Red Sox sign Patrick Sandoval
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
I hate this new philosophy of throwing money at injured players hoping something good comes out of it. It makes zero sense for a big market team
Like BPMS says (and is a great point), it's cool (not really, but work with me here) that the Sox are signing all of these guys that are going to be really, really, REALLY ready in 2026 but they're signing them to rehab in 2025 which takes money off this year's budget. So $5M here, $7M there and all of a sudden you can't afford to sign a guy that can help the Sox in April of 2025.
It reminds me of the early 00s when we had Pedro and a bunch of dudes with bum arms: Ramon, Cone, Saberhagen, Schourek, Castillo, etc. They'll give you five to ten pretty good starts but they start to break down at 15 starts, at 20 starts. So then you're calling up AAAA guys to take their place or bullpen starts, which tires out the pen.
For all of the huzzahs about the 4D chess that the Sox are playing ("IT'S TOTALLY GOING TO SAVE THEM MONEY IN 2026!!!!!") a. who gives a shit about the Sox saving $5M and b. it's really not because these guys aren't really the same when they come back. Fatigue is a factor. Touch is a factor. Maybe it takes them 12-14 months to return to "normal". And then where are you? At then end of this two-year "steal" where if he does awesome his last few weeks, you're paying market value. Or if he sucks, you just lost $18M and games.
To be clear, at the end of the day, it's a whatever move. A move that I thought that the Sox were done making. It's just frustrating to watch them play in the dumpster while other teams aren't. I'll probably forget that Sandoval is even on the team until August when he makes his first start, gets lit up and I'm like, "Oh yeah, I remember being sorta mad that the Sox signed him around Christmas time."
Thank you for the bolded. What's wrong with this? What's wrong with signing the best players available, putting them on the field and seeing what happens? Why does just about every transaction have to come with some sort of caveat? Why are the Red Sox constantly trying to prove how smart they are?
Professional sports are pretty fucking easy: get the best players and most of the time you win. That's it.
Super fan Rasputin has spoken!
Every Red Sox season must be a joyless slog until we reach the promised land. All non believers must be shed at all costs so only the truly appreciative fans--the blessed, the chosen ones--will enjoy the World Championships. Because on that day, our Lord and Savior John Henry, will step down from the owners box on clouds made of Fenway Frank water vapors and anoint the truly dutiful Boston fans who never impugned the decisions of FSG. The "entitled ones", the ones who dared question the motives of Henry and his apostles--the enemies, will find themselves in a hell worse than the hottest, smelliest day in the Bronx.
They will be unable to properly enjoy the World Series win as these truly ardent fans (as proven by their verified Son of Sam Horn.com posts from 2019-2034 will attest!) that were touched by Henry and Warner.
And the Sox don’t need to put Anthony/ Campbell on the 40 man Roster unless/ until they make the team. At that point they’ll have a squeeze, but they can worry about it then.
Passan (probably the best in the business) noted that the Red Sox were not one of the teams in on Burnes in his most recent update. He lists SF, Baltimore and Toronto.
Honestly, I think this depends on which side of the "will they or won't they" debate you fall on relative to going over $LTT.
If you fall on the "will they" then no, the off-season certainly may not be done yet.
If you fall on the "won't they", then it's effectively done. You probably have room for either one good BP arm and that's it, or something like an alright bullpen arm and an alright RHH to upgrade on Gonzalez.
For short term deals, I don't think it mattes to them. They tried signing Bieber to this kind of deal first, and that would have been his age 30 and 31 seasons. They were apparently in on Means for a similar kind of deal also (he will be 32 next year).
Overall, I agree with others that are saying the Sox are basically signing this kind of deal per year because it's a good way to stash depth on the roster. LAD does it to, they can just do it with better players because a) they spend like half a billion each offseason and b) players are essentially guaranteed to be in the playoffs with a legitimate shot at winning the World Series. Boston doesn't offer either of those right now. The strategy is roughly the same.
They certainly care about age with starting pitchers and long term deals, but on short term, I don't think age really matters. They just felt Sandoval was the 2nd best option (or 3rd best if they targeted Means first, who knows) for said role. Personally, I'd have ranked them Bieber, Sandoval, Means, Urquidy in terms of my targets for this "role" as well.
Like @John Marzano Olympic Hero alluded to, I think this is "good" in terms of looking at depth for the 2025 rotation after the ASG. Between Crochet, Houck, Bello, Gio and Crawford at least one of them (like with anyone's rotation ) is going to get hurt or suck; it's the nature of the position and 4th and 5th starters in general. This helps to protect against it, much as Priester or Fitts. In that regard, this is fine and makes sense.
For what it's worth, I do think this is the kind of move that good teams do make. LAD does it. I'd say it's a bit more like when Theo would add in someone like Matt Mantei (bullpen edition) or Wade Miller (2005).
Unfortunately I don't think as presently constructed the Red Sox in 2025 are in the same universe as the Dodgers or the 2003-08 Red Sox. (Though I do think the Red Sox are in the same universe as the 2024 Detroit Tigers. KC Royals, and Seattle Mariners).
So for a team that a reasonable projection is "We might be WC 2, if we get there, lets drink Bud Lights and and have a shot in the playoffs until we face the Yankees", it's a solid depth move to help the bottom of the rotation from July 2025 - 2026, that's good. It leaves room to spend on one of the "good" relievers (which I don't personally believe in any of them long term, but might as well spend the $15m on someone so make it a year of Yates or Robertson). Also good.
It takes them out of the running (my opinion is there is no way they go over LTT1) for Bregman, Arenado, Castillo, Flaherty or Lopez, all of whom will cost more than the $20m a year they have left under the budget (and this is bad). It's a trade off, but if they weren't going to land any of Bregman, Arenado, Castillo or Flaherty anyway, Sandoval is as good a bet to place $9m on than anything else out there that would take less than $10m AAV.
Last edited:
Nothing when framed that way. But if you sign a bunch of 30+ year olds ("best players") to long term deals, and they suck in year 3 (or 4), then you have a bunch of sucky & immovable players. I'm agnostic on the facile "cheap" question. But, especially when it comes to pitching, they dont want to have guys who (in their view, anyway) are likely to suck in the not-too-distant future. But there's no doubt that, as a matter of logic that approach hurts -- or at least fails to improve -- the present team.
When it comes to Teoscar, if they think Anthony will be contributing by midseason, he might not make a lot sense on a 3yr deal through age 35 -- unless they can somehow move Yoshida (without detracting anything remotely useful from the org) and let him be the next "mostly DH who owns a glove but by God we hope he doesn't use it."
Last edited:
Very few people, if any, are demanding that they sign "a bunch of 30+ year olds to long term deals".
As much as I'd like to have a guy like Burnes in the rotation, I do understand why it's not particularly bright to sign him to an 8 year deal. I've done the math, I know that very few starters over the age of 34 are contributing meaningfully in today's game.
There certainly are options at SP we could acquire right now, for money, in lieu of Burnes. Those options would help the 2025 Red Sox win more games. I sure hope we do that. Sandoval is not helping us do that at all.
If we played a drinking game where everyone on SoSH took a shot when someone used the word "entitled" we'd all be dead 3 years ago. Which would be sad because we wouldn't have seen all those Sox playoff games over the past 3 years,
For God's sake, we traded for one of the very best pitchers in all of baseball already this offseason, adding him to what was already the 7th best starting staff in baseball. This is a hedge against the 6 guys we already have struggling.
Try to think of it as spreading out risk rather than as cheaping out of it helps you. But acting as if the whinging that happens every time the Sox do something other than sign one of the best free agents available isn't a form of entitlement is silly.
This is one of many deals they've made and will make this offseason. Not all of them are going to be gigantic home runs.
Try to think of it as spreading out risk rather than as cheaping out of it helps you. But acting as if the whinging that happens every time the Sox do something other than sign one of the best free agents available isn't a form of entitlement is silly.
This is one of many deals they've made and will make this offseason. Not all of them are going to be gigantic home runs.
No you don't get it. If those guys suck by the middle of their contracts, the team just has to spend even more money on the new batch of best free agents. It's just money, and Henry has plenty. Just sign the best players and spend money and win! It doesnt require being smart, I mean, there are no smart small market teams in places like, oh say, Milwaukee or Tampa that have outcompeted much higher spending teams just by being smarter. The fact that baseball is and has always been a business with a fairly rational market, and that the rare cases where teams have spent "illogically" are usually a dying owner (see: Seidler, Ilitch) and have proven supremely counterproductive (the Tigers are only now competitive again, and the Padres are already on the downturn...and they haven't even gotten into the bad years of their deals), should be of no concern and certainly doesn't reflect a lack of seriousness or critical evaluation among the just spend crowd.
Here's the thing though, I don't think that there are any contracts that are truly "immovable". Just about every contract that someone has said was underwater has been moved.
And yes, I know that you can't sign all of the free agent pitching and the Sox have a phobia of signing anyone over 30, but there are some stellar pitchers that will give you 3-4 good years. The backend will suck, I know this, you know this, the FO knows this and John Henry knows this. But it's part of doing business. All pitchers get old. All pitchers break down eventually. Crochet is going to break down and if the Sox sign him to an extension, it'll probably be on our watch.
The thing is, if you have one of these reclamation projects; there's a pretty good chance that he's going to make your team bad (or worse) now rather than in four or five years. At least initially. Maybe he gets things right after a few starts, maybe it takes half a year; but essentially you're trading very good/excellent starts now and potentially crummy ones in a half decade for a person who's not going to be 100% now. The only difference is that the money is low-ish. Like the Sox have three guys on the roster (Giolitto, Hendriks and Sandoval) who are supposed to pitch this year but we have no idea how well they're going to do. All three could be great, all three could suck and there's everything in between.
When you sign a Burnes, a Fried, someone of that ilk, you at least are getting some sort of consistency. If the Sox grab Corbin Burnes, he's their number one starter. Then Crochet, Houck, Bello, Giolitto (or whomever). The Sox need consistent, strong arms. Shopping at the Dollar Tree is not where you're going to get them and I'm just so sick of hearing, "Pitcher X is going to be AWESOME next year."
It's always next year for someone and it just hasn't worked out yet.
Breslow has been POBO for just over a year. I will judge this strategy of signing recovering guys to 2 yr deals in May or June when I get to see if Hendriks and/or Fulmer are contributing to the ML club.
I have, and if you want to argue with me, I'd appreciate it if you deal with reality a bit more.
Yeah, we heard Paxton could come back the last couple of months in 2022, and Hendriks could return around the trade deadline in 2024. Neither threw a pitch for the Sox in those seasons.
Betting on the most optimistic timetable for a pitcher after surgery almost always leads to disappointment.
Just because you willingly eat tripe, doesn't make you a gourmet.
But I'm sure John Henry will give you the shiniest nickel* in his pocket for being a super duper fan!
* The nickel will not be a real nickel because we all know John Henry doesn't spend money at all.
Of course you CAN move them, but it means giving up guys like Anthony Rizzo and Mookie Betts. That's not good business, and whether you like it or not baseball is a business.
If the team only signed big money players, we wouldn't be able to hedge with plays like this to protect ourselves. And to be clear, the ten has several large deals, including to Devers, who has one of the 15 richest contracts in all of baseball.
This is a hedge against the excellent rotation we already have, which features two of the best pitchers from last year in all of baseball, raltering. That's ALL this is. It's not the end of the offseason.
Do you really just want to have a petty pissing match? Because my appetite for those has declined rather a lot over the past twenty years.
Also, what tripe am I eating?
Ignoring the dumb entitlement stuff that needlessly gets repeated constantly here, some people want to see the front office take bigger FA swings. People aren’t looking at this Sandoval deal in isolation, they’re looking at it as part of a trend that continues to get more and more data points.
The Crochet move was undoubtedly a nice move, potentially a great one. But it was costly. We lost Teel. We lost Montgomery. There is plenty of talent out there who’ll only cost money. We’ll see how many of them sign with the Sox by March.
The Crochet thing will only really net goodwill from people who have turned on Henry and co if they extend him.
And, truthfully, it’s probably a fair position. The move looks less great if it’s for only 2 years. We have no idea what the demands are now but if you don’t sign big ticket FAs, you absolutely need to lock up the ones you trade for. Then there’s that whole developing arms concept which this franchise has failed so miserably at for a while. That would be nice too.
Of course it was costly. But now we get to extend him rather than sign some 30 year old whose arm is gonna fall off.
I'm confident we will make more moves, personally. There's lots of room, extensions to be given out.
My bad if this is misplaced but is it possible to have a thread dedicated towards solely FO discussion, and keep individual player acquisition threads to analysis of said player and impact on team? Maybe I get lambasted for this but honestly having just about every thread eventually end up in a back and forth on defense or indictment of the FO makes this space pretty rough (Im going to wager a guess Im not just speaking for myself).
edit: ill add this isnt aimed at any one poster...and I totally understand why it happens. Just makes for tough reading at times.
edit: ill add this isnt aimed at any one poster...and I totally understand why it happens. Just makes for tough reading at times.
Last edited:
I have a lot of people on ignore so maybe I'm just missing it, but I'm not really seeing anyone especially, like, psyched about this. Seems like some people are saying it's at best a decent depth move to help them weather the inevitable injuries.
Wait. What? Anthony Rizzo wasn't stapled to anyone, he was part of the Adrian Gonzalez trade with Casey Kelly and two other minor leaguers. The Sox had been lusting after Gonzalez for years and he was really good for the Sox for the 18 months he was here. According to a Twitter thread from earlier this month Zack Scott, Mookie was going to the Dodgers for the exact return that the Sox got when Bloom added Price at the very last minute.
No one has said that the team ONLY needs to sign big money players. Not one person has said that, so I'm not sure where you're going with your second paragraph. I'm not sure who "the ten" are. The Sox?
We do not have an excellent rotation. That's also not true. We have a good to really good rotation, especially now with Crochet. Houck was very good last year. Bello not so much. Crawford not so much. Pivetta isn't here any more and he was fine. Like they did in 2023 and 2022, the Red Sox' starting rotation fell apart in July and August. Unlike the previous two years they rebounded a bit in September, which was good.
But it's by no means "excellent".
But yes - yes they are.
"Why not spend the money on Burnes or Fried?" is brought up all the time.
But those players are going to demand long term deals well into their thirties - the latter half of which will be complete drain of limited resources.
Guys like Patrick Corbin, Steven Strasburg and Jacob deGrom made significant bank last year 35-40 million dollars
And the market is only going up.
Sandoval is a completely reasonable signing. His stuff has historically been better than his results.
His offspeed/changeup has been excellent while his fastball has been his achilles heel.
Let's see what we get when Craig Breslow's school of pitch crafting to Sandoval's repertoire.
Without rehashing it all, I think the idea with Crochet is that, at his age, an extension is less likely to include as much suck. (Unless he wants a 10+ yr deal). As I said with, for example Burnes and Fried, assuming quality going forward (though some are concerned about Burnes's peripherals even for the near term), the near term obviously gets better. I'm all for sign the pitchers now, 2028 or 29 be damned. But since it makes sense to me why they aren't doing it, I guess it just doesn't bother me. I take everyone's feelings on this at face value, and one can't manufacture how they "feel" about the approach.* (That is, they aren't invented, as they are for talk radio, where you never know if anyone is talking consistent with the way they believe.) If the Sox did not have what looks to be young talent, then I'd be all in on the "this is gonna suck for a long time unless they drop some big cash now" brigade.
And for me, "the team that wins the winter" has always seemed to be a pile of bullshit anyway. Let's see how they do. And I'd feel this way if Breslow announces at 530 that they've signed Burnes and Teoscar and got Murphy for some Single-A Shlabotnick. None of these guys mean shit until they start playing. Who had Houck as a top-10 in pitching WAR in December of 2023? (Not me).
You're right, no one is immovable. But there's an (unknown) cost to that, too, in either talent or money.
*I suppose there are analyses out there that suggests whether its good or bad, but I think the winter is all about the feels.
I liken this to a trade deadline acquisition for a lefty starter that can pitch out of the bullpen for 5.5 million..... which would be tough to acquire at the deadline for a good price.
I misremembered the trade, should've looked it up. I was thinking of stapling Adrian Gonzalez to Carl Crawford. The point is those deals often end with the team having to give up value in order to have to get out from under them.
But we by do all means now have an excellent rotation. If you want to play semantics and define excellent in some patently ridiculous fashion, I won't be surprised, but top 5 in baseball isn't out of reach, given we were 7th in all of baseball in starter ERA, despite pitching in Fenway.
Your insisting they're less than excellent doesn't change the facts.
I think this is definitely the hope from the Sox POV and will be interesting to see how they approach negotiations with him. They’ve got his age 26-27 seasons, imagine they’d be fair comfortable going through his age 32 season? So a 7 year deal? Have to think it will need to be some kind of record setting deal for a player of that age, as I would think Crochet and his team would prefer to be a FA earlier than that. If they meet in the middle on a 4-5 year deal, you’d probably lock up most of his prime years but would need the discipline to potentially walk away when he’s a FA. Easier said than done.
I get it why they're not signing 30-year-old pitchers, I don't agree with it, but I understand it. And you're right, if they do sign Crochet, it'll probably be, at most, a six-year deal which will mitigate the worse years. Understood and agree with that part. But like I said, I don't agree with the idea that just because you sign a 30-year-old pitcher, the bill that's going to become due in a few years is going to be so astronomical that it's going to cripple the franchise for years. The Yankees do this all the time and they're fine. The Dodgers do this and they're okay. Same with the Rangers and even the Mets. When the pitcher sucks, they send him away. Is it easy? No, I'm not saying that it is, but it's done on the reg.
And yeah, I was bummed that the Sox didn't sign a front-end starter last winter or the winter before. But ultimately, it was fine because they weren't going to make the post season anyway. This year, I think that they have a legit shot of getting one of the wild cards and maybe, if everything breaks the exact right way, they can snag the division (1000 to 1 shot). So I think now is the best time to get that ace. It might suck in 2029 when he's getting lit up. It may suck in 2030 when he's at the back end of the bullpen, but there are no such things as a contract where everyone is happy at the end.
I also agree with you with "winning the winter" thing. The Jets win the spring just about every year and they fall flat every fall. But at the same time, if you're not going all out to get better, you're not going to win the fall either.
I'd like this more if there was a team option for 2027 at $20-25 million in case it works out, but I am IN on this
While he had a good season in 2024, he pitched 6 innings in 2020 (relief). In 2021 (career games 6-59), he faced an average of 4.26 batters per appearance. He missed 2022 with Tommy John surgery but came back in 2023 (games 60-72) facing an average of 4.92 batters per appearance before missing time from mid-June to late September due to inflammation in his left shoulder.
I might wait a bit before declaring him "one of the very best pitchers in all of baseball".
There's a lot I want to respond to in this thread, but for now:
Yes, a trade for a "lefty starter that can pitch out of the bullpen" in July would be more expensive... because it's for a guy who is healthy and able to throw pitches in the Majors right away. Sandoval is months away from throwing pitches against live hitters and seeing how his elbow responds, let alone pitching in the Majors for the Red Sox.
This is why Sandoval comes at a discount, and it's a solid depth move with an eye toward 2026. So maybe this works out. Or maybe like Hendriks (and many others) he has a setback and 2025 is a lost season. That's baked into the lower price.
Well, again, not to restate the obvious, but there's a reason Ocean State Job Lot is cheaper than Pottery Barn or whatever.
Yes, a trade for a "lefty starter that can pitch out of the bullpen" in July would be more expensive... because it's for a guy who is healthy and able to throw pitches in the Majors right away. Sandoval is months away from throwing pitches against live hitters and seeing how his elbow responds, let alone pitching in the Majors for the Red Sox.
This is why Sandoval comes at a discount, and it's a solid depth move with an eye toward 2026. So maybe this works out. Or maybe like Hendriks (and many others) he has a setback and 2025 is a lost season. That's baked into the lower price.
373 isn't almost double 163. 373 is double 163 plus another 47IP.
I don't get all the angst about the signing.
Sandoval is a gamble but not for a lot of money and he's a LH starter and they need that and they'll need it next year too.
Again. The Punto trade wasn't just about getting rid of Crawford. The Dodgers wanted Beckett and Gonzalez. The Red Sox wanted to get rid of them because Beckett wore out his welcome with the chicken and beer thing, Gonzalez wasn't the right fit for Boston. Crawford and Punto were throw ins. Did the Red Sox get full value for Beckett and Gonzo? No.
BTW, refresh my memory that trade happened in August 2012. What happened in 2013?
And no matter how much you want to wishcast, the Red Sox did not have an "excellent" starting rotation .
The 2024 Red Sox were 11th in WAR. They were 14th in HR/9given up. They were 17th in K/9, 16th in strikeouts and tied for ninth in BB/9. And they didn't go long, as they were the 16th team in innings pitched. Their staff ERA was good, but they were still almost a half run worse than league leader Seattle, but they also pitched less than 100 innings than the Mariners.
These are not excellent numbers. They're good numbers, they're numbers to build on. But they aren't excellent. And if they were excellent, Craig Breslow wouldn't be hunting high and low for at least two more starting pitchers.
Only Burnes is a guaranteed ace if healthy, by which he has averaged over 30 starts the past four seasons.
Exactly right. We didn't win until we got serious about closing the talent gap with the Yankees and were willing to sign "bad" contracts like Johnny Damon. Right now we're walking through Tiffany's with our wives to look at the wares, intending to come home with nothing while we laugh at "what some people are paying!"
Here's the 2024 version of the Damon contract: Teoscar 4 years/$80 mill. Did they give up a draft pick to sign Damon? I have no idea and neither do you. Damon was a very good/great player here and we need more of those dudes.
It should almost be expected when you have the second highest ticket prices in baseball and you have to sell your left leg to afford the Nesn package. They’re payroll is on par with the Minny/Arizona yet we are in a much bigger market.
BTW they better extend Crochett before Opening Day! That Pedro extension was announced basically right after the trade if memory serves.
Out of curiosity, why is Opening Day some sort of deadline? They have Crochet for two years regardless. If they extend him a year from now, what difference does that make to anyone but him?
Good point.
However I will say unlike past years (ie Paxton) this move makes sense because a) the rotation is already pretty good (not great, but pretty good) and b) you actually have legitimate prospect depth that pitches. I already used the example but for "JUST" the rotation, it's a lot more like 2005 and the addition of Wade Miller. (Unfortunately, the 2005 offense was a freaking machine with two first ballot hall of famers anchoring it and this offense is, well, not anywhere close to that...)
Good comp, but to be fair, Damon was 28 and Teoscar will be 32. I'd call it maybe a cross between that Johnny Damon contract and the JD Martinez contract. But I agree with your sentiment.
You are looking at stuff like the team's results over the past ~half decade and their payrolls relative to others. This is not how one consumes the Sox in the 2020s. They are weaving together magic tricks like Borden (or if you prefer, Angier) in The Prestige and you need to follow their slight of hand to keep up. That's where the delight lies - not in competing but understanding the plan. Its pretty binary - either you get it or you don't. If this is how they build their roster, Kennedy's tagline is right here:
"The 2025 Boston Red Sox - Get With The Plan!"
For the record, the data is clear to me. Thus far, shareholders/ownership are not comfortable paying top tier FAs and pitchers in particular. So instead of giving this club the best chance to compete they have fed fans this "plan" stuff that gets various constituents all sweaty. Its not magic or a plan though. They are not inclined to pay market rates for MLB talent unless its in the form of prospects. That can work but watching how the big market teams play, it feels limited.
Of course, maybe they can still surprise us. That would be a better plan.
Well, you'd get him at a better price than you would if he goes out and pitches like an ace and at that point is just a year from FA.
Like everything else, there is some risk with that.
They need to sign him before he roars out of the gate (which I think he will) and demonstrates he's in line for a $350 million bonanza if he can just hold his water.
I also think human nature would make him more receptive now, while he's still gotta have fear of injury in his mind and there's the goodwill of them showing him "You're our guy, now here's $195 million, we're all winners!"