Benintendi is closer to 3 months older than Margot, 7/6/1994 vs. 9/28/1994, but Margot has still survived a major minor league transition at a younger age.
This comes down to Panda's defense. If Panda is really -14.7 UZR then he's not a third baseman, he's a DH playing out of position. In which case I would cut bait.Snodgrass'Muff said:
Brock Holt does not have the bat or the arm to be a major league starter at third base. And even if you can scrape together an argument that he reaches the minimum threshold for holding down the position offensively, you destroy his value by removing him from the super-utility role and weaken the roster overall by reducing its depth. Dumping Panda and replacing him with Holt makes this a worse team. This idea needs to die. If they move Panda, they need to find a full time replacement for him because there isn't one on the roster currently.
And yes, Holt has had a better year at the plate than Panda, but Holt has had the year we expected, Panda has not and if you adjust his season for the dip in BABIP, Sandoval looks a lot more like the guy we expected than his slash line would suggest at first glance. Sandoval is very likely going to bounce back next year and he's a better defender at third than Holt. So no, you can't just hand the job to Holt without hurting the team.
PrometheusWakefield said:This comes down to Panda's defense. If Panda is really -14.7 UZR then he's not a third baseman, he's a DH playing out of position. In which case I would cut bait.
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Brock Holt does not have the bat or the arm to be a major league starter at third base. And even if you can scrape together an argument that he reaches the minimum threshold for holding down the position offensively, you destroy his value by removing him from the super-utility role and weaken the roster overall by reducing its depth. Dumping Panda and replacing him with Holt makes this a worse team. This idea needs to die. If they move Panda, they need to find a full time replacement for him because there isn't one on the roster currently.
And yes, Holt has had a better year at the plate than Panda, but Holt has had the year we expected, Panda has not and if you adjust his season for the dip in BABIP, Sandoval looks a lot more like the guy we expected than his slash line would suggest at first glance. Sandoval is very likely going to bounce back next year and he's a better defender at third than Holt. So no, you can't just hand the job to Holt without hurting the team.
Snodgrass'Muff said:Which is why we don't use single seasons of UZR to make determinations about where players should be on the field. He looked awful in the first couple of months, but he's looked like exactly what we expected in the last few: An above average but not elite defender at the position. He's making nice plays on a regular basis now that he's settled in.
MikeM said:
For me the concept of trading Pablo now would have less to do with min/maxing our 2016 season, and more with getting ourselves out of the back end commitment as best we can. While we can, and with the "who plays 3rd after" factor playing out to be the secondary concern.
Not sure luck has more to do with his struggles this season then the fact that even at 28, he's a really bad body type and swing at everything hitter who was probably always destined to age like crap. Making a bet there that he manages to both slam on the brakes and then hit reverse on his decline seems pretty overly optimistic imo. I didn't like that bet last year and i like it even less going forward.
If the opportunity presented itself where Panda could be moved right now at anything around picking up less then half his contract, it would be worth a hard look imo.
shaggydog2000 said:
So instead of getting relief pitchers and a starter, you would spend resources (money under the cap, prospects) to dump Sandoval and acquire another 3rd baseman, one who would be better, and yet another team would prefer Sandoval to that available player for some reason? But the Sox wouldn't pay more than half of Sandoval's contract?
Taking a look at the 3rd base stats from this year, only half the teams have a qualified hitter who is above league average. I think the demand for a competent 3B is much, much higher than the supply. We're not upgrading there too easily.
MikeM said:
Making a bet there that he manages to both slam on the brakes and then hit reverse on his decline seems pretty overly optimistic imo. I didn't like that bet last year and i like it even less going forward.
MikeM said:
Where did i say anything about bringing in a better 3rd baseman, or not signing relief pitchers or a starter? Again, my primary concern there would be getting rid of the commitment beyond 2016. If that played out to us fielding a less then "looks like an upgrade on paper" situation at third this year then so be it.
Hypothetically dumping Panda in itself would essentially free up additional money that could then be turned around and spent elsewhere too btw. That net gain wouldn't just magically disappear.
The above said, i fully expect to see Panda manning third on opening day.
The timeframe to upgrade 3B all depends on what the ETA for Moncada is. If your scouts have good reason to think he can handle advanced breaking pitches, and rapid promotions, his might be primed to break in at the hot corner before you can say "Xander Bogaerts, World Series Third Baseman."shaggydog2000 said:
You still need a 3rd baseman, and paying another team to make Sandoval go away costs resources that then would not be available to upgrade the rest of the team, not to mention whatever resources you'd need to use to find a replacement for him, which definitely seems to be in short supply. Even a downgrade at the plate for a 3rd basemen is going to be hard to find. It's not like you can just plug in Cecchini (Mess at the plate, can't play defense) or even Holt (wears down, 3rd is his worst defensive position) and make it through a year like that. I don't think they even have a 3rd base prospect above A ball. The money you'd save would be minimal compared to what you'd have to spend to replace him, the value of the prospects you'd have to give up, and how much you'd hurt the team. It's not a hidden gold mine.
Buzzkill Pauley said:The timeframe to upgrade 3B all depends on what the ETA for Moncada is. If your scouts have good reason to think he can handle advanced breaking pitches, and rapid promotions, his might be primed to break in at the hot corner before you can say "Xander Bogaerts, World Series Third Baseman."
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that a short-term stopgap able to hit and field at an average level, should be sufficient to fill the position until Moncada is ready. Holt, for example, could be that starter, but there are other options.shaggydog2000 said:
So you would go into a season without a starter at a position and hope a prospect (granted a very good prospect) in A ball would be ready that very season? While not having played that position in this country, ever? I find that a dubious proposition, and I'm high on Moncada. I think in 2017 he's an opening day starter at some position. But not at 3rd next year before September.
If you think DDski can't get anything of value at all for Sandoval, neither needed pitching nor significant salary relief, then you're obviously not going to agree with me.Snodgrass'Muff said:They're not "going big" at third base right now. That contract already exists and the cost of removing it would make the whole proposition a waste of resources. If they can find a team to take part of the contract they would be looking at the cost of moving the contract, plus the cost of his replacement all to, what? Have roughly the same level of production next year that they'll have if they do nothing? Looking beyond 2016 is nice, but 2016 matters and this team could be really good. Wasting resources to tread water next year to open up a spot for a player who won't be ready until the year after that is ludicrous when they're already going to be up against their limits financially. Unless they can save substantial amount of money and that is the difference between landing a front of the rotation pitcher or not, I don't see how this is a good use of time and other resources. It seems incredibly unlikely to actually free up much, if any money and will probably do very little or nothing to improve the 2016 squad.
If Moncada is busting down the door a year from now, you worry about making room for him then. If nothing else, it gives Panda a year to build up his value a bit as he is likely to bounce back at the plate and appears to have settled in defensively.
Moved $124M of the remaining $168M of Fielder's contract but took back $62M to $70M deal in return. Also, while Kinsler is having a resurgence this year so is Fielder.Buzzkill Pauley said:Because I think, based on the Fielder trade, that it's really quite possible he gets both those things. He got an all-star 2B and $124MM net salary relief for a player who didn't fit his team and was objectively underperforming. And now, to outsiders, the trade appears to have worked out really well for each side. That can only help here.
Buzzkill Pauley said:Because I think, based on the Fielder trade, that it's really quite possible he gets both those things. He got an all-star 2B and $124MM net salary relief for a player who didn't fit his team and was objectively underperforming. And now, to outsiders, the trade appears to have worked out really well for each side. That can only help here.
Pablo Sandoval is dead last in the majors with -1.5 fWAR. His OPS is dead last in the majors for third baseman. He plays flashy defense because he falls over on every play. Finding a better third baseman is literally the easiest thing any GM could do because Pablo is the absolute worst - making his contract, as you say, pretty tough to shed.Rasputin said:Guys, is hard to find good third basemen. Finding someone to take Sandoval's contact and finding someone to play better than Sandoval, well, it's two hard things to do.
When the return is a little more money to spend and a slightly better player, if it really worth it?
I mean, there's a pretty good chance Sandoval plays better next year. Moving him has a pretty good chance of backfiring.
Sure, he's probably going to suck at the end of the contract. We knew that when it was signed.
We have much bigger problems than Pablo Sandoval.
We need an ace and at least two guys in the pen.
kieckeredinthehead said:Pablo Sandoval is dead last in the majors with -1.5 fWAR. His OPS is dead last in the majors for third baseman. He plays flashy defense because he falls over on every play. Finding a better third baseman is literally the easiest thing any GM could do because Pablo is the absolute worst - making his contract, as you say, pretty tough to shed.
You must have forgotten the WMB era.kieckeredinthehead said:Pablo Sandoval is dead last in the majors with -1.5 fWAR. His OPS is dead last in the majors for third baseman. He plays flashy defense because he falls over on every play. Finding a better third baseman is literally the easiest thing any GM could do because Pablo is the absolute worst - making his contract, as you say, pretty tough to shed.
Apparently you misunderstood. Finding a better third baseman means finding one to play for us, not just pointing at one.kieckeredinthehead said:Pablo Sandoval is dead last in the majors with -1.5 fWAR. His OPS is dead last in the majors for third baseman. He plays flashy defense because he falls over on every play. Finding a better third baseman is literally the easiest thing any GM could do because Pablo is the absolute worst - making his contract, as you say, pretty tough to shed.
If you'll recall from my post that you quoted, I agreed with you that he's not going anywhere because his contract is prohibitive. I assume he will bounce back a little only because the alternative is hard to fathom. I wouldn't plan on Brock Holt being a better option at third next year. I feel quite confident in saying that had he been at third in May and June, this team would have a few more wins right now.Rasputin said:Apparently you misunderstood. Finding a better third baseman means finding one to play for us, not just pointing at one.
Mind you, we're talking about a guy who was 13th in Ops among third basemen least year. Are you really certain you want to pay someone else to take him so you can spend more money to plug in some retread?
It doesn't make any sense.
The way people around here are willing to take one bad season and declare a player to be terrible is really fucked in his head.
The lowest OPS+ he's ever had before is 99. Other than that year and this one, he's been well over 100 every year. Why is a return to that so unlikely that you're willing to pay someone else to take him?
I watch him have interaction with his players every game and it is clear they respond to him. I never considered Farrell a good game manager anyway. Promote him to the front office and keep Lovullo. That is what i would do.Al Zarilla said:Leaving him out or leaving him in? I think you mean keep him.
Yes since I wrote "leaving as manager" if I meant to replace him he would be the one leaving.Al Zarilla said:Leaving him out or leaving him in? I think you mean keep him.
reggiecleveland said:We have to at least think about leaving Lovullo as manager next year right?
sheamonu said:The approach to next year is predicated on what you think this year is. At first I thought this was a 2012 redux - with the attendant need to clean house. Now I lean towards it being more like 1966 - where, if you look closely at what is happening in the second half you have to be pleased with the vast majority of what you are putting on the field and what you see. Not out of your mind "I love this team" sort of stuff - but certainly more of a tinkering job than a wholesale refurb. A decent starter, some bullpen tweaks - this team is going to score runs regardless so I wouldn't worry about removing Sandoval from third. Holt is a prime utility man (a not inconsiderable compliment) so play him in that role. Ramirez is a headache but if that's the biggest problem - - - not that big a problem. This thread was posing a complex question a month ago - but the team on the field is doing a better job of answering it than anything we could post, and that's exactly what you want to see.
MikeM said:
In a lot of ways I see us essentially coming full circle back to where this team was at going into last winter.
Yes, this, with the addition of not having to worry about guys like Vic, Nava, and Napoli. We're going with the young guys with some degree of confidence.Savin Hillbilly said:
I think we're in a pretty different place. We have a lot more certainty about what our young players can contribute (or in the case of JBJ, maybe you'd call it a pleasant uncertainty replacing an unpleasant apparent certainty). DD has the luxury of treating the position-player side as pretty much set, unless a too-good-to-refuse opportunity to improve presents itself. He can focus on the pitching, and even there, where last year Ben had to remake the rotation almost from scratch, this time around we probably only need one front-end starter to turn things around. The only area that clearly needs major, "take it apart and put it back together" attention is the bullpen.
Rasputin said:Yes, this, with the addition of not having to worry about guys like Vic, Nava, and Napoli. We're going with the young guys with some degree of confidence.
A year ago any confidence in Castillo was hedged by the fact that he only played a few games and Confidence in JBJ was almost unthinkable.MikeM said:
I never gave that much thought to Nava, and we really are just replacing the concern with Vic/Napoli with Panda/Hanley.
I also don't recall much lack of confidence in our young guys going in to last winter either, other then maybe some fairly premature souring on Xander. Sure we are another year forward in the process and that obviously helps, but beyond already piecing together the back end of a rotation our overall core needs are looking pretty similar imo.
Rasputin said:We aren't really replacing Vic and Nap with Ramirez and Sandoval. Napoli was a guy expected to contribute but who wouldn't be around long term. Vic was a guy whose ability to contribute was questionable who wasn't going to be around long term.
Sandoval and Ramirez are guys who, if they're healthy, are expected to contribute and are going to be around for a few years. There's no question whether the job is theirs. There's no one they're blocking. They're the guy in their respective positions.
The X Man Cometh said:
The Sox are currently 3rd in baseball with 662 runs. Can someone make a case why the Red Sox should be worrying about their offense regressing in 2016? Ortiz decline?
The X Man Cometh said:
So next year they have question marks that aren't going anywhere instead of question marks that are. Awesome.
The Sox are currently 3rd in baseball with 662 runs. Can someone make a case why the Red Sox should be worrying about their offense regressing in 2016? Ortiz decline?
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Ortiz Decline, JBJ returning to earth, Mookie getting hurt running into a wall, Pedroia being injured longer or having a nagging injury that doesn't take him off the field but saps his ability to hit for power or to go the other way, Castillo regressing from his post trade deadline performance, Sandoval is actually in a decline, Hanley can't get healthy, Shaw sucks and is just on a hot streak right now, Dombrowski fixes the rotation by trading away both Mookie and Xander...
There are a lot of things that can go wrong individually. I don't expect most of them to. In fact, I think this is a top 5 offense if they don't touch it. But I can see a number of scenarios that can be pointed to if one were inclined to paint a more pessimistic picture. Sign a front line starter, fix the pen and this should be a playoff team. It could be a division winner depending on what the Jays do with or to replace Price.
The X Man Cometh said:
So next year they have question marks that aren't going anywhere instead of question marks that are. Awesome.
The Sox are currently 3rd in baseball with 662 runs. Can someone make a case why the Red Sox should be worrying about their offense regressing in 2016? Ortiz decline?
I don't disagree with your larger point but I don't think your take on Sandoval is fair. The 149 from 2011 is clearly outlier production. After that he went 118, 117, 112 which is pretty steady. Calling that a decline is ignoring season to season variation.The X Man Cometh said:
Well, Sandoval has had a lower wRC+ for five years running. If that is not decline I don't know what is. That's about as much of a trend that you can expect to see. But even then, a bounce back is very low hanging fruit for him.
The X Man Cometh said:
Well, Sandoval has had a lower wRC+ for five years running.
Snodgrass'Muff said:I don't disagree with your larger point but I don't think your take on Sandoval is fair. The 149 from 2011 is clearly outlier production. After that he went 118, 117, 112 which is pretty steady. Calling that a decline is ignoring season to season variation.
I would say he's been a 15% or so better than league average hitter with a high outlier in 2011 and a low outlier this year. Looking at his babip helps to explain some of the high and low ends of the range we've seen and this year he's also has some poor luck with getting hit by pitches or foul balls in bad places.
I wouldn't be even a little surprised by a 110 wRC+ next year.
Drek717 said:Ideally Dombrowski finds a corner infield/corner outfield right handed bat who can be a potential platoon partner for Pablo, injury insurance for Hanley, and a backup OF option if one of the young starters out there gets hurt/falls apart. But worthwhile 3Bs are in short enough supply that you can't really find such a player just kicking around. Ben Zobrist could probably be a good fit but he'll cost too much money.
Oh come on, pulling out a comp to Ruth, Gehrig, Meusel, Lazzeri, Coombs, et al, and 976 runs in 155 games?Red(s)HawksFan said:
I think the only case to be made would be from someone convinced that there's no chance of improvement from Sandoval or Ramirez and that what we've seen out of JBJ and Castillo in the last 6-7 weeks is a complete mirage and they'll soon return to what we saw of them back in May. In other words, an eternal pessimist would be worried about the offense in 2016 because he'd be worried about Murderer's Row continuing to be productive in 1928.
Al Zarilla said:Oh come on, pulling out a comp to Ruth, Gehrig, Meusel, Lazzeri, Coombs, et al, and 976 runs in 155 games?
I hear what you're saying, except the 1927 Yankees were already an experienced offense, with their offense averaging about 4 -5 years as starters. Except Pedroia, who is getting injured more than we'd like, and a 40 YO Papi, a lot of the 2016 Red Sox offense has to come from the kids. I hope Ramirez rebounds; Sandoval, even if he loses weight, I don't know. There was that fastball he took off the knee in May that he should be completely recovered from next year.Savin Hillbilly said:
The level doesn't have to be comparable for the relative likelihood of reaching it to be.