BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I voted for Craig.
In my mind, for a contract to qualify as truly bad then it has to meet the following criteria
1. multi year term
2. significant dollars - where it impacts other player acquisition decisions
3. the players performance is significantly below that of what is expected - given the contract.
The obvious possible candidates are Craig, Masterson, Porcello, Pablo and Hanley
- Masterson qualifies for (arguably 2) and certainly 3 - but not 1 - so that rules him out
- Porcello qualifies for 1 and 2 - but using two months of data to prove 3 is a fools errand - and he hasn't been terrible.
- Panda qualifies for 1 and 2 - as for 3 see Porcello
- Hanley qualifies for 1 and 2 - and - aside from his fielding inadequacies (which will disappear when moved to 1B or DH down the road) - he's value for the money - so that rules him out.
Which brings us to ..
- Craig qualifies for 1, 2 and certainly 3 - we have a winner
It is early, but Sandoval's performance so far certainly qualifies as terrible, no?
- 20/23 among qualified 3B in wRC+
- 22/23 in UZR combined with 7 errors, several of which very directly contributed to losses
- 22/23 in fWAR
(The other guy in FA, Chase Headley, is right there with him in those categories: 18/23 wRC+, 23/23 UZR, 21/23 fWAR)