Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, July 14, 2017

Red Sox Designate Pablo Sandoval For Assignment

The Red Sox announced that they have activated struggling third baseman Pablo Sandoval from the disabled list and designated him for assignment. Sandoval is midway through the third season of a five-year, $95MM contract.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 10:33 AM | 110 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: pablo sandoval, red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. JimMusComp likes Billy Eppler.... Posted: July 14, 2017 at 10:47 AM (#5493439)
Damn, you knew it was coming but it's still a BIG whiff on a pretty major free agent signing.

   2. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 10:50 AM (#5493445)
Pablo, we hardly knew ye...
   3. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:01 AM (#5493458)
What amazed me about the signing is how bad it was right from the getgo. Third base had been a black hole for a couple of years before that because Middlebrooks couldn't hit, field or run (other than that he was great, well he had a crappy attitude too). Anyway I figured he'd give us a couple years of mediocrity before sliding into a weight-induced level of replacement level performance. Instead, he sucked, missed a year, then sucked. We'd probably have been better off keeping WMB. At least he was cheaper.
   4. Cargo Cultist Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:02 AM (#5493459)
This was way, way overdue. Lesson: never sign overweight players in their decline years to long-term contracts.

I'll be glad to see that fat fraud out of baseball. Howard and now Sandoval - it's a good start.
   5. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:03 AM (#5493466)

What amazed me about the signing is how bad it was right from the getgo.


And they compounded it by signing Hanley Ramirez without a position.
   6. jmurph Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:04 AM (#5493467)
Anyone able to find the thread from when he signed?
   7. Random Transaction Generator Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:05 AM (#5493468)
So, this has to be the worst free agent signing in baseball history, right?

-2.0 WAR for $95million in entirety, and $48.6million of that will be to NOT play for the Red Sox.
   8. Stevis Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:08 AM (#5493470)
Yes but at negative WAR playing him not to play is the better value
   9. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:10 AM (#5493473)
Lesson: never sign overweight players in their decline years to long-term contracts.


He was only 28 when he played his first game for the Red Sox.
   10. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:10 AM (#5493474)
   11. There are no words... (Met Fan Charlie) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:12 AM (#5493477)
This was way, way overdue. Lesson: never sign overweight players in their decline years to long-term contracts.


They couldn't take a lesson from the Mets & Mo Vaughn?
   12. Darren Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:15 AM (#5493483)
Brutal. Not Crawford level, but as close as you can get. More of a Lugo.
   13. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:24 AM (#5493500)
Crawford 0.6 WAR
Lugo -0.3 WAR
Sandoval -2.0 WAR

I'll take the Crawford signing over Sandoval every day.
   14. Nero Wolfe, Indeed Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:26 AM (#5493502)
So this is the point where the Giants give the Red Sox a warm minor league body, and the Sox send Sandoval back to SF while picking up 90% of the contract. Sandoval becomes the Panda again and puts up an OPS of .800 for the rest of the season.
   15. John DiFool2 Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:28 AM (#5493503)
Lesson: never sign overweight players in their decline years to long-term contracts.
He was only 28 when he played his first game for the Red Sox.


I believe that players with both old player's skills AND who are not in good shape (position players note at least) don't age well. Open to a cite that proves me wrong...
   16. jmurph Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:32 AM (#5493508)
Thanks Retro!
   17. RJ in TO Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:34 AM (#5493511)
Instead, he sucked, missed a year, then sucked.


Given how bad he sucked, the Red Sox were lucky he missed that year.
   18. jmurph Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:37 AM (#5493516)
This is possibly a dumb statement, but I'm not sure it's really fair to blame this on Sandoval's weight. He just flat stopped hitting, immediately. He was pretty good in 2014 in SF, and then immediately sucked the following year in Boston.
   19. Captain Supporter Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:46 AM (#5493528)
The Red Sox gave $95M to a man who would not even bother to pretend to stay in reasonable shape. They deserve this. The fact that he has a reasonably good year in SF in 2014 does not excuse making a large bet on his future.

However, I am sorry that they at least had the good sense to realize they had made a mistake and the willingness to admit it by cutting him loose.
   20. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:51 AM (#5493532)
This is possibly a dumb statement, but I'm not sure it's really fair to blame this on Sandoval's weight. He just flat stopped hitting, immediately. He was pretty good in 2014 in SF, and then immediately sucked the following year in Boston.


Yeah but I wonder how much of a cause/effect there is with that. Is a player who is out of shape more likely to collapse than a player who isn't? And as much as he stopped hitting his defense completely cratered with the Sox. He was a joke this year over there. I mean he couldn't field a routine grounder. Hard not to think that the weight wasn't an issue there.
   21. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 11:55 AM (#5493536)
worst 3B in Sox history (minimum 150 games)
   22. The Duke Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:35 PM (#5493575)
Why didn't they like Travis Shaw?
   23. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5493585)
I think they liked Shaw fine but;

- He had a 90 OPS+ last year
- He was MUCH better in the first half last year (.788 vs. .619) so they probably thought he had been found out
- With Holt behind Sandoval they presumably felt that even if Panda wasn't getting it done they were OK. And even Marco Hernandez looked cromulent as emergency fill in
- They needed to do something about the bullpen and Shaw probably seemed like a tradable guy. No one was expecting THIS performance from him.

Obviously it hasn't worked but frankly I thought it was the right move at the time and I suspect the reasoning I've laid out is pretty close to what the Sox were thinking. I highly doubt it was "let's get rid of Travis" so much as it was "we need bullpen help, who is our most expendable asset?"
   24. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5493589)
Recent 3B history for the Sox is now officially the Spinal Tap drummer position, except if Spinal Tap had kicked things off by somehow landing Neal Peart for one tour but let him go.
   25. Darren Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:48 PM (#5493590)
Crawford 0.6 WAR
Lugo -0.3 WAR
Sandoval -2.0 WAR

I'll take the Crawford signing over Sandoval every day.


If tens of millions of dollars mean nothing to you, you could at least share!
   26. Lassus Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5493595)
worst 3B in Sox history (minimum 150 games)

As someone else noticed, Beltre 11th out of 31 with only one year and 7.8 WAR.
   27. Tom Nawrocki Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:51 PM (#5493598)
I believe that players with both old player's skills AND who are not in good shape (position players note at least) don't age well.


I think of old player's skills as power and walks, which weren't really Sandoval's stock in trade. The only thing he did like an old player is run.
   28. Tim D Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:52 PM (#5493599)
One of my worst moments as a fan was seeing Fat Panda take Verlander deep twice in Game 1 2012 WS. Don't usually like to see former "stars" unceremoniously booted but not too upset for this guy.
   29. Jefferson Manship (Dan Lee) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM (#5493600)
What in the heck happened to cause John Farrell to play Sandoval at second base for 0.2 innings this year? Seems like literally anybody else on the roster would be a better defensive second baseman than Panda.
   30. shoewizard Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5493603)
   31. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 12:57 PM (#5493608)
If tens of millions of dollars mean nothing to you, you could at least share!


Or 1 million dollars per season. Crawford was more expensive but for me the money is only as important as what it prevents you from doing. I don't think Crawford limited the Sox meaningfully more than Sandoval (they also acquired and extended Gonzalez) and Crawford was the superior player. Additionally, they were able to give him away (thanks again Adrian) so it didn't cost them near as much. In the end the Sox paid less for and received more from Crawford.
   32. SandyRiver Posted: July 14, 2017 at 01:05 PM (#5493620)
Howard and now Sandoval - it's a good start.


Both players were overrated and grossly overpaid under their final contracts, but I don't see lumping Howard with Panda otherwise. By accounts I've read, Howard had a good attitude and stayed in reasonable shape; his career was derailed by the injury that ended his 2011 PS. Before that, he'd never posted an OPS+ below 125 (except for his '04 cuppa) and afterwards he was usually below league avg as a hitter; he always had horrible D metrics.
Unless he was hiding something prior to 2015, Sandoval had no such excuse (eating for three people during the offseason isn't a single event) that would've predicted him to crater so thoroughly. His OPS+ had been declining - 116 and 111 his last years in SF - but plunging to 75 in his age-28 season is worst-case, and after posting defensive stats at about league avg for SF, that went south in a hurry as well.
   33. Cargo Cultist Posted: July 14, 2017 at 01:35 PM (#5493643)
He was only 28 when he played his first game for the Red Sox.


Bill James' last statistical study on aging showed player skills first beginning to decline at 28. Statistically, overweight, out of shape players decline much faster than fit players.
   34. Cargo Cultist Posted: July 14, 2017 at 01:47 PM (#5493649)
About Howard - he destroyed his career by destroying his Achilles tendon. What you may not know is that being overweight flattens the arch of the foot, which then pulls on calf muscles and keeps the Achilles tendon under strain whenever weight is placed on the feet. This strain increases with how overweight someone is, and it makes injuries to the tendon much more likely.

Which is to say that Howard being overweight may not be the 100% cause of his Achilles tendon injury, but it certainly contributed significantly.

Lesson: never sign overweight players in their decline years to long-term contracts. The risk is too high.
   35. Darren Posted: July 14, 2017 at 01:55 PM (#5493651)
Me, draping myself in glory in that thread that Shoewizard linked. I really thought he'd get 6 years from someone. And I thought he'd be a decent player for at least a couple.

36. Darren Posted: November 07, 2014 at 04:39 PM (#4838287)
No way in the world does his weight stop him from getting a 6-year deal. Prince Fielder got a 9-year deal for Pete's sake. Pitchers in their early 30s are looking at 7-year deals. This is a 28-year-old sought-after free agent with multiple teams interested. Someone will be happy to sign him through age 33.
   36. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5493656)
Was Howard really overweight? I always thought he was a big guy but not outlandishly heavy.
   37. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:04 PM (#5493661)
Which is to say that Howard being overweight may not be the 100% cause of his Achilles tendon injury, but it certainly contributed significantly.

Howard was never particularly fat. He's just a big dude. Comparing him to Sandoval is silly.

Lesson: never sign overweight players in their decline years to long-term contracts. The risk is too high.

Of course the key is identifying that "decline phase". Sometimes it happens at 28, sometime 32, and sometimes not until 38.

Frank Thomas was a big guy, but still had plenty of value in his 30s.

You theory would have passed on Babe Ruth after his 137 OPS+, 3.5 WAR 30 y.o. season. Of course he then went on to produce 82 WAR over the next 9 years, while actually being fat, and not allowed by his team to exercise.
   38. Darren Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:06 PM (#5493663)
Or 1 million dollars per season. Crawford was more expensive but for me the money is only as important as what it prevents you from doing. I don't think Crawford limited the Sox meaningfully more than Sandoval (they also acquired and extended Gonzalez) and Crawford was the superior player. Additionally, they were able to give him away (thanks again Adrian) so it didn't cost them near as much. In the end the Sox paid less for and received more from Crawford.


$1 million per season. Plus 2 extra seasons. Plus inflation between 2010 and 2015. Without diving too deeply into the numbers, Crawford signed a superstar, near-top-of-the-market contract. Sandoval signed a good player contract.

The Red Sox were definitely unable to make other moves because of Crawford. They could have spent that $20 million on players that actually contributed to the team. And recall, it's not an academic exercise. 1-2 wins would have made a huge difference in 2011.

The fact that the Sox could only unload him by giving up other valuable players is not a point in his favor. It's further evidence of how toxic the contract was. It's also sort of irrelevant to how bad the initial contract was.
   39. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:08 PM (#5493665)
You theory would have passed on Babe Ruth after his 137 OPS+, 3.5 WAR 30 y.o. season. Of course he then went on to produce 82 WAR over the next 9 years, while actually being fat, and not allowed by his team to exercise.


CC is against paying any player more than minimum wage. Not MLB minimum, the Federal Minimum wage.
   40. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:09 PM (#5493667)
Howard was not fat.
   41. Booey Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:10 PM (#5493668)
Players who have hit 3 homeruns in a World Series game:

Babe Ruth 1926
Babe Ruth 1928
Reggie Jackson 1977
Albert Pujols 2011
Pablo Sandoval 2012

First ballot Hall of Famers. And Pablo Sandoval.
   42. Booey Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:12 PM (#5493671)
Tony Gwynn and David Ortiz were fat guys who remained All Stars throughout their 30's.
   43. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:16 PM (#5493676)
Players who have hit 3 homeruns in a World Series game:

Babe Ruth 1926
Babe Ruth 1928
Reggie Jackson 1977
Albert Pujols 2011
Pablo Sandoval 2012

First ballot Hall of Famers. And Pablo Sandoval.


Players who have 20 K games:

Max Scherzer
Randy Johnson
Roger Clemens
Roger Clemens
Kerry Wood

Too soon to call Scherzer a 1st ballot HOFer, but he's on his way. And yeah, Clemens.
   44. Rally Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5493681)
CC is against paying any player more than minimum wage. Not MLB minimum, the Federal Minimum wage.


I think that kind of post is insulting to CC. I doubt he is in favor of a federal minimum wage.
   45. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:24 PM (#5493683)
Tony Gwynn and David Ortiz were fat guys who remained All Stars throughout their 30's.


Gwynn was always a great hitter, but he had a ton of weight-related health problems over the last five or so years of his playing career. And Ortiz was shielded by not needing to run or play defense.
   46. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:27 PM (#5493687)
The Red Sox were definitely unable to make other moves because of Crawford. They could have spent that $20 million on players that actually contributed to the team. And recall, it's not an academic exercise. 1-2 wins would have made a huge difference in 2011.


And they were unable to make other moves because of Sandoval. Neither guy was more limiting than the other.
   47. Rally Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:29 PM (#5493689)
So, this has to be the worst free agent signing in baseball history, right?


Ryan Howard was worse. 125 million for -4.5 WAR. Phillies would have been better off if they released him after 2.5 years of it. They would also have been better off if they just paid him 125 million to retire - right after the 2011 season.

The dollars and WAR are worse for Howard, but it's even worse than that. Those dollars were more valuable because the contract started in 2012 instead of 2015, and there was a lot of baseball salary inflation in that short time.
   48. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:30 PM (#5493690)
First ballot Hall of Famers. And Pablo Sandoval.

Panda for HOF!! Hey, there were people who voted for Don Larsen.
   49. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:31 PM (#5493692)
Howard was not fat.

He was big-boned!
   50. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:32 PM (#5493695)
The other problem with Howard, besides the points AROM made, is what a spectacular unforced error it was. At the time he had what, two more years? on his existing contract. They signed an extension with no discount for the team's risk. At least in the case of Sandoval the Sox were at least filling a gaping hole.
   51. Darren Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5493700)
And they were unable to make other moves because of Sandoval. Neither guy was more limiting than the other.


That's not true. $21 Million bought a lot more in 2011 than $19 million did in 2015. And of course, there's the length of the contract.
   52. Rally Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:38 PM (#5493704)
The Pujols deal might be worse. He's at 13.8 WAR (and negative this year) for 240 million. If Pujols can't add more positive value going forward, the difference in the deals is an extra 16 WAR for an extra 145 million.

On the plus side for Pujols, he was pretty good for the last 5 months in 2012, and while the Angels didn't make the playoffs, they were contenders. Pujols was a contributor for the 2014 AL West champion team.

Had they signed a Panda-like player instead to a Panda-like deal, those teams would have been worse. But had they gotten zero value for a 5 year deal instead, at least the contract would be over now and they'd have an extra 30 million to try and find Mike Trout some help.

Unfortunately for them, the Angels committed to both a Pujols deal and a short term Panda-like disaster with Josh Hamilton (3 WAR, 125 million).
   53. Cargo Cultist Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:38 PM (#5493705)
I thought you guys were smarter than to try to object to a statistical trend by citing exceptions.

You can't predict the future worth a damn by using statistical outliers, but you can by using valid statistical trends.
   54. Cargo Cultist Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:41 PM (#5493707)
Howard's BMI is over thirty, which formally classifies him as "obese."
   55. Textbook Editor Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5493710)
Well... Is Panda truly and actually cooked? I mean, he's cooked for his current salary, and obviously the Red Sox can't afford (production-wise) to play him at 3B... But at a MLM salary, would there be zero takers? It would seem to me that someone out there might take a flier on him. Doesn't save the Red Sox any significant $, but saving ~$1 million in salary better than not having it, I guess.

This is a positive step, though. Cutting bait on him should arguably have been done at the end of last season, but I get the urge to hope he can turn in 3 decent months and then you sell him at 20 cents on the dollar instead of 0 cents on the dollar. I think they thought they had decent 3B depth behind him (and they did! as Jose points out)... this is just one of those "how all occasions do inform against me..." kinda moments.
   56. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:47 PM (#5493713)
Howard's BMI is over thirty, which formally classifies him as "obese."


So is Aaron Judge's.
   57. Cargo Cultist Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:49 PM (#5493715)
Your Achilles tendon doesn't give a damn if that extra weight stressing it out is fat or muscle.
   58. Cargo Cultist Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:50 PM (#5493718)
'"There is undeniably a link between obesity and injury risk in adults," states researcher Huiyun Xiang, a researcher at the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Ohio State University.'
   59. Nasty Nate Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:52 PM (#5493721)
Well... Is Panda truly and actually cooked? I mean, he's cooked for his current salary, and obviously the Red Sox can't afford (production-wise) to play him at 3B... But at a MLM salary, would there be zero takers?
I will predict he will appear in an MLB game again in his life, but I don't think there will be a trade during the DFA period and I don't know if he will immediately get an MLB contract.
   60. Darren Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:52 PM (#5493722)
- He had a 90 OPS+ last year
- He was MUCH better in the first half last year (.788 vs. .619) so they probably thought he had been found out
- With Holt behind Sandoval they presumably felt that even if Panda wasn't getting it done they were OK. And even Marco Hernandez looked cromulent as emergency fill in
- They needed to do something about the bullpen and Shaw probably seemed like a tradable guy. No one was expecting THIS performance from him.


The sad part is that they really only needed to be right about one of these things for this not to be a disaster.
   61. Textbook Editor Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:55 PM (#5493727)
One thing I haven't seen written up yet... So does this mean that the team's current approach is: Lin/Marrero & Holt (when he's back) at 3B until 9/1, and then we'll see what Devers can do? Because I can't seem them trading for anyone that would block Devers for 2018...
   62. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:55 PM (#5493729)
Well... Is Panda truly and actually cooked? I mean, he's cooked for his current salary, and obviously the Red Sox can't afford (production-wise) to play him at 3B... But at a MLM salary, would there be zero takers? It would seem to me that someone out there might take a flier on him. Doesn't save the Red Sox any significant $, but saving ~$1 million in salary better than not having it, I guess.


For the money there is no reason NOT to take a shot on him. Pro-rated share of league minimum is couch cushion money for these teams. Personally I think he's got nothing left. I think the best you can get from him now is as a Lefty DH or PH. He can't hit righty and his defense is appalling. .228/.287/.405 as a lefty this year at least shows a bit of pop and maybe you sign him and hope he runs into 15-20 homers. I wouldn't expect him to but I won't be surprised if some team says "oh what the ####\" and gives it a shot.
   63. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:57 PM (#5493731)
One thing I haven't seen written up yet... So does this mean that the team's current approach is: Lin/Marrero & Holt (when he's back) at 3B until 9/1, and then we'll see what Devers can do? Because I can't seem them trading for anyone that would block Devers for 2018...


Probably. He was promoted to Pawtucket today.
   64. Random Transaction Generator Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:58 PM (#5493732)
So, this has to be the worst free agent signing in baseball history, right?

Ryan Howard was worse. 125 million for -4.5 WAR.


Howard's contact was an extension, not a free agent signing.
He was still under contract with the Phillies when he signed the $125million extension.
   65. Textbook Editor Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:59 PM (#5493733)
- They needed to do something about the bullpen and Shaw probably seemed like a tradable guy. No one was expecting THIS performance from him.


This is where the old "don't trade anything useful for a reliever" adage comes into play, right?

I mean... I think their thought process was: we get Thornburg, Carson Smith comes back, we have Kimbrel, Kelly, and Barnes... "hell, some games we'll only need starters to go 5 IP!"

It's not a bad thought, but the history of trading for anything other than elite closers is... Not great.
   66. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 02:59 PM (#5493734)
The Pujols deal might be worse. He's at 13.8 WAR (and negative this year) for 240 million. If Pujols can't add more positive value going forward, the difference in the deals is an extra 16 WAR for an extra 145 million.


I have to quibble with this for much the same reason I'm disagreeing with Darren. At some point the money is an issue but for the most part what's important is what the guy accomplishes. Pujols is overpaid but 14 WAR is hardly disaster territory.
   67. Textbook Editor Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:01 PM (#5493738)
maybe you sign him and hope he runs into 15-20 homers. I wouldn't expect him to but I won't be surprised if some team says "oh what the ####\" and gives it a shot.


Yeah... Would have to be a team with essentially a black hole at 3B, though--no sense at all giving him ABs in any situation other than that.
   68. SandyRiver Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:04 PM (#5493741)
Howard's BMI is over thirty, which formally classifies him as "obese."


Per the height and weight shown at BBRef, Mike Trout's BMI is 32. Suppose his obesity was why he hurt his thumb?
   69. Textbook Editor Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:09 PM (#5493746)
At some point the money is an issue but for the most part what's important is what the guy accomplishes. Pujols is overpaid but 14 WAR is hardly disaster territory.


Yeah, the money is one thing, but to me the roster spot/PT is the big thing... If you rack up PT and get -2.0 WAR, that's bad not because of the money spent but because you've (a) taken a roster spot, (b) been played full time, and (c) had negative WAR performance.

Unless you are truly a cash-strapped team who will go bankrupt because you paid a FA salary to someone and as a result couldn't make payroll (and I don't think this situation exists with any MLB team), the money should really almost never figure into any decision like this one.

But I get that because the salaries are gigantic, it's what gets the focus most of the time...
   70. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:13 PM (#5493750)
Well... Is Panda truly and actually cooked? I mean, he's cooked for his current salary, and obviously the Red Sox can't afford (production-wise) to play him at 3B... But at a MLM salary, would there be zero takers? It would seem to me that someone out there might take a flier on him. Doesn't save the Red Sox any significant $, but saving ~$1 million in salary better than not having it, I guess.

I don't think that there is any MLB team who would sign him to a major league contract and give him a spot on the 25 man roster at present. If he wants to continue a professional baseball career, then I don't see how he does it in the US unless he agrees to a minor league deal.

EDIT: Coke to Nasty Nate
   71. eddieot Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:15 PM (#5493751)
Howard and now Sandoval - it's a good start.

Total false equivalency. Howard was a big dude but he was never in as bad a shape as Panda. He never recovered from his achilles's injury and in fact, he worked his ass off and came back from that injury in great shape, but his legs, thus his power, were never the same.

Sandoval, on the other hand, was a fat slob of a baseball player with an equally fat contract and made no effort to correct that.

   72. Vailsoxfan Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:15 PM (#5493752)
The big players will have Achilles problems is not true. Guys who get injections in their Achilles to calm down tendinitis is probably more applicable. Achilles tendinitis is prevalent in lots of athletes and size has little to do with it. Distance runners get it all the time and they generally are on the low end of BMI. Bigger guys tendons will adapt to the load placed on it same as a smaller guy. Not saying guys who are out of shape cant have more issues physically, but blaming howard's Achilles on his size is misguided.
   73. Textbook Editor Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:25 PM (#5493756)
The big players will have Achilles problems is not true. Guys who get injections in their Achilles to calm down tendinitis is probably more applicable.


Don't have the ability to dive in and research this, but after the end-of-2011 breakdown in the playoffs, I believe it came out that Howard DID have tendonitis and got regular cortisone injections in the Achilles that season to keep him on the field (which obviously seems awful in hindsight, but at the time the 2011 team was sort of seen as the last-roundup shot at a WS ring). I have never doubted the injury management during 2011 basically destroyed Howard's Achilles (and career).
   74. Rally Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:32 PM (#5493760)
I have to quibble with this for much the same reason I'm disagreeing with Darren. At some point the money is an issue but for the most part what's important is what the guy accomplishes. Pujols is overpaid but 14 WAR is hardly disaster territory.


Pujols is was not a disaster. If he had signed a 5 year, 95 million dollar contract they would have gotten their money's worth. But the money is a big issue here.

Let's say you want a burger for lunch. You see a bunch of food trucks on the side of the street. For the first one you pay 5 dollars and the guy hands you a cardboard cutout with a picture of a burger. Before you can complain, he drives off, taking your money. You still need lunch so you go into McDonalds and buy a big mac for another $5.

The next day you go to a truck that advertises the greatest burger in the history of the planet, a double burger made with meat from a Holy Cow, with bacon and the finest of cheeses served on artisan bread. It costs $25. You pay that and the guy gives you a big mac, then drives off with your money. You get a perfectly fine burger that will satisfy your lunch needs, but you've paid $25 for what should have cost you $5.

In both cases you have eaten a big mac and your belly is full. In the first case you got nothing at all for your initial purchase. In the second case your initial purchase gave you something of value, though not what you were expecting. In the second case you are also worse off because you spent $25 instead of $10.

   75. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:42 PM (#5493767)
Let's say you want a burger for lunch. You see a bunch of food trucks on the side of the street. For the first one you pay 5 dollars and the guy hands you a cardboard cutout with a picture of a burger. Before you can complain, he drives off, taking your money. You still need lunch so you go into McDonalds and buy a big mac for another $5.

The next day you go to a truck that advertises the greatest burger in the history of the planet, a double burger made with meat from a Holy Cow, with bacon and the finest of cheeses served on artisan bread. It costs $25. You pay that and the guy gives you a big mac, then drives off with your money. You get a perfectly fine burger that will satisfy your lunch needs, but you've paid $25 for what should have cost you $5.

In both cases you have eaten a big mac and your belly is full. In the first case you got nothing at all for your initial purchase. In the second case your initial purchase gave you something of value, though not what you were expecting. In the second case you are also worse off because you spent $25 instead of $10.


But in each case you are getting something. I think the FA market is more analogous to your whole description without the first Big Mac.

Day 1: I pay $5 and get nothing.
Day 2: I pay $25 and get a $2 Big Mac.

I mean Day 2 is no prize but I'm not hungry the rest of the afternoon.
   76. Nasty Nate Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:47 PM (#5493770)
Yeah, but on day 1 if you have money left over why would you just give up and be hungry?

If they had unlimited money they would have dropped Sandoval before the season and signed Justin Turner.
   77. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:55 PM (#5493777)
Yeah, but on day 1 if you have money left over why would you just give up and be hungry?

If they had unlimited money they would have dropped Sandoval before the season and signed Justin Turner.


Limited availability of burgers. Teams have finite number of roster spots available. Frankly the Sox could've acquired any number of third basemen in the off-season who projected to be better than Sandoval including Travis Shaw. Part of the reason to trade Shaw is that they realistically didn't expect to have room for Sandoval, Shaw and Holt on the same roster. Whether Sandoval costs $1,000,000 or $100,000,000 he's taking up that roster spot and if the Sox aren't willing to just cut him loose then his poor performance is an issue.

Man I really want a burger now though.
   78. ajnrules Posted: July 14, 2017 at 03:57 PM (#5493781)
Say what you want about Sandoval, but his error set up one of the best moment I've seen at a baseball game in person: Josh Hamilton's two-out, pinch-hit, walk-off double on 5/31/2015.

Yeah, that was a really bad signing for Boston.
   79. Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo Posted: July 14, 2017 at 04:00 PM (#5493785)
78 - What I remember about that is other than a homer, that's about the only spot in the ballpark Hamilton could've hit that ball and won the game. Prince Fielder of all people scored from first and the only way that happens is if Hamilton's shot perfectly bisects Betts and Holt.
   80. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: July 14, 2017 at 04:38 PM (#5493806)
You get a perfectly fine burger that will satisfy your lunch needs,

Your hypothetical is based on a completely false premise if you're describing a Big Mac as this.
   81. Walt Davis Posted: July 14, 2017 at 08:22 PM (#5493871)
With regard to Pujols, AROM can make his point another way. Over the last 5 years of his contract, given current production, the Angels are going to pay Pujols $140 M for 0/negative WAR. That's way, way worse than 5/$95. Now sure, in the first 5 years they got 15 WAR for $100 M which ain't bad at all but it's not enough to make up for the extra $45 M they're losing over the next 5 years. There's also some inflation adjustment that needs to take place that will make the contract disaster levels closer but I doubt it's enough to make them equivalent.
   82. PreservedFish Posted: July 14, 2017 at 08:49 PM (#5493888)
I don't care how much owners pay for these losers, what I care about is how much embarrassment and mayhem they cause their teams. Albert Pujols has yet to cause any. Sandoval, on the other hand...
   83. DL from MN Posted: July 14, 2017 at 09:13 PM (#5493895)
Man I really want a burger now though.


I think Sandoval ate it.
   84. He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB) Posted: July 14, 2017 at 09:18 PM (#5493897)
I think Sandoval ate it.


AND the "cardboard cutout with a picture of a burger" on it ...
   85. Darren Posted: July 15, 2017 at 10:20 AM (#5493990)
Why so many analogies to explain this, though? It's a simple economic concept. Paying more for the same is bad. Paying more per unit (in this case wins) is bad. A $140MM contract for a valueless player is a much worse value than a $95MM contract for a valueless player. If you asked me which one I'd rather the Red Sox do tomorrow, I'd say the smaller one.

As for the way forward, if Frazier could be had cheaply (A B prospect?), I'd go for it. Otherwise, Holt and co, then see if/when Devers is ready.
   86. PreservedFish Posted: July 15, 2017 at 10:30 AM (#5493993)
A $140MM contract for a valueless player is a much worse value than a $95MM contract for a valueless player.


Could you please translate this into burger, or at least patty melt, for me?
   87. Darren Posted: July 15, 2017 at 10:46 AM (#5493996)
Okay, fine, but it's got to be veggie burgers. In both cases, you're paying for one of those new lab grown burgers that looks and tastes so legit that some vegetarians can't even stomach it. Grilled with all the fixings on a kaiser roll. At one place you pay $14. They hand you a real burger made from real beef that will clog your arteries and contribute to your early demise. You vow never to fall for this again! But then 5 years later, during which time inflation has mushroomed at 8 percent annually, you forget. You buy another one for $9.50 and you get the same thing. But you still have plenty left over to go to the store and get some tasty boca burgers.
   88. McCoy Posted: July 15, 2017 at 10:55 AM (#5493999)
I was thinking today as I was driving in what a burger would taste like if you cold smoked it for like 10 minutes before grinding it and then cooking it.
   89. PreservedFish Posted: July 15, 2017 at 11:22 AM (#5494003)
Interesting McCoy. You'd need a lot of surface area for the smoke to be noticeable - probably you'd want to smoke diced chunks of meat. I don't think I've ever smoked something without salting it first ... I wonder how that changes the smoke application. But you don't want to salt it first as that can ruin the texture of the burger.

There'd also be some potential safety issues. 10 minutes likely wouldn't be enough to flavor it really, longer increases the botulism risk, and the risk is increased again if you are going to cook the burger less than well-done.

I think I'd rather grind and form the burgers, season them, and throw them in a hot smoker with a meat thermometer. Turn it off at 120. The bigger the burgers, the more flavor. It works great for prime rib!
   90. McCoy Posted: July 15, 2017 at 11:35 AM (#5494007)
Oh sure, you'd have to cube it up first but I'm not a big fan of overly smoked foods. In terms of illness I would say anything under an hour (in terms of total process) is going to be fine. Wouldn't do it as a business model but would if I was just playing around in the backyard.

Did some googling and apparently people have tried it and I did discover an intriguing idea of smoking NY Strips.
   91. He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB) Posted: July 15, 2017 at 11:41 AM (#5494011)
I dunno, I just salt my steaks with smoked salt and/or smoked pepper prior to cooking them. I've got a nice bourbon barrel smoked pepper that's just wonderful on steaks.
   92. PreservedFish Posted: July 15, 2017 at 12:02 PM (#5494012)
I have smoked steaks with great success. Stick a probe thermometer in, cook it to rare, finish on super hot grill. And you can season with sugar spices etc. more so than usual, because it spends less time in direct heat.
   93. Darren Posted: July 15, 2017 at 12:38 PM (#5494018)
Doesn't anyone want to talk about veggie burgers?
   94. McCoy Posted: July 15, 2017 at 12:40 PM (#5494019)
No
   95. The Yankee Clapper Posted: July 15, 2017 at 01:46 PM (#5494039)
Seems like the Red Sox front office screwed up big time by not buying out the remaining $49M of Sandoval's contract for ~ $5M of Holy Cow burgers. And dessert.
   96. zenbitz Posted: July 15, 2017 at 04:46 PM (#5494070)
Great Giant. I mean had he disintegrated for the Dodgers or even Yankees, he'd but the Greatest Giant, but we'll take it.
   97. RMc and the Respective Punishments Posted: July 15, 2017 at 05:21 PM (#5494075)
I thought free agents were supposed to suck after leaving Boston. (I'm looking at you, Fred Lynn.)*

*Well, actually, not really, since you had some decent years after your lousy 1981 season. But still, you had one foot in the HoF by 1980, and had you continued playing half of your games in Fenway you might've made it, like whatshisname, who has 45 WAR to your 53. Ah, well.
   98. madvillain Posted: July 15, 2017 at 05:32 PM (#5494076)
Todd Frazier to Boston for a B- prospect + filler almost completed according to most of the chatter. One White Sox source saying a deal was done but a Boston guy failed a physical last night.

Frazier is a solid 3 WAR 3B and Boston fans will enjoy his defense and power and lament his strikeouts and pop flies. Only a rental, but if he produces I'd imagine they'd sign him for longer term.
   99. Where have you gone Brady Anderson? Posted: July 15, 2017 at 08:06 PM (#5494119)
I'll talk about veggie burgers!

Boca burgers are too dry, generally. They work okay with decent toppings. We eat a lot of Dr. Praeger's kale burgers. The consistency isn't great, so they fall apart easily. The taste is good though. Veggie chicken patties are good too, a bit dry, but they usually approximate actual chicken decently.
   100. Tin Angel Posted: July 15, 2017 at 09:06 PM (#5494168)
I'll talk about veggie burgers!

Boca burgers are too dry, generally. They work okay with decent toppings. We eat a lot of Dr. Praeger's kale burgers.


I like the Morning Star line, especially the Grillers Original.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
rr
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 17 July 2017: Love is baseball, family. Keep the politics out
(1885 - 2:37am, Jul 26)
Last: Count

NewsblogIf we nibble around the edges, we can make this OMNICHATTER last, for July 25, 2017
(124 - 2:14am, Jul 26)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogRafael Devers gets the call
(10 - 1:45am, Jul 26)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogTexas Rangers ready to move ace Yu Darvish in 'right deal'
(11 - 1:37am, Jul 26)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogTexas Rangers Reaction sees 3,000 in Beltre's near future | Fort Worth Star-Telegram
(17 - 1:29am, Jul 26)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogYoan Moncada tops 2017 midseason Prospect list | MLB.com
(3 - 1:21am, Jul 26)
Last: Bote Man

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2022 - 12:47am, Jul 26)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogHeyman | Mets Likely To Promote Shortstop Amed Rosario Soon
(5 - 12:40am, Jul 26)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT-NBA off season thread
(1472 - 11:40pm, Jul 25)
Last: Fancy Pants with a clinging marmoset on his Handle

NewsblogKen Rosenthal - Cubs and Verlander
(32 - 11:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Walt Davis

Gonfalon CubsWhat a difference a week makes
(56 - 10:49pm, Jul 25)
Last: Meatwad

NewsblogJose Altuve continues torrid July in Astros win over Phillies - Houston Chronicle
(33 - 10:10pm, Jul 25)
Last: Ziggy: The Platonic Form of Russell Branyan

NewsblogOT: Summer Soccer Thread 2017
(187 - 9:58pm, Jul 25)
Last: He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB)

NewsblogRoyals Acquire Cahill, Maurer, Buchter from Padres
(18 - 7:45pm, Jul 25)
Last: Shibal

NewsblogMets giving sizzling rookie a shot in Zack Wheeler’s place | New York Post
(6 - 7:24pm, Jul 25)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

Page rendered in 0.8000 seconds
47 querie(s) executed