|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 24, 2014 13:11:21 GMT -5
If the news of these signings is true, the exhilaration that would be felt in Red Sox nation would be equivalent to the Crawford/Gonzalez signings a few years ago. Here's hoping for better results. Crawford was 7/140. The Dodgers still have him on the books for like 3 more years. It was not my intent to throw water on the potential Hanley/Sandoval acquisitions, but rather to show how Red Sox fans felt when Theo signed Crawford/Gonzalez. In retrospect it was awful. That's why I added the hope that these moves turn out better.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 24, 2014 13:13:34 GMT -5
The comps to the Gonzalez/Crawford signings are incredibly lazy. Hey, they signed two players before so this is the exact same situation.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 24, 2014 13:48:06 GMT -5
Just setting the record straight on one important thing - the Gonzalez signing turned out to be fantastic. If the Red Sox hadn't locked him out to a fairly reasonable long-term deal they'd never have gotten out from under Crawford and Beckett.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Nov 24, 2014 13:56:40 GMT -5
Btw Pablo's brother is denying the deal, he says Pablo hasn't decided. Not that I expected he'd say yes when reached by the press but just putting it out there.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 24, 2014 14:30:09 GMT -5
Just setting the record straight on one important thing - the Gonzalez signing turned out to be fantastic. If the Red Sox hadn't locked him out to a fairly reasonable long-term deal they'd never have gotten out from under Crawford and Beckett. Exactly. Gonzalez is still worth more than his salary. He may very well be good for it for that money over the four years the contract still has left on it. That swing is till pretty sweet.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 24, 2014 14:33:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 24, 2014 15:24:35 GMT -5
If there was any doubt:
John Shea ?@johnsheahey 2 min. I can confirm Pablo Sandoval deal with #redsox is done pending physical and that it should be announced shortly. #sfgiants need 3Bman.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 24, 2014 16:49:03 GMT -5
“@lynchiewcvb: Am told that Sandoval had same offer from Giants but left because he felt "disrespected."”
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 24, 2014 17:19:42 GMT -5
For some reason, I'm still expecting a tweet like "Pablo's brother says deal is still not official" for the 4th time today.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Nov 24, 2014 17:56:18 GMT -5
If this deal comes out to be true, it is an abomination of a deal. I haven't been this much against a signing since Crawford, it stinks. I just want to wake up from this and realize it was a (bad) dream.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Nov 24, 2014 17:59:29 GMT -5
There's probably not a ton of excess upside available in the deal at 5/95, but there doesn't have to be in every deal. If he can average as a 2.5 WAR player over the deal, it's probably a slight overpay at worst. Given the alternatives at 3B (eliminating Hanley), they likely would have had to go low cost there and end up with a below average hitter. Since it doesn't appear like this move is going to hamper any other spending, I don't have any problem with it
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 24, 2014 18:37:18 GMT -5
I don't believe this has been posted yet. It's from a couple of hours ago, so I don't know if it's accurate:
Dan Roche @rochiewbz · 7 u Sandoval deal is 5 years and 95 million plus a one year club option - #redsox #wbz
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 24, 2014 23:04:37 GMT -5
By the way, for the record, I strongly dislike this deal.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 24, 2014 23:15:12 GMT -5
By the way, for the record, I strongly dislike this deal. I second this, I love reading the lineup though.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 24, 2014 23:18:07 GMT -5
By the way, for the record, I strongly dislike this deal. Is this simply due to having Ramirez in the fold? I can't imagine much has changed from a week ago when you had said this: "For something like 5/$80m, maybe up to 5/$90m? I'd love to have him, and I think it's certainly possible that he ends up signing for something in that range. It's only because I think he'll cost significantly more than that that I prefer, say, Headley or Hanley or Valbuena." 5 years and $95MM is pretty damn close to 5 years and $90MM.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 24, 2014 23:24:24 GMT -5
I've already posted the chart that shows Sandoval's rather steep decline since his heady days as a 24-year old. The confounding factor is that MLB offensive numbers have been in general decline for those years, but I think there's more to it than that in his case. My opinion is that the contract will be a burden for at least two, and maybe more years. There were better ways to spend that money, I believe. It could be that there were talks with Headley and that those were fruitless. But this seems like an overreach to me.
|
|
wb93
Rookie
Posts: 36
|
Post by wb93 on Nov 24, 2014 23:26:16 GMT -5
The problem with Sandoval is that it looks like you're not getting excess value at the front of the deal which would lessen the risk at the end. Unless there is some kind of behind the scenes "perfect Fenway swing" study like they figured out with Beltre and Ross which has Sandoval as a 4-5 WAR player for the Red Sox even though he was a 2.5ish WAR player for the last 3 seasons. I would love to know how this mapped out. Apparently he loves the opposite field. How will that translate at Fenway? i like it. If they pull off signing Lester and trade for Hamels then next year should be fun.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 24, 2014 23:45:43 GMT -5
By the way, for the record, I strongly dislike this deal. Is this simply due to having Ramirez in the fold? I can't imagine much has changed from a week ago when you had said this: "For something like 5/$80m, maybe up to 5/$90m? I'd love to have him, and I think it's certainly possible that he ends up signing for something in that range. It's only because I think he'll cost significantly more than that that I prefer, say, Headley or Hanley or Valbuena." 5 years and $95MM is pretty damn close to 5 years and $90MM. I'd point out that it was jmei who posted stuff on both the aging curve for heavier players, and the aging stats on plate discipline for guys who swing at as many pitches off the plate as Sandoval does. So he's been leery about this for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Gwell55 on Nov 24, 2014 23:53:32 GMT -5
I've already posted the chart that shows Sandoval's rather steep decline since his heady days as a 24-year old. The confounding factor is that MLB offensive numbers have been in general decline for those years, but I think there's more to it than that in his case. My opinion is that the contract will be a burden for at least two, and maybe more years. There were better ways to spend that money, I believe. It could be that there were talks with Headley and that those were fruitless. But this seems like an overreach to me. That steep decline might of had to do with his right hand Hamate bone surgery in 11 and also his Left in 12 couldn't it. How long does it take to come back from those? Seems to me that sometimes we need to look beyond the graphs and charts to see if there are other circumstances that might cause dips and such in production.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 25, 2014 0:01:27 GMT -5
Just call us the boston Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by redsox4242 on Nov 25, 2014 0:51:29 GMT -5
Just call us the boston Yankees. How so??? We have 13 million in Victorino, 16 million in Napoli, 10 million in Cespedes, 16 million in Ortiz, and 12 million in Buchholz if he doesnt play good this year, all coming off the books in 2015. We have the money to spend, and these owners have to step up and make some moves. Which they did. Now, we turn our attention to pitching.
|
|
|
Post by WindyCityRedSox169 on Nov 25, 2014 0:54:05 GMT -5
Is this simply due to having Ramirez in the fold? I can't imagine much has changed from a week ago when you had said this: "For something like 5/$80m, maybe up to 5/$90m? I'd love to have him, and I think it's certainly possible that he ends up signing for something in that range. It's only because I think he'll cost significantly more than that that I prefer, say, Headley or Hanley or Valbuena." 5 years and $95MM is pretty damn close to 5 years and $90MM. I'd point out that it was jmei who posted stuff on both the aging curve for heavier players, and the aging stats on plate discipline for guys who swing at as many pitches off the plate as Sandoval does. So he's been leery about this for a while. I think most on here would agree and I certainly know jmei knows his stuff and is a smart guy. However Sandoval hasn't grown a gut suddenly in the week since jmei made that comment. Obviously we signed both but I am curious as to why that is a bad thing as most were ready to deal Cespedes for pitching when we were only targeting Sandoval it seemed like. Hanley is a significant upgrade over what we would have with Cespedes no longer in the mix so the deals don't necessarily go hand in hand to me. But curious to see jmei's thoughts on why signing both suddenly turns his thoughts from loving a Sandoval deal at the price we got him for (I don't see the hang up of $1MM more a year) to suddenly hating the deal.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 25, 2014 7:47:18 GMT -5
By the way, for the record, I strongly dislike this deal. Is this simply due to having Ramirez in the fold? I can't imagine much has changed from a week ago when you had said this: "For something like 5/$80m, maybe up to 5/$90m? I'd love to have him, and I think it's certainly possible that he ends up signing for something in that range. It's only because I think he'll cost significantly more than that that I prefer, say, Headley or Hanley or Valbuena." 5 years and $95MM is pretty damn close to 5 years and $90MM. Yes, once Ramirez was added, Sandoval's value significantly dropped to me. I would much rather have Hanley/3B and Nava/Craig/LF and $19m a year than Sandoval/3B and Hanley/3B. ADD: to clarify, for me, Cespedes was gone either way. The difference in the two scenarios is (a) the defensive difference between Sandoval and Hanley at 3B (significant; maybe 10 runs over a full season in favor of Sandoval), (b) the defensive difference between Nava/Craig and Hanley in LF (less, but still some-- let's call it 5 runs in favor of Nava/Craig, as I suspect Hanley will struggle initially with the move to LF), and (c) the offensive difference between Sandoval and Nava/Craig (I think this is lower than you might think-- Steamer projects 11.4 OFF runs for Sandoval and, prorated to 600 PAs, about 6 runs for Nava/Craig-- so let's call this 5 runs in favor of Sandoval). So basically, adding Sandoval made the team just one win better for the next few years, but cost $19m and a draft pick to do so. I think there were better ways to spend that money, whether on boosting their offer to ensure that they sign Lester/Scherzer or on a second starter (whether in trade or free agency). That's not to mention that now they also have to move one of Napoli/Craig/Victorino, none of whom I want to move (Napoli because he's good, Craig/Victorino because you'd have to sell low on them and they have considerable upside).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 25, 2014 7:53:26 GMT -5
I'm waiting on that Fenway Swing article that makes me believe he's the next Beltre. That's the only way this makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 25, 2014 8:01:32 GMT -5
I'm waiting on that Fenway Swing article that makes me believe he's the next Beltre. That's the only way this makes sense. Google "Pablo Sandoval spray chart." Bask in the opposite-field power. Feel slightly better.
|
|