SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2016 12:18:55 GMT -5
And it's also the same type of posts that people were saying about someone like Josh Hamilton who never got better. Well Hamilton was also going through a lot more problems than just baseball at the time and was approaching his mid 30's with a broken down body because of all the past drug prior use in his past. Hamilton was a special case on his own. Alright, how about 100 other players who never got better and were paid way too much? The point is that just because Hanley rebounded doesn't say anything at all about Sandoval. Maybe Allen Craig will rebound next year too.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 12:23:33 GMT -5
If the Giants agree to a 50-50 deal on the salary and throw in a decent reliever, I would jump all over it. but much more than that and I think they wait and see if he can bounce back, see how Moncada develops and perhaps move Sandoval at the July deadline or next off-season (when the 3rd baseman class is about as unimpressive as it is this year). This is your smartest play in order to retain a lot of lost value. This whole report has a lot of wishful thinking going on. The Sox almost have to give Sandoval one last chance before they dump him altogether. Now if some people want to dump him and the Sox pay 12-14 million a year right now thinking that he could be a dfa candidate by June, then I can see someone's point there.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 12:27:18 GMT -5
Well Hamilton was also going through a lot more problems than just baseball at the time and was approaching his mid 30's with a broken down body because of all the past drug prior use in his past. Hamilton was a special case on his own. Alright, how about 100 other players who never got better and were paid way too much? The point is that just because Hanley rebounded doesn't say anything at all about Sandoval. Maybe Allen Craig will rebound next year too. I see your point and I'm thinking that you're one of those people that would take anything to get rid of Sandoval even if the Sox pay 75% of the contract. I can't say you're totally wrong in this thinking because Pablo may never reestablish value like you point out. It's not a bad way of thinking. At least you're not risking future wins that way.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 12:46:27 GMT -5
Cashner pitched just over 130 innings and was -.7 bwars, that's just as bad as Sandoval's 2015 season. Sandoval has also been a much better player over his career than Cashner. I mean if you had to bet on who will have a higher war next year who would you pick? I'm going with Sandoval and all projection systems feel the same way. It might be a little wishful thinking, but if one team would do it, it's the Giants. They knew how to keep him ready to play. Teams aren't looking at other contracts and comparing them to Pablo's like you are. There's a reason why Cashner only got a one year deal and Texas obviously overpaid for it because of the bad market. You're not getting rid Sandoval for anything more than 3-5 million a year off your payroll or less. That's about all a team should be willing to pay for this guy right now. Are you kidding me? Of course teams look at other contracts, it's what sets the market. Sure the Giants would be taking a risk, but if I remember right they offered him like 5 years 75-80 million. So they got a pick and now get him cheaper, a lot cheaper. I mean at that salary he would only need to be a 1 war player. Do you have a crystal ball? I've never seen someone talk in such absolutes about things that aren't even remotely clear. I will tell you this that if Giants want to trade for him, they will pay a lot more than 3-5 million a year. Those are crazy numbers, Cashner just got 10 million and your thinking another team might only pay 9 to 15 million for Sandoval? Please explain where you came up with those numbers?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 12:50:47 GMT -5
Teams aren't looking at other contracts and comparing them to Pablo's like you are. There's a reason why Cashner only got a one year deal and Texas obviously overpaid for it because of the bad market. You're not getting rid Sandoval for anything more than 3-5 million a year off your payroll or less. That's about all a team should be willing to pay for this guy right now. Are you kidding me? Of course teams look at other contracts, it's what sets the market. Sure the Giants would be taking a risk, but if I remember right they offered him like 5 years 75-80 million. So they got a pick and now get him cheaper, a lot cheaper. I mean at that salary he would only need to be a 1 war player. Do you have a crystal ball? I've never seen someone talk in such absolutes about things that aren't even remotely clear. I will tell you this that if Giants want to trade for him, they will pay a lot more than 3-5 million a year. Those are crazy numbers, Cashner just got 10 million and your thinking another team might only pay 9 to 15 million for Sandoval? Please explain where you came up with those numbers? I'm not going to cloud up this thread by arguing again with you for the sake of others. Point is no one is going to pay (statistically the worst player in baseball two years ago coming off major shoulder surgery last year) half of Pablo's contract to take him. You're dead wrong about this and that's all I have to say.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 13:03:33 GMT -5
I don't want to argue. I just want to know how everything you say is in absolutes, like your 100% right and everyone else is dead wrong. The fact that reports have surfaced showing that other teams might be interested in trading for Sandoval, tells me at least some teams think he can bounce back at age 30, which isn't crazy. It's not like we don't know the reason he sucked. He was massively over weight, I mean the guy broke his belt swinging at the plate. Reports show he's in the best shape he's been since we signed him. The Giants know how to deal with him. He got big money and just let his weight go, now he seems to care enough to try and resurrect his career, the Giants knowing him might want to gamble that they can keep him in shape. It's not a crazy idea like you think.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 13:09:09 GMT -5
Having some interests for other teams is basically saying "interests that only benefit that particular team."
If a team pays 25% of the contract and risks only that much for a player who (could) be productive, then yeah why not?
Anything above that is a absolute risk and a unnecessary risk for any team outside of Boston. Boston is going to have to play him to help raise his value if in the future they want teams to risk more in terms of dollars. That's just the simple truth to all of this.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 13:19:27 GMT -5
I'm not saying I'm right and everyone is wrong either. I'm saying it's wishful thinking if anyone thinks the Sox are getting bailed out by only paying half of Pablo's contract. If people want to believe in ghosts and fairy tales then you have that right too.
Maybe there's another dumb Magic Johnson like owner that wants to buy a team and take on a lot of bad money and throw in prospects. That would be awesome again.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Nov 26, 2016 13:20:54 GMT -5
No they have interest because they have a need. The Giants traded Duffy and right now only have a utility guy in Nunez to play 3B. They might take a risk to fill a need, not because they get him for pennies on the dollars. Teams do things like that all the time.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2016 13:23:13 GMT -5
Nobody is right or wrong until/unless Sandoval is traded and you see exactly what the terms are. It's all speculation. No one can read the minds of all 30 people who run MLB teams.
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Nov 26, 2016 13:48:10 GMT -5
You keep calling Pablo "statistically the worst player in baseball two years ago" when it isn't true.
He wasn't even statistically the worst player on his team in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 13:52:42 GMT -5
You keep calling Pablo "statistically the worst player in baseball two years ago" when it isn't true. He wasn't even statistically the worst player on his team in 2015. Okay "one of the 5 worst statistical players in 2015." I still don't think it changes his perception whether he's the worst or one of the worst in terms of performance in 2015 however. I was emphasizing the point that Pablo has zero value right now.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,924
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 26, 2016 17:01:10 GMT -5
Well Hamilton was also going through a lot more problems than just baseball at the time and was approaching his mid 30's with a broken down body because of all the past drug prior use in his past. Hamilton was a special case on his own. Alright, how about 100 other players who never got better and were paid way too much? The point is that just because Hanley rebounded doesn't say anything at all about Sandoval. Maybe Allen Craig will rebound next year too. There's a very common pattern of guys performing badly in the first year after free agency and then rebounding. 3.5, -1.3, 2.8. That's Hanley. 7.8, 2.9, 8.2. That's Carlos Beltran. I know there have been many others. It's common enough that you should never write off a player after his first post-free agency year. You keep calling Pablo "statistically the worst player in baseball two years ago" when it isn't true. He wasn't even statistically the worst player on his team in 2015. Okay "one of the 5 worst statistical players in 2015." I still don't think it changes his perception whether he's the worst or one of the worst in terms of performance in 2015 however. I was emphasizing the point that Pablo has zero value right now. He was 20th worst in bWAR, and 30th worst in bWAR/650 among guys with 250 PA.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 26, 2016 17:18:06 GMT -5
Alright, how about 100 other players who never got better and were paid way too much? The point is that just because Hanley rebounded doesn't say anything at all about Sandoval. Maybe Allen Craig will rebound next year too. There's a very common pattern of guys performing badly in the first year after free agency and then rebounding. 3.5, -1.3, 2.8. That's Hanley. 7.8, 2.9, 8.2. That's Carlos Beltran. I know there have been many others. It's common enough that you should never write off a player after his first post-free agency year. The thing is, Pablo wasn't even that good to begin with (wRC+ of 118, 117, 110 in '12-'14) and has a good portion of his value is tied up in being average defensively at 3B which will be difficult to get back to. His hitting profile is awful with the lack of walks and his contact rate will likely decline quicker than most with how much of a free-swinger he is. And his baserunning will only decline and it's really bad now. He has to hit better than he did with the Giants to even be a 2 win player. I'll be shocked if he's above replacement level and way more shocked if he's as good as Shaw. There is very little upside there. His upside for me is that at best, he'll be no better than Shaw. At worst, he'll be unplayable at 3B and below replacement level as a 1B or DH. Hanley's upside was that he'd be one of the best hitters in the league. It's better to compare Sandoval to other 2-3 win players without any elite skills who collapse like Allen Craig or Daniel Nava.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Nov 26, 2016 19:09:42 GMT -5
Don't forget, he murders those high pitches. Or, at least, tries to.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 26, 2016 19:37:07 GMT -5
There's a very common pattern of guys performing badly in the first year after free agency and then rebounding. 3.5, -1.3, 2.8. That's Hanley. 7.8, 2.9, 8.2. That's Carlos Beltran. I know there have been many others. It's common enough that you should never write off a player after his first post-free agency year. The thing is, Pablo wasn't even that good to begin with (wRC+ of 118, 117, 110 in '12-'14) and has a good portion of his value is tied up in being average defensively at 3B which will be difficult to get back to. His hitting profile is awful with the lack of walks and his contact rate will likely decline quicker than most with how much of a free-swinger he is. And his baserunning will only decline and it's really bad now. He has to hit better than he did with the Giants to even be a 2 win player. I'll be shocked if he's above replacement level and way more shocked if he's as good as Shaw. There is very little upside there. His upside for me is that at best, he'll be no better than Shaw. At worst, he'll be unplayable at 3B and below replacement level as a 1B or DH. Hanley's upside was that he'd be one of the best hitters in the league. It's better to compare Sandoval to other 2-3 win players without any elite skills who collapse like Allen Craig or Daniel Nava. As an empirical matter, most players who precipitously drop off in their age 28 season do in fact bounce back to be productive MLB players. See, for instance, this analysis of Allen Craig comparables. Saying you'd be shocked if he was better than replacement level seems much more like a grudge against the specific player than sober analysis. He's probably not the above-average starter that they paid for going forward, but he's also probably not a DFA candidate.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 20:20:49 GMT -5
In reference to this article and the idea that Sandoval could go back to the Giants, what about this idea that was brought up in another forum that I visited- Pablo Sandoval and Clay Buchholz for Jeff Samardzija. -Nunez goes from third base to LF -Pablo goes to third for the Giants -San Francisco gets a replacement in the rotation for Shark -Boston gets rid of Sandoval and takes on a pitcher instead This sounds at least like a plausible idea to me. The Giants take on more payroll in 2017 while the Sox take on more payroll possibly by the last year of Shark's deal.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 22:23:14 GMT -5
In reference to this article and the idea that Sandoval could go back to the Giants, what about this idea that was brought up in another forum that I visited- Pablo Sandoval and Clay Buchholz for Jeff Samardzija. -Nunez goes from third base to LF -Pablo goes to third for the Giants -San Francisco gets a replacement in the rotation for Shark -Boston gets rid of Sandoval and takes on a pitcher instead This sounds at least like a plausible idea to me. The Giants take on more payroll in 2017 while the Sox take on more payroll possibly by the last year of Shark's deal. I could kind of see that happening, although I'm not sure the Sox would want to take on even more cost for a pitcher who's best season was three years ago, and who struggled mightily in the AL in 2015. His numbers were OK last year in SF, but that's a fantastic pitcher's park. Plus, he'd be their sixth starter. That's a lot of salary for a glorified swingman. They can almost certainly deal Buchholz for some (small) value and no $ cost. And that leaves 3/58(?) for Panda vs 4/72 for Shark. But, Samardzija's contract might be more moveable, so it's certainly possible and has some merit.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 22:47:06 GMT -5
In reference to this article and the idea that Sandoval could go back to the Giants, what about this idea that was brought up in another forum that I visited- Pablo Sandoval and Clay Buchholz for Jeff Samardzija. -Nunez goes from third base to LF -Pablo goes to third for the Giants -San Francisco gets a replacement in the rotation for Shark -Boston gets rid of Sandoval and takes on a pitcher instead This sounds at least like a plausible idea to me. The Giants take on more payroll in 2017 while the Sox take on more payroll possibly by the last year of Shark's deal. I could kind of see that happening, although I'm not sure the Sox would want to take on even more cost for a pitcher who's best season was three years ago, and who struggled mightily in the AL in 2015. His numbers were OK last year in SF, but that's a fantastic pitcher's park. Plus, he'd be their sixth starter. That's a lot of salary for a glorified swingman. They can almost certainly deal Buchholz for some (small) value and no $ cost. And that leaves 3/58(?) for Panda vs 4/72 for Shark. But, Samardzija's contract might be more moveable, so it's certainly possible and has some merit. Well the Sox would actually decrease the AAV from 19 to 18 million a year in Sandoval's to Shark's contracts, and like you said maybe his contract would be easier to move later. I wouldn't be worried about the rotation numbers, as illustrated in another thread (the Chris Sale thread) the innings and injuries are a potential problem. If anything Shark would be a benefit in the innings department at the back end of the rotation. I actually like this idea more and more I think about it actually.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 23:01:58 GMT -5
Add- Sandoval is at 3/58 and Buchholz would raise the value to 3/71.5 instead of 4/72 of Shark's deal.
The money adds up to about even. Bad contract for bad contract. Maybe this is what the Giants were thinking in terms of trade for Sandoval. It would make a little more sense at least.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 23:16:13 GMT -5
Add- the fact that the Giants would take 13.5 for Buchholz actually adds more money to the actual Giants payroll. Sandoval is actually at 3/63 (with the 5 million dollar buyout of option year number 4) and Buchholz would raise the value to 3/76.5 instead of 4/72 of Shark's deal. The money adds up to about even. Bad contract for bad contract. Maybe this is what the Giants were thinking in terms of trade for Sandoval. It would make a little more sense at least. Yeah, and he has good history there. It also, like you said, gets them out of a longer contract and into a short one on a pitcher. Righetti and Pac Bell might help Buchholz a lot, so it might be good in that sense for the Giants. I kind of like it the more I think about it, too.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 23:21:59 GMT -5
Add- the fact that the Giants would take 13.5 for Buchholz actually adds more money to the actual Giants payroll. Sandoval is actually at 3/63 (with the 5 million dollar buyout of option year number 4) and Buchholz would raise the value to 3/76.5 instead of 4/72 of Shark's deal. The money adds up to about even. Bad contract for bad contract. Maybe this is what the Giants were thinking in terms of trade for Sandoval. It would make a little more sense at least. Yeah, and he has good history there. It also, like you said, gets them out of a longer contract and into a short one on a pitcher. Righetti and Pac Bell might help Buchholz a lot, so it might be good in that sense for the Giants. I kind of like it the more I think about it, too. Sorry I had to edit the actual deal of Sandoval. The 3/58 does include the 5 million dollar buyout apparently. So good on you for being correct in that sense.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Nov 26, 2016 23:25:44 GMT -5
This kind of trade would open up the potential for a Justin Turner signing with Buchholz's salary being gone and the best part is that if the owners truly do give up the QO (as a part of the new CBA negotiations), Turner wouldn't even cost a first round pick, which is even better.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Nov 26, 2016 23:53:32 GMT -5
This kind of trade would open up the potential for a Justin Turner signing with Buchholz's salary being gone and the best part is that if the owners truly do give up the QO (as a part of the new CBA negotiations), Turner wouldn't even cost a first round pick, which is even better. Probably. It wouldn't kill them this year (we'll find out the new lux tax threshold), but it might be an issue next year. Though, at that point you would think that they could move either Turner (if Moncada were ready; or even keep Turner at 1b) or Shark. I have to think that, barring total disaster, someone would be interested in Samardzija on a 3/$54M deal. That's about market AAV on a 3/4 right now, and it'd be a short deal, which is attractive. Again, if Turner were a 4/$70M option, I think that's a reasonable plan. The deals aren't prohibitively long or expensive, and both players would probably retain reasonable trade value (I think Turner could be a steal). Turner's not all that less productive than Encarnación, and he would benefit from Fenway/AL East parks (except TB, of course). He also has much more defensive value, and is younger by several years. The Sox add offense, better 3b defense, Shaw becomes completely tradeable for a 'pen arm +/- a prospect (filling another hole), and the Sox get an innings-eater with some upside. Not a bad plan. Nice thinking.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Nov 27, 2016 0:08:48 GMT -5
|
|
|