The future at 3rd

Status
Not open for further replies.

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
30,601
AZ
So, Steamer has Will as a .725 OPS player and Davenport has him at .758. If so, one wonders why he only is projected to play about 100 games and where the 523 Cecchini PAs are coming from. If Will shows that kind of hitting, then I think it's true the marginal win or so that Panda would give is not worth his expected contract and it's money better spent elsewhere. I would certainly favor playing Will at those numbers, but they just don't seem realistic. Hopeful, sure, but there wasn't much last year to support this. Can't rely on numbers like those.

arzjake said:
Beltre has two yrs left at 34mil. No talk of Beltre?
There is discussion above. I guess some of it is that underpaid 7 win All Stars are very tough to pry away.
 

RIrooter09

Alvin
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2008
5,532
gaelgirl said:
The Giants are also in a pretty bad situation at third if he leaves, so that could lead to some overpaying.
 
I have a question: The marketing value of Pablo Sandoval is high for the the Giants. Panda hats and shirts and all that. Would it be the same in Boston? Could you envision Red Sox fans in red panda hats or giant panda heads? 
Merchandise sales are split equally between all teams. I don't think it's a factor at all.
 

ZMart100

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2008
2,154
Savin Hillbilly said:
Interesting that Davenport has Headley with a significantly higher SLG than Sandoval. That's only happened once, and in age-matched terms, never (i.e., Sandoval has had a higher SLG at any given age than Headley had at the same age). Especially considering that Headley is three years older, it seems like a pretty eccentric projection, and I'd be curious how he came up with it.
It seems like it is park and league effects. Here's a table with the eq's from Davenport, which I should have looked at initially. Thanks for catching that.

[tablegrid Davenport Eqs]Player EqBA EqOBA EqSLG EqA Headley 0.280 0.373 0.450 0.281 Sandoval 0.298 0.364 0.460 0.280 Cecchini 0.274 0.354 0.390 0.267 Middlebrooks 0.254 0.307 0.466 0.259 Holt 0.288 0.347 0.371 0.254 [/tablegrid]

Edit: For those not familiar with looking at these numbers, don't think of them as projections for how they will perform in this run scoring environment. Consider them only relative to each other.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
OK so let's talk $$$ for Headley. Seems like many here are leaning in this direction so what's it going to take to sign him? Certainly 3-4 years. He made 10.525 million last season, does the Sox "standard" 3 years 39 million get it done? 4 years 52? 3 years 42-44? He's going to be 31 in May. Might he rather the 3 years at a slightly higher AAV and have the chance for another shot at FA at age 34 instead of age 35? Is 13-14.5 million per year reasonable given the need? He's been pretty much exclusive at 3rd base from the start of the '10 season and that's where we want him, but every so often situations arise where you need to be creative with your roster. Headley has nearly 200 games in left field and a handful at first. Flexibility never hurts, right? He's also a switch hitter, mostly from the left side as is Sandoval, but Headley hits fairly consistent from either side. And for the past 3 seasons, don't you have to like Headley's offensive numbers better than Sandoval's when you consider who he's played for as well as the 5-6 million dollar gap per season in what it may take to sign either?
 

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/28809/chase-headley
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/29212/type/batting3/pablo-sandoval
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
20,092
Savin Hillbilly said:
I'm not a fan of signing Sandoval, at least not at the kind of terms it looks like he'll command. But I don't really understand calling 2014 "a prototypical focused and in shape contract year performance." True, it was the most games he's ever played as a major leaguer, but not by all that much (157 vs. 141, 152, 153 in 2013, 2010, 2009). And the quality of the performance, offensively at least, was his worst since 2010. Pretty ordinary year all in all.
Were you listening to Mission of Burma when you cherry picked these numbers? I'm not debating the consistency of Sandoval's performance only that he was in the best shape of his career and not so ironically remained on the field all season.

You use GP in 2009, 2010, and 2013 to show your point as if his 100 games missed over the 2011 and 2012 seasons while being grotesquely out of shape didn't exist. I'm not so much concerned about his solid, while not outstanding numbers, and moreso about his ability to remain on the field and the outrageous price tag to take on this risk by not preparing over the next 3 seasons as he had in 2014. He has already shown that he won't prepare physically the same way in a non-contract year......a 5-year guaranteed deal isn't likely to change his track record.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,889
Rogers Park
HomeRunBaker said:
You use GP in 2009, 2010, and 2013 to show your point as if his 100 games missed over the 2011 and 2012 seasons while being grotesquely out of shape didn't exist. I'm not so much concerned about his solid, while not outstanding numbers, and moreso about his ability to remain on the field and the outrageous price tag to take on this risk by not preparing over the next 3 seasons as he had in 2014. He has already shown that he won't prepare physically the same way in a non-contract year......a 5-year guaranteed deal isn't likely to change his track record.
 
Those missed games resulted from hamate bone surgeries, one in each hand. The injuries were not related to his weight. 
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
30,601
AZ
YTF said:
OK so let's talk $$$ for Headley. Seems like many here are leaning in this direction so what's it going to take to sign him? Certainly 3-4 years. He made 10.525 million last season, does the Sox "standard" 3 years 39 million get it done? 4 years 52? 3 years 42-44? He's going to be 31 in May. Might he rather the 3 years at a slightly higher AAV and have the chance for another shot at FA at age 34 instead of age 35? Is 13-14.5 million per year reasonable given the need? He's been pretty much exclusive at 3rd base from the start of the '10 season and that's where we want him, but every so often situations arise where you need to be creative with your roster. Headley has nearly 200 games in left field and a handful at first. Flexibility never hurts, right? He's also a switch hitter, mostly from the left side as is Sandoval, but Headley hits fairly consistent from either side. And for the past 3 seasons, don't you have to like Headley's offensive numbers better than Sandoval's when you consider who he's played for as well as the 5-6 million dollar gap per season in what it may take to sign either?
 

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/28809/chase-headley
 
http://espn.go.com/mlb/player/splits/_/id/29212/type/batting3/pablo-sandoval
4/56 was my guess a couple of months ago, and I don't see it going lower now that the Yankees are serious. I actually think now it's low. I wouldn't be surprised if his AAV creeps up to $16 to $16.5 for 4 years. He has no QO to saddle him. Unless the third-base market simply doesn't materialize for him, his agent seems to have a good case to project at 9 to 11 wins over the next four years and I expect he'll get paid like it.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,403
nvalvo said:
 
Those missed games resulted from hamate bone surgeries, one in each hand. The injuries were not related to his weight. 
 
 
There's that, plus 2013 wasn't a contract year.
 

KillerBs

lurker
Nov 16, 2006
812
The overall tenor here seems to be against signing any of Sandoval, Headley or Hanley at the prices they are likely to command, tho understandably it appears there is a preference for Headley (at 4/56, let's say) over Sandoval/Ramirez at 5/6 years/90M+.
 
On one level this  makes eminent sense, as signing any of these 3 can be seen as an overpay. It does seem dubious to be betting that any of these guys likely will be worth 15-20M in 4-5-6 years, ie at ages 33-34-35.
 
But this can't be the end of the analysis. If we walk away unable to find a bargain in the top of the FA 3B market (surprise!), where does that leave the Sox at 3b in 2015 and beyond? What are the realistic alternatives? Lowrie as a FA? Murphy from the Mets in a trade (for what)? Holt, Middlebrooks, Cecchini internally? Aside from Murphy (who appeals mainly because we don't know the price) the alternatives are seriously lacking.
 
And if they go cheaper at 3B, should they use the unspent money to (over)pay for FA SP(s) or Miller, or are folks advocating passing on all the top end FAs? 
 
I suppose it is possible with shrewd (read lucky) trades (costing surely some top end prospects) the Sox could build a contender without Sandoval, Headley, Hanley (or Scherzer, Lester or Shields). But it does strike me this is a significantly riskier strategy than simply signing the plus 3B we need and the plus/plus SP we need, a course of action which I think would bring the Sox at least to the level of their AL East opponents immediately without damaging their mid- to long term ability to compete.
 
Related, isn't the whole purpose of payroll flexibility to allow you to fill a hole with a player at the top end of the FA market?   
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,889
Rogers Park
Years when the Sox have a protected first-round pick seem like years when they should be active at the high end of the FA market, assuming there are attractive players in that range. There are. 
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
38,478
It's believed that both sides want Pablo Sandoval to remain a Giant.
Optimism that a deal is going to get worked out hovers over the talks between Pablo Sandoval and the San Francisco Giants, to the degree that some potential bidders for the third baseman have started doing more background work on market alternatives.

Optimism doesn’t always translate into an actual deal, of course. If Sandoval’s side is stuck on a particular number, then the Giants could always move on to other options.

But rival officials are watching the Sandoval bidding and reading the tea leaves, and are increasingly having difficulty envisioning him signing elsewhere.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=buster-olney&id=8559&src=desktop
 

gaelgirl

The People's Champion
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2004
4,759
Sonoma, California
HomeRunBaker said:
Were you listening to Mission of Burma when you cherry picked these numbers? I'm not debating the consistency of Sandoval's performance only that he was in the best shape of his career and not so ironically remained on the field all season.

You use GP in 2009, 2010, and 2013 to show your point as if his 100 games missed over the 2011 and 2012 seasons while being grotesquely out of shape didn't exist. I'm not so much concerned about his solid, while not outstanding numbers, and moreso about his ability to remain on the field and the outrageous price tag to take on this risk by not preparing over the next 3 seasons as he had in 2014. He has already shown that he won't prepare physically the same way in a non-contract year......a 5-year guaranteed deal isn't likely to change his track record.
 
This might be the most hilarious post in this thread. Hey, HRB, when you're ripping someone apart for not knowing what they're talking about, you should probably know what you're talking about. 
 
As noted, he broke the hamate bones in his hands, one each in 2011 and 2012. It was not related to an inability to stop reaching for food, but because of the way he holds the bat against his hand. As a switch hitter, he happened to do it to both hands. He has no more hamate bones left to break, so it's not an issue. 
 
He was, however, on the DL in 2012 with a hamstring injury... which occurred when he did this: 

 
So, his weight may have been a factor in that injury. However, it may have had nothing to do with it. Any player who isn't used to doing the splits can get injured if he accidentally does the splits mid-play. He was obviously playing out of position at first, so there's no reason to assume he was particularly well-practiced at stretching out for a throw. You can watch a video of the (pretty spectacular) play here: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/big-league-stew/yoga-panda-pablo-sandoval-splits-not-without-serious-163124847--mlb.html 
 
He also landed on the DL in 2013 with a foot injury. It was a tendon strain that occurred when he twisted his foot strangely while batting in relatively soft dirt. It's impossible to say his weight contributed to the injury or his need to go on the DL to recover. It may have been a factor. It may not have been. The prevailing mood around the Giants at that time was that his weight wasn't much of a factor, it was just a freak injury. 
 
Also, 2014 was not the best shape of his career. Well, at least not if you're talking only about weight. 
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
52,416
San Andreas Fault
Might be just as well all around if he remains in SF. He's a fatty, or is it big-boned, but he's the Giants' fatty.

They know how to get him to lose just enough weight, but not too much. This year he was hitting Mookie Betts' weight until he put 20 or so pounds back on. Then, he started to rake.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
20,092
nvalvo said:
 
Those missed games resulted from hamate bone surgeries, one in each hand. The injuries were not related to his weight. 
Sandoval was on the DL two other times with lower body injuries in that span......one a hamstring and the other a foot injury.
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
38,478
“@GordonEdes: Jay Alou Jr., agent for Yasmany Tomas, said Sox had him take some ground balls when he worked out. Said he could play third. He’s an OF”

Hmmmmmm

It now make sense why he tried out for us.
 

The Filthy One

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2005
2,366
East Bay
soxhop411 said:
“@GordonEdes: Jay Alou Jr., agent for Yasmany Tomas, said Sox had him take some ground balls when he worked out. Said he could play third. He’s an OF”

Hmmmmmm

It now make sense why he tried out for us.
 
Translation: "We don't need you, Pablo. We'll just sign this "hulking outfielder" and turn him into a 3rd basemen."
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-six-years-for-pablo-sandoval-isnt-crazy/
 
Dave Cameron's take on giving Pablo 6 years. 
 


A sixth year for Sandoval is very likely to be an albatross, just like the first year for Sandoval is very likely to be a bargain. He won’t be worth $18 million in 2020, but he’ll be worth more than $18 million next year, and the goal for both sides is to just make sure that the up-front discount is close to equalizing the end-of-contract premium.
 

O Captain! My Captain!

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 3, 2009
3,532
Steamer projects about league average production out of Cecchini (2.3 WAR) with a league average bat (.266/.336/.378) and a little below-average defense (1.6 dWAR - 2.5 positional adjustment = -0.9 UZR) over 600 PA. It also projects Middlebrooks and Holt as slightly less than 2 win players given the same workload. Is it possible the Sox just roll with some combination of those three and figure that anything they get out of 3b is likely to be a massive improvement from 2014?
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
O Captain! My Captain! said:
Steamer projects about league average production out of Cecchini (2.3 WAR) with a league average bat (.266/.336/.378) and a little below-average defense (1.6 dWAR - 2.5 positional adjustment = -0.9 UZR) over 600 PA. It also projects Middlebrooks and Holt as slightly less than 2 win players given the same workload. Is it possible the Sox just roll with some combination of those three and figure that anything they get out of 3b is likely to be a massive improvement from 2014?
Personally I prefer this to blocking a guy for 2-3 years before you see what he can do. But even with Sandoval, if you move him to DH when Ortiz retires, and sprinkle in enough work for Cecchini to see what he can do in the meantime, then maybe it all works out.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558



Jerry Crasnick · @jcrasnick
 10th Nov 2014 from TwitLonger















I've heard a few suggestions that the #SFGiants or another club could sign Pablo Sandoval to a contract with a weight/conditioning clause. Here's how it works. Under the basic agreement, a team can sign Sandoval to a deal that includes bonus provisions if he maintains a certain weight. That's been done a few times in the past. But the Giants (or any other team) cannot sign Sandoval to a contract that allows them to stop paying him or reduce his salary if he's over some predetermined weight. That's not permissible under the labor agreement.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,015
chrisfont9 said:
Personally I prefer this to blocking a guy for 2-3 years before you see what he can do. But even with Sandoval, if you move him to DH when Ortiz retires, and sprinkle in enough work for Cecchini to see what he can do in the meantime, then maybe it all works out.
I'd be more inclined to go the Hanley route if we are going to go either for 6ish years and 9 figures. Hanleys bat plays a lot better in the DH slot towards the end of the contract rather than Panda who has more of his value tied up in the defensive side.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
35,382
Sandoval in Boston is a recipe for disaster.  Forgive me for repeating myself but if it isn't his conditioning, which imho has absolutely contributed to some of his leg/hammy injuries, that drives people nuts, his penchant for hacking early, often and with conviction will.  This board will have collective, multiple O-faces (and not the good kind) before the season even hits May as Sandoval chases pitches that late-career Vlad Guerrero would deem as physically impossible to get a barrel on given their massive distance from the strike zone.  
 
Pablo Sandoval - all of him - is an amusing and often times exciting ballplayer.  He plays hard and seems like a good guy.  That said, the Panda won't play as well in Boston when he is being paid ~$20mm/year AAV and generating enough wind energy to provide Japan with a green energy source for the next decade. 
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
Sandoval in Boston is a recipe for disaster.  Forgive me for repeating myself but if it isn't his conditioning, which imho has absolutely contributed to some of his leg/hammy injuries, that drives people nuts, his penchant for hacking early, often and with conviction will.  This board will have collective, multiple O-faces (and not the good kind) before the season even hits May as Sandoval chases pitches that late-career Vlad Guerrero would deem as physically impossible to get a barrel on given their massive distance from the strike zone.  
 
Pablo Sandoval - all of him - is an amusing and often times exciting ballplayer.  He plays hard and seems like a good guy.  That said, the Panda won't play as well in Boston when he is being paid ~$20mm/year AAV and generating enough wind energy to provide Japan with a green energy source for the next decade. 
 
I highly doubt this will convince you but it is interesting 
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-six-years-for-pablo-sandoval-isnt-crazy/
 
Pablo Sandoval is perhaps the most interesting free agent of the offseason. He’s both good and fairly young for a free agent these days, so there’s an argument to be made that his contract might not carry him very far into the steepest of the aging curve, which is when teams have often gotten burned with big money deals. Of course, he’s also a big guy, with the body type of the kind of player who often ages poorly, and he’s spent a significant chunk of time on the DL during his tenure with the Giants.
This makes him a bit of a unique free agent, as you can argue that he’s either lower risk (due to age) or higher risk (due to body type), depending on which one you one put more stock in. And both arguments have their merit. Projecting future playing time is difficult enough for a normal player, much less a guy on the extreme ends of two variables that offer different conclusions.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
30,601
AZ
A question -- google isn't helping me find an answer.  Is there any consequence to L/R splits for a switch hitter, or is it irrelevant?  Panda's tOPS+ for the last few years in reverse chrono order (so starting with 2014) against LHP:  52, 83, 90, 60, 62 (Career 76).  
 
Do we care that a 28 to 30 percent of the time at the plate, a player is significantly worse than replacement level, or is that fact simply immaterial, with the only relevant issue being overall numbers?  Is a switch with an .800 OPS but horrible splits any different from a player who always bats from the same side with an .800 OPS?  I'm trying to imagine ways it might matter -- I guess there could be ballpark effects, but I think if there's an effect it would be that in potentially higher leverage or late game situations, a dramatic split gives an opposing manager an opportunity to force you to your bad side.  For an every inning player like Panda -- a guy who rarely pinch hits nor gets pinch hit for -- this seems like it could matter a bit. But again, nothing on google that I could find to suggest any major downside to a serious switch discrepancy.  
 
On an intuitive level, I'm attracted to Headley's modest split discrepancy since Panda's numbers from one side are relatively poor, but I guess the question is whether this matters in the slightest.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The one interesting thing about Sandoval-as-hacker is that he walks a surprising amount for a guy who swings at so many non-strikes.
 
FG lists 14 guys with PitchFX O-Swings of 40% or higher over the six years that Panda has been in the majors. He ranks third on that list at 43.5%, with only Vladdy and AJP ahead of him. Yet his career BB rate of 7.3%, while below average, is respectable--and completely out of context for the list. 10 of the other 13 guys have career walk rates of 5% or lower. Only one besides Panda--Brennan Boesch, with a 40% O-Swing--is above 6%.
 
In order for that 43.5% O-Swing and that 7.3% walk rate to coexist, you have to assume his hacking propensities differ somewhat depending on the situation. The most straightforward explanation would seem to be that the more balls he has already taken, the more likely he is to take the next one--so that you have to really miss (and miss away from his desired location) to get Ball 1 past him, but the more balls you throw him, the more selective he gets.
 
In this regard it's interesting to look at his BB rate splits for specific counts. Looking at results after 1-0, 2-0, and 3-0 counts, here's how MLB did in 2014:
 
BB rate after count
After 1-0: 14%
After 2-0: 29%
After 3-0: 63%
 
Now here's Sandoval over his career:
 
After 1-0: 15%
After 2-0: 32%
After 3-0: 70%
 
So Sandoval, once you've gotten him to take Ball 1, is actually more likely to walk than the average hitter. And as you get further behind, this becomes even more true.
 
However, here's Sandoval in 2014:
 
After 1-0: 14%
After 2-0: 25%
After 3-0: 65%
 
So this past year, he was more aggressive than normal on hitter's counts, especially on 2-0 counts. If that's a trend, it's not a good one.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
A question -- google isn't helping me find an answer.  Is there any consequence to L/R splits for a switch hitter, or is it irrelevant?  Panda's tOPS+ for the last few years in reverse chrono order (so starting with 2014) against LHP:  52, 83, 90, 60, 62 (Career 76).  
 
Do we care that a 28 to 30 percent of the time at the plate, a player is significantly worse than replacement level, or is that fact simply immaterial, with the only relevant issue being overall numbers?
 
He isn't, though, or at least wasn't until this year. Those tOPS numbers reflect Panda's RHH OPS relative to himself, not to the league. The sOPS numbers show him to have been essentially league-average over most of the past five years, though he did indeed shit the bed this year--using your reverse chrono: 59, 95, 107, 98, 63.
 
No question he's better vs. RHP, which is what you'd prefer, especially for this lineup. If that terrible 2014 line means anything going forward, that's a concern. But overall, his record is of a guy who demolishes RHP and is fringe-average vs. LHP, which for a switch-hitter seems fine.
 
EDIT: In this regard, it's probably worth noting that Sandoval will be very happy to say goodbye to double-digit PA every year against Clayton Kershaw (career 61 PA, .589 OPS).
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,087
what do you guys think hanley will get?
 
Considering he is about to turn 31, it's tough for me to get comfortable giving him more than 4 years.  I'd go as high as $85/4 or slightly higher or 1 more year depending on FO inside info & (lack of) other 3B options.  I wonder if that'd be enough to get it done.
 
Him or Headley seem like lower risk than panda given the years, money & risk injury.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
48,045
deep inside Guido territory
ALiveH said:
what do you guys think hanley will get?
 
Considering he is about to turn 31, it's tough for me to get comfortable giving him more than 4 years.  I'd go as high as $85/4 or slightly higher or 1 more year depending on FO inside info & (lack of) other 3B options.  I wonder if that'd be enough to get it done.
 
Him or Headley seem like lower risk than panda given the years, money & risk injury.
Dave Cameron on FG thinks Hanley will get 7/140.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-2015-free-agent-landmines/
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
35,382
jimbobim said:
 
I highly doubt this will convince you but it is interesting 
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-six-years-for-pablo-sandoval-isnt-crazy/
 
Pablo Sandoval is perhaps the most interesting free agent of the offseason. He’s both good and fairly young for a free agent these days, so there’s an argument to be made that his contract might not carry him very far into the steepest of the aging curve, which is when teams have often gotten burned with big money deals. Of course, he’s also a big guy, with the body type of the kind of player who often ages poorly, and he’s spent a significant chunk of time on the DL during his tenure with the Giants.
This makes him a bit of a unique free agent, as you can argue that he’s either lower risk (due to age) or higher risk (due to body type), depending on which one you one put more stock in. And both arguments have their merit. Projecting future playing time is difficult enough for a normal player, much less a guy on the extreme ends of two variables that offer different conclusions.
 
 
I read that and while I don't disagree with Cameron's view, I think Boston is just a bad fit for Sandoval.  Its one thing coming up in San Francisco as a talented but flawed player.  Giants fans are knowledgable but they are also a loyal and forgiving lot.  The franchise has had its share of quirky players that have flourished because the fan-base is pretty accepting (though they weren't as tolerant of the poor performances of the big free agent signings like Aaron Rowand and Barry Zito) and the media is fairly mild.  
 
Boston is an entirely different animal in terms of fan expectations as well as how the media covers the team.  Sandoval will be a big-ticket signing and both fans and the jokers of the keyboard will be all over him fairly quickly when he inevitably hits a cold streak and/or his weight balloons.  Pablo's career has been in front of adoring crowds who fed off of his energy and exuberance.  In Boston, he may have that but he will also have the baggage that comes from signing a nine figure contract.  My prediction is that he will be treated similarly to Carl Crawford when he with the Sox.  Both sides should pass.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,521
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Lowrielicious said:
I'd be more inclined to go the Hanley route if we are going to go either for 6ish years and 9 figures. Hanleys bat plays a lot better in the DH slot towards the end of the contract rather than Panda who has more of his value tied up in the defensive side.
Is Hanley ready to start hitting left handed? I thought we were worried about the lineup's getting too right handed lately.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,015
HriniakPosterChild said:
Is Hanley ready to start hitting left handed? I thought we were worried about the lineup's getting too right handed lately.
I'd much rather be too right-handed for a year or two and deal with that later than go with (in my opinion) more limiting, inferior player (with similar risks involved) just for the sake of handedness.
 

The Mort Report

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2007
2,058
Winter Hill
I would love to see what it would take to pry Chisenhall away from CLE.  Chisenhall was solid last season and is a lefty, also is just 26 years old  Now does CLE want anything to do with trading him?  I dont know, but a quick look at BA top 10 for CLE 4 are infielders, so they would have internal options.  Would one of our 2nd tier arms plus a lottery ticket get it done?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,206
Oregon
The Mort Report said:
I would love to see what it would take to pry Chisenhall away from CLE.  Chisenhall was solid last season and is a lefty, also is just 26 years old  Now does CLE want anything to do with trading him?  I dont know, but a quick look at BA top 10 for CLE 4 are infielders, so they would have internal options.  Would one of our 2nd tier arms plus a lottery ticket get it done?
 
Indians are apparently contemplating moving Chisenhall to the outfield because his defense can cut it at third
 
http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2014/11/internal_revolution_could_reha.html
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
28,403
Lowrielicious said:
I'd much rather be too right-handed for a year or two and deal with that later than go with (in my opinion) more limiting, inferior player (with similar risks involved) just for the sake of handedness.
 
If Hanley came to Fenway, Cespedes could be traded elsewhere.
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
38,478
Sox going "ALL IN" on panda
 
 
PHOENIX -- While there have been reports, most notably from Buster Olney of ESPN.com, that the San Francisco Giants are optimistic about re-signing Pablo Sandoval and that a deal could happen soon, an executive with another major league club said Tuesday that the Red Sox are "all in" on the free-agent third baseman and are making a big push to sign him.
Sandoval is seen as an ideal fit for the Red Sox because he meets their need for a left-handed bat (he's a switch-hitter), he plays third base (a black hole for the Boston in 2014), and he could ultimately succeed David Ortiz as the team's designated hitter.
"He's more of an American League player," said the executive, an allusion to the fact that Sandoval, who has remained nimble afield despite carrying considerable weight, might ultimately slow down defensively. "And he can really hit."
Red Sox GM Ben Cherington said Tuesday he met the day before with Gustavo Vazquez, Sandoval's agent, and that the sides had a "constructive" conversation.
"We've met with several [agents], including [Vazquez], and had good constructive conversations with a lot of guys already," Cherington said. "All those conversations will continue. I don't expect anything to happen this week, or maybe in the near term. This may play out. I expect many [conversations] to continue over the next few weeks."
Vazquez has said publicly that Sandoval is seeking a six-year deal, which would take him through his age-34 season. Various projections have forecast him to be in line for a salary in the $90 million to $100 million range.
The Kung Fu Panda, as Sandoval is known, played a career-high 157 games last season, making 150 starts at third base, and posted a slash line of .279/.324/.415/.739. He also has served as a DH in nine games in American League parks during interleague play. In that small sample size, he batted .235 (8-for-34) with a home run and four RBIs.
Sandoval has proven to be an exceptional postseason performer, compiling a slash line of .344/.389/.545/.935 in 39 postseason games, with six home runs and 20 RBIs. He has been even better in three World Series, all won by the Giants, with a slash line of .426/.460/.702/1.162.
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/11861086/boston-red-sox-making-big-push-sign-free-agent-pablo-sandoval
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,310
Fine. They know they want him, go get the deal done so they can start on the rotation. 
 

kwa1430

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
493
New Bedford, MA
Why dont the Red Sox just make a run at Jung-ho Kang? Scouting report states he has a strong arm and good fielder but average to slightly below average range at SS.  Agents says he is willing to move to 3B if needed.  I think he is going to come over with a chip on his shoulder.  Big power potential
 
He will cost a hell of a lot less than Panda or, God help us, Hanley.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/meet-the-latest-cuban-sensation-who-could-change-the-game-003916654.html
In Guatemala City on Wednesday, officials from all 30 major league teams are expected to attend the first official showcase for Moncada. He’ll hit. He’ll take ground balls at shortstop, his natural position, and perhaps third base, where many expect him to end up. They’ll see him in great shape, perhaps wearing a jersey with his name and the No. 24 he sported in Cuba. And then they’ll wait.
 
So far, the closest any team has come to shattering its pool with one player is the Los Angeles Angels, who signed 20-year-old infielder Roberto Baldoquin for $8 million last week. Moncada is considered a far superior prospect, and with the Angels, New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox among the teams that have exceeded their 2014 pools by 15 percent, the incentive exists to go strong on Moncada. Few avenues still exist to outright buy amateur talent, and as MLB goes forward, this may represent among the last.
 
Or maybe just go wild on Cuban talent again 
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
soxhop411 said:
I'm fine with this. It gives Boston an opportunity to shift him to DH in his age 32 or 33 season or perhaps to 1st. Numbers should go up in Fenway. His post season numbers are nuts. I'm starting to get the feeling that its a two team derby between Boston and San Francisco. Both are really solid organizations so you can't really go wrong.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,174
Not here
Tyrone Biggums said:
I'm fine with this. It gives Boston an opportunity to shift him to DH in his age 32 or 33 season or perhaps to 1st. Numbers should go up in Fenway. His post season numbers are nuts. I'm starting to get the feeling that its a two team derby between Boston and San Francisco. Both are really solid organizations so you can't really go wrong.
 
I have qualms, but I'll live with them.
 
Mostly, I just want shit to start happening. It feels like it's been the off season for like a year and a half now.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Rasputin said:
 
I have qualms, but I'll live with them.
 
Mostly, I just want shit to start happening. It feels like it's been the off season for like a year and a half now.
That's what happens when your team sucks monkey balls.

Maybe they have Eric Van back working for them with a reinvention of his "Adrian Beltre will just 'kill it' in Fenway" arguments. That was one of the many times he was right. Absent such a proprietary analysis of a major increase in production moving to the AL East, I just don't see the attraction of making this guy a Carl Crawford type contract offer while you nickel and dime John Lester for half a season and all but ignore Andrew Miller's emergence as one of the 10 best relief pitchers in all of baseball.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Panda is not high on my list of preferred third basemen. That said, he'll be really good for a few years at least. Probably long enough to shift to DH. He'll be overpaid there, but they can afford it. That said, I'd prefer Headley and Hanley over him from the free agent market, or a trade for Beltre even. If this happens and it's 6 years, I'll be pretty "meh" about it.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Plympton91 said:
That's what happens when your team sucks monkey balls.

Maybe they have Eric Van back working for them with a reinvention of his "Adrian Beltre will just 'kill it' in Fenway" arguments. That was one of the many times he was right. Absent such a proprietary analysis of a major increase in production moving to the AL East, I just don't see the attraction of making this guy a Carl Crawford type contract offer while you nickel and dime John Lester for half a season and all but ignore Andrew Miller's emergence as one of the 10 best relief pitchers in all of baseball.
 
We still have pretty much zero evidence that they nickle and dimed him. They made a low offer before the season, he rejected it then went out and pitched well enough to skyrocket his market value. By the time it was obvious he was going to be worth nearly twice what he was offered, the season was lost and they cashed him in for Cespedes and a pick. It is still entirely possible they maintained a positive relationship with him and that he really is wililng to consider coming back. He's not giving them a discount at this point, but that will end up being the cost of acquiring Cespedes and that pick if they are able to get him signed. This idea that it is inconsistent for them to not have extended Lester last April but are willing to pony up for a free agent like Panda is silly.
 
Also, they did not ignore Andrew Miller becoming one of the best relievers in baseball. In fact, they not only noticed... they turned him into an excellent pitching prospect rather than let him waste his dominance on a last place team in a lost season.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,015
Rudy Pemberton said:
He had a 739 OPS last year. I'm skeptical that, given his trends in performance, he's capable of being an adequate DH in a few years. A guy who swings at everything and is fat isn't likely to age well, is he?
This is where I am at too.
If the giants hadn't made the post-season I am sure a lot of other people would be right there with us.
 
I don't really want to pay $100mill+ for the next 6 numbers in this sequence.
.789
.758
.739
 
And that last number is including being in the "best condition of his life" leading into this year (in order to get a big payday).
 
If you want a 3B for now and a DH for the future then Hanley is the guy, not Panda.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.