utility infielder in the second half last season. Maybe his bat rebounds and maybe he can play passable defense, but I don't see how anyone can be this confident until at least, say, mid-March or so.
Yeah, if it's not a position of weakness, it's at least a position of uncertainty. And I'd argue that it's pretty likely to be a position of weakness. We're all hoping that Hanley can be a passable 1B, but his defensive ceiling there seems likely to be pretty modest. His realistic upside, as a 1B, is probably a league-average, 2-point-something WAR player (Steamer projection is 2.2). And if he reaches that upside then it's not a position of weakness, but not exactly a position of strength either. If he doesn't reach it, well.....

But that's where we are, and I think DD's only course (unless somebody throws a ridiculous offer at him) is to suck it up and hope for the best.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,444
At any rate, I think BP's original point about "acquiring a premium player at a position of weakness" was that the team will need to get someone to replace Ortiz's production between now and Opening Day 2017, regardless of whether Hanley takes over DH, and first base (replacing Shaw/Travis) or left field (replacing Castillo/Bradley) would be the easiest fits given the current roster construction. I agree that it looms as an issue, but I'll also acknowledge that a lot can happen between now and then. Who knows who might be available this time next year?
 

FinanceAdvice

New Member
Apr 1, 2008
167
Albany, NY
Question and a comment.

Is the atrocious performance of both Ramirez and Sandoval attributable to their "bad negative attitude", or tough fit to play in Boston (Fenway is a difficult place to play), or just declining skills?

In some instances Id say DFA both (Schilling said get rid of both or least one of them) and use Shaw at first and Holt/Devers at 3rd. Perhaps its premature for Devers as hes only 20 and may hamper his development. However I think Red Sox should go with Ramirez at first and Sandoval at third with a very short leash. Ramirez could be more valuable next year (meaning 2017 when David retires) as a DH . Sandoval has less value as indicated by his lack of desire to get in better shape. Which I believe is still a concern unless I missed something different.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,692
Rogers Park
Question and a comment.

Is the atrocious performance of both Ramirez and Sandoval attributable to their "bad negative attitude", or tough fit to play in Boston (Fenway is a difficult place to play), or just declining skills?

In some instances Id say DFA both (Schilling said get rid of both or least one of them) and use Shaw at first and Holt/Devers at 3rd. Perhaps its premature for Devers as hes only 20 and may hamper his development. However I think Red Sox should go with Ramirez at first and Sandoval at third with a very short leash. Ramirez could be more valuable next year (meaning 2017 when David retires) as a DH . Sandoval has less value as indicated by his lack of desire to get in better shape. Which I believe is still a concern unless I missed something different.
What do you figure the MLE is for a .773 OPS season in Greenville?
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
Is the atrocious performance of both Ramirez and Sandoval attributable to their "bad negative attitude", or tough fit to play in Boston (Fenway is a difficult place to play), or just declining skills?
Where did this "bad attitude" meme come from? Ramirez stopped hitting probably because he ran into a wall trying to make a catch, and then tried to play through a badly hurt shoulder. The crap he got about putting on weight is because he busted his ass working out; you don't put on 15 pounds of muscle without working your ass off. His problem if anything was that he tried way too hard, not too little. Drop the call-in-show garbage and look at what actually happened.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,820
Question and a comment.

Is the atrocious performance of both Ramirez and Sandoval attributable to their "bad negative attitude", or tough fit to play in Boston (Fenway is a difficult place to play), or just declining skills?

In some instances Id say DFA both (Schilling said get rid of both or least one of them) and use Shaw at first and Holt/Devers at 3rd. Perhaps its premature for Devers as hes only 20 and may hamper his development. However I think Red Sox should go with Ramirez at first and Sandoval at third with a very short leash. Ramirez could be more valuable next year (meaning 2017 when David retires) as a DH . Sandoval has less value as indicated by his lack of desire to get in better shape. Which I believe is still a concern unless I missed something different.
There was an article up thread about how Panda's defense with SF was good in part because he knew the pitchers in SF and (by extension) where they were locating pitches. It would be interesting to know whether the Red Sox have any information with respect to defense and the location of pitches (i.e., where the pitch is called versus where the pitch is thrown). Given that Panda may not have a ton of range, that would likely impact him more than other fielders.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Where did this "bad attitude" meme come from? Ramirez stopped hitting probably because he ran into a wall trying to make a catch, and then tried to play through a badly hurt shoulder. The crap he got about putting on weight is because he busted his ass working out; you don't put on 15 pounds of muscle without working your ass off. His problem if anything was that he tried way too hard, not too little. Drop the call-in-show garbage and look at what actually happened.
Thank you. I'm getting tired of that meme as well. Ramirez also took a line drive off his wrist.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Question and a comment.

In some instances Id say DFA both (Schilling said get rid of both or least one of them) and use Shaw at first and Holt/Devers at 3rd. Perhaps its premature for Devers as hes only 20 and may hamper his development. However I think Red Sox should go with Ramirez at first and Sandoval at third with a very short leash. Ramirez could be more valuable next year (meaning 2017 when David retires) as a DH . Sandoval has less value as indicated by his lack of desire to get in better shape. Which I believe is still a concern unless I missed something different.
Perhaps? The 19 year old who hasn't played above Low A? The chance of this happening is somewhere between 0% and 0.0%.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,508
Not here
The current projected starter has never played a game there professionally and hit like a utility infielder in the second half last season. Maybe his bat rebounds and maybe he can play passable defense, but I don't see how anyone can be this confident until at least, say, mid-March or so.
Hanley Ramirez
Travis Shaw
Sam Travis

Add up the likelihood of them being good enough for our needs and you're probably going to get a number over 1. I'm not worried about first base.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Where did this "bad attitude" meme come from?
Well, Chad Finn, for one.

The decision to move Ramirez to left field should have worked. But Hanley didn’t do the work – the commitment wasn’t there, ever. And so as we prepare his obit for the inevitable unofficial end of his second time around with the organization that originally signed him. It must also be noted on the record that his final effort – I’ll pause here while we all fire up the air quotes in unison – as a defensive player came in the game before his final appearance.
I mean, maybe Finn is making this up, but SoSH posters certainly aren't.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,901
There was an article up thread about how Panda's defense with SF was good in part because he knew the pitchers in SF and (by extension) where they were locating pitches. It would be interesting to know whether the Red Sox have any information with respect to defense and the location of pitches (i.e., where the pitch is called versus where the pitch is thrown). Given that Panda may not have a ton of range, that would likely impact him more than other fielders.
There was also an article around August that talked about how Sandoval wasn't playing as deep as the team wanted him to play, because he knew that he wouldn't be able to get to any bunts in time if he didn't play shallow. Because he was way out of shape.

Sandoval's weight seems to go up and down a lot, and people in SF said that he often gains weight during the season. Last year, he was able to field his position early on, but then got worse and worse as the season went on, and finally had to shut it down early. Injuries were part of that, but he also seemed to get more out of shape as the season went on. In late July, he had to leave a game with "dehydration" after getting thrown out trying to score from first on a double. After that, Farrell said Sandoval’s level of conditioning is “something that Pablo has dealt with his entire career. It continues to be addressed. I can’t say tonight is a direct result of that. But there are ongoing efforts to support that, to try to get him in the best shape possible.” Manager speak for "Yeah he is way out of shape." Too out of shape to even run 3 bases on a hot night, much less field his position decently.

Sandoval's defense is the major reason to be concerned about him. He can probably be fat and still hit, but if he gets as fat as he was last year, he can't play third well at all. I expect him to show up for spring training a lot lighter than he was at the end of last year, but I sure don't trust him to stay that way. Even if he shows up in great shape in February, you are still running the risk that by August you will be stuck with a third baseman who has to play too shallow and can't cover any ground, and who might not be able to finish a game if he has to run from first to home.

If he has a good first half, I hope we trade him before the deadline, because I just don't believe that he will stay fit enough all season to play decent defense. You could be in the pennant race or postseason with an expensive veteran who can't play his position, and no way to bring in someone else to replace him. And I would expect to have the same concern (or even more concern) for each year left on his contract. I just don't see how you can rely on this guy to stay fit enough to play the field all season long.

Assuming that he isn't going to be traded this year, I really hope we can bring in a AAA third baseman who is a good fielder as some sort of insurance. Holt and Shaw can cover the position, but can't be expected to be very good defensively there. Marrero seemed solid there but he is a shortstop, not a natural 3B. A good fielding third baseman in Pawtucket could end up being some valuable depth in September if not before.
 

FinanceAdvice

New Member
Apr 1, 2008
167
Albany, NY
Where did this "bad attitude" meme come from? Ramirez stopped hitting probably because he ran into a wall trying to make a catch, and then tried to play through a badly hurt shoulder. The crap he got about putting on weight is because he busted his ass working out; you don't put on 15 pounds of muscle without working your ass off. His problem if anything was that he tried way too hard, not too little. Drop the call-in-show garbage and look at what actually happened.
Sorry my apologies as I should have said sources of "bad attitude" rather than being seen as just a gossiper. I read the bad attitude from BR by Schilling and also heard it on Baseball Tonight with a comment by Eduardo Perez.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
There was also an article around August that talked about how Sandoval wasn't playing as deep as the team wanted him to play, because he knew that he wouldn't be able to get to any bunts in time if he didn't play shallow. Because he was way out of shape.

Sandoval's weight seems to go up and down a lot, and people in SF said that he often gains weight during the season. Last year, he was able to field his position early on, but then got worse and worse as the season went on, and finally had to shut it down early. Injuries were part of that, but he also seemed to get more out of shape as the season went on. In late July, he had to leave a game with "dehydration" after getting thrown out trying to score from first on a double. After that, Farrell said Sandoval’s level of conditioning is “something that Pablo has dealt with his entire career. It continues to be addressed. I can’t say tonight is a direct result of that. But there are ongoing efforts to support that, to try to get him in the best shape possible.” Manager speak for "Yeah he is way out of shape." Too out of shape to even run 3 bases on a hot night, much less field his position decently.

Sandoval's defense is the major reason to be concerned about him. He can probably be fat and still hit, but if he gets as fat as he was last year, he can't play third well at all. I expect him to show up for spring training a lot lighter than he was at the end of last year, but I sure don't trust him to stay that way. Even if he shows up in great shape in February, you are still running the risk that by August you will be stuck with a third baseman who has to play too shallow and can't cover any ground, and who might not be able to finish a game if he has to run from first to home.

If he has a good first half, I hope we trade him before the deadline, because I just don't believe that he will stay fit enough all season to play decent defense. You could be in the pennant race or postseason with an expensive veteran who can't play his position, and no way to bring in someone else to replace him. And I would expect to have the same concern (or even more concern) for each year left on his contract. I just don't see how you can rely on this guy to stay fit enough to play the field all season long.

Assuming that he isn't going to be traded this year, I really hope we can bring in a AAA third baseman who is a good fielder as some sort of insurance. Holt and Shaw can cover the position, but can't be expected to be very good defensively there. Marrero seemed solid there but he is a shortstop, not a natural 3B. A good fielding third baseman in Pawtucket could end up being some valuable depth in September if not before.
Any chance the injuries contributed to him getting more out of shape as the season went on?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,932
Maine
Any chance the injuries contributed to him getting more out of shape as the season went on?
Exactly. The knee that was hit by the pitch was bad enough he had to stop hitting right-handed, but we're supposed to think that was the extent of his limitations? That it didn't prevent him from doing other things, like maybe running or riding a stationary bike to keep up his cardio.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Any chance he might hit another foul ball off his knee or suffer some other type of nagging injury next year?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,274
Exactly. The knee that was hit by the pitch was bad enough he had to stop hitting right-handed, but we're supposed to think that was the extent of his limitations? That it didn't prevent him from doing other things, like maybe running or riding a stationary bike to keep up his cardio.

I could be wrong but it's tough to imagine that the training staff could have him ready to play but not come up with a way for him to do some cardio. And what, did the injury prevent him from ordering a salad instead of chicken fingers and fries?

 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,391
Santa Monica
It's their job to be Nostra-fucking-damus? There's only so much even the best projections can predict. As far as Sandoval goes, there were at least two other teams in on him at similar years and dollars, so it's not like Cherington was out on an island thinking he was going to be worth paying that contract. The team that had the guy in their organization for 11 years was willing to give him a similar contract and who would know him better than them?
The two teams, San Fran and San Diego?

Sounds like San Fran had a weight clause in their contract. So yes, they had him for 11 years and knew what to put in the contract to make sure they were protected from a steep drop in production and steep increase in weight.

and AJ Preller, winter of 2014 version....well that speaks for itself.

Explaining away Pablo's poor performance on nagging injuries is convenient, but nagging injuries, dings and achy knees is what happens when you're obese.

We'll have a good idea what to expect from Pablo by March when he shows up for Spring Training.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/03/25/pablo-sandoval-red-sox-giants-phone-number/70420466/

"I'm a professional and I know what I have to do,'' said Sandoval, listed as 5-11 and 255. "I know where I've failed and how I've grown up. If I had signed (with the Giants), I knew I would be under a (weight) regimen for five years, and I'm not going to be happy someplace where I'm under that kind of regimen, where I can't be myself.''
 
Last edited:

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,901
Exactly. The knee that was hit by the pitch was bad enough he had to stop hitting right-handed, but we're supposed to think that was the extent of his limitations? That it didn't prevent him from doing other things, like maybe running or riding a stationary bike to keep up his cardio.
I am sure he had an excuse for gaining 20 pounds during the 2014 season too. From Nov. 2014: "Last year, Sandoval lost almost 30 pounds in the offseason, then gained about 20 back, according to a Giants official."

His weight goes up and down all the time, it's just what the Giants fans said before we signed him.

We'll have a good idea what to expect from Pablo by March when he shows up for Spring Training.
The problem is, we won't know what to expect from him later in the season, no matter what weight he shows up at for spring training. Before 2013, he showed up for spring training more than 20 pounds heavier than the previous season.
Then he lost a lot of weight before 2014: "Sandoval reportedly lost more than 40 pounds during the offseason leading into the 2014 season. The third baseman known as "Kung Fu Panda" also lost 22 pounds in a six-week span during the 2013 season."

It's fat roulette with this guy, both before the season and during the season. His weight goes up and down, it's not going to stop, it's who he is.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,354
San Andreas Fault
I am sure he had an excuse for gaining 20 pounds during the 2014 season too. From Nov. 2014: "Last year, Sandoval lost almost 30 pounds in the offseason, then gained about 20 back, according to a Giants official."

His weight goes up and down all the time, it's just what the Giants fans said before we signed him.



The problem is, we won't know what to expect from him later in the season, no matter what weight he shows up at for spring training. Before 2013, he showed up for spring training more than 20 pounds heavier than the previous season.
Then he lost a lot of weight before 2014: "Sandoval reportedly lost more than 40 pounds during the offseason leading into the 2014 season. The third baseman known as "Kung Fu Panda" also lost 22 pounds in a six-week span during the 2013 season."

It's fat roulette with this guy, both before the season and during the season. His weight goes up and down, it's not going to stop, it's who he is.
Gray, we are singing from the same hymnbook about this panda. Watch out for Nvalvo though. It's funny how people can seemingly ignore your posts and then all of a sudden pounce on them like a duck on a snail.