New and Improved--Pablo Sandoval, 3B

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
In the past, Plouffe has been used in a kind of Holt-type role. The Twins played him at SS much more than at third all through the minors, but the numbers suggest he's god-awful in the middle infield spots. He's average to good at the infield corners, however, and has too few outfield innings to make any sort of judgement.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
^ Not really. They tried him at various positions early on, and he was awful at most (after proving he could not play SS). He settled at 3rd base and, over 3 + years, became a decent fielder there. He's played a little1st the past two seasons, first as they worked to get Sano in the line-up and then as a back-up to Mauer. I haven't seen him enough at 1st to say whether he looks particularly good there.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I'm guessing he wants to be sure there isn't more money and/or playing time out there before he settles for a platoon role with a good team.
Yup. I think the playing time thing is key. No one's going to give him much money this winter, but if he can find a team that will give him a full-time role, he might be able to parlay that into a better contract for 2018, maybe even for more than one year if he can recover his 2014 form. That's not likely to happen with the Sox, though, so I wouldn't expect him to sign here for short money unless he's good and well out of alternatives.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Yup. I think the playing time thing is key. No one's going to give him much money this winter, but if he can find a team that will give him a full-time role, he might be able to parlay that into a better contract for 2018, maybe even for more than one year if he can recover his 2014 form. That's not likely to happen with the Sox, though, so I wouldn't expect him to sign here for short money unless he's good and well out of alternatives.
I disagree that it is unlikely here. There is a very real and very visible possibility on the table that Pablo's comeback plays out to be a complete bust. A slightly over .700 OPS people claim they'd be content with here isn't going to secure him the job imo if his defense still sucks, and year 3 of a terrible contract is beyond the point where salvage hopes alone are going to keep him afloat.

As far as potential opportunities go there is a fairly decent chance this may end up being one of the better ones Plouffe will see this winter.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Yeah, basically this. Plouffe has more of a track record and seems to be a better defender as well. I totally agree Rutledge could emerge as a better option ... in which case you play him, and you unload Plouffe. Whereas if you don't have Plouffe, there is a good chance that you are looking to make the same kind of addition in season and take on salary, plus pay prospects for it. I just don't see the money as a big obstacle, they are like 15mm under the tax as of today and they freed up cash in order to be able to make improvements around the edges of the roster. This would be an improvement around the edge of the roster.
More of a track record is an understatement there too. Rutledge has under 20 majors/minors career starts at 3B, and for a borderline talent to begin with that is not exactly screaming security depth covered.

Worst case scenario Plouffe gives you the option of a more realistic fall back starter, who while less then super ideal at least then keeps Brock Holt in the utility role where he arguable belongs
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
As far as potential opportunities go there is a fairly decent chance this may end up being one of the better ones Plouffe will see this winter.
No, there's really not a fairly decent chance of that. If he's willing to sign for that little, there are plenty of teams that would give him a much more secure role to play a significant enough amount of games to earn him a bigger deal next year and likely even a starting role. Taking backup money for a bench role clearly isn't something he's ready to sign off on and counting on Pablo to shit the bed is just bad business.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
No, there's really not a fairly decent chance of that. If he's willing to sign for that little, there are plenty of teams that would give him a much more secure role to play a significant enough amount of games to earn him a bigger deal next year and likely even a starting role. Taking backup money for a bench role clearly isn't something he's ready to sign off on and counting on Pablo to shit the bed is just bad business.
Who exactly are these teams though? I've yet to see even the hint of a rumor that one team was considering him as a starter option, much less plenty.

Pablo was the worst player in the league in 2015, can't hit lefties, and just sat out 2016. If Plouffe ends up having to take a backup role somewhere then targeting the one here is hardly bad business imo.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
There generally isn't a lot of 'rumors' about guys in that tax bracket or utility guys. As to specific teams, why wouldn't the A's, Phillies or Padres or similar teams that are looking to build assets he interested and have room to offer him a much more guaranteed number of games played drop $3M and have a trade chip at the deadline? It's great you think Pablo is toast and while that's certainly an unknown, he's going to get half the season the show if that's true or not. 30 year old guys with a decent track record, coming off an injury season, generally don't settle for shit money and fifth seat on the bench, hoping for the $19M guy to crap out. They take playing time and a chance to make one last contract, not $2-3M on a one year deal. If he takes $2M to be a bench guy he needs to fire his agent.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
If one of those teams isn't offering him a starting gig I'm failing to see why he would be looking at "a much more guaranteed number of games" elsewhere then he would here. On top of what I already pointed out we just signed LHH Mitch Moreland as our starting first baseman, and the one prospect here who might have been a serious threat to knock on the door in 2017 already got traded. Plus he'd joining one of the AL favorites to boot.

Grass isn't getting much greener then that.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Ok, lets do it this way.

The Red Sox signed Pablo to a huge contract. At the time he was fat, his production against righties had dipped and they presumably knew his shoulder was at least a bit fucked up. He battled injuries (and weight) his first season of that deal. The second worsened to the point he needed surgery. Since he seemingly was motivated and contrite enough to knock the shit out of rehab and conditioning and looks to be as positive a scenario as could possibly be imagined heading into the season, given his recent history. All the way to the point the team felt it safe to trade the (albeit replacement level) incumbent (that stole his job in spring training last year) and also trade the seeming heir apparent stud prospect.

A brief aside -
It is not past the point of no return on his contract. If you didn't learn this almost exact scenario with the John Lackey experience, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Further, the owners, while generous in payroll are not beyond wanting a return on their money, nor being sick of wasting it. Pablo isn't DD's fault, but JH signed off on it. Just like he did the money being pissed away on Craig and Castillo. They are not just going to pay him to go away or bench him without giving him a chance to earn it. Anyone thinking he's going to play less than 120-130 games this year no matter how well he hits, well, I'd gladly make a side wager over PM with them.

As to Plouffe getting time, let's remember Brock Holt is going to be the primary backup at 2B and 3B, secondary at OF and even 1B. He can emergency sub at SS but it's not ideal, so an addition would be best served to have middle infield capability (Hernandez). Hanley will be playing at 1B a decent portion of the year - they've said they want to use DH as a rotation now and there's no reason to doubt them on that.

The only reason Plouffe would think he'd get more time in Boston than elsewhere is if he has absolutely no market (which is impossible to know; only bored guys bother take the time to dig on guys like this or the reports they have, like the Herald one, are planted) or if his agent genuinely thinks Pablo is going to shit the bed early and often and the Sox are going to cut bait quick, in which case I resort back to him needing a new agent.

I find it very unlikely he gives much of a shit if he signs with a playoff team. His interest is getting some run and getting one last multi year contract from someone. If he signs for that kind of money and plays well, he'd almost definitely be a deadline acquisition and get his playoff experience anyway.

And no, the grass is not greenest in Boston for those things to happen.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
There generally isn't a lot of 'rumors' about guys in that tax bracket or utility guys. As to specific teams, why wouldn't the A's, Phillies or Padres or similar teams that are looking to build assets he interested and have room to offer him a much more guaranteed number of games played drop $3M and have a trade chip at the deadline? It's great you think Pablo is toast and while that's certainly an unknown, he's going to get half the season the show if that's true or not. 30 year old guys with a decent track record, coming off an injury season, generally don't settle for shit money and fifth seat on the bench, hoping for the $19M guy to crap out. They take playing time and a chance to make one last contract, not $2-3M on a one year deal. If he takes $2M to be a bench guy he needs to fire his agent.
If he takes $2mil, it's because that was his market.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
PP,

While I agree with the general point that we shouldn't project our own desires onto Plouffe or assume it's a desirable scenario for him, let's not forget that there is downside risk for him in going to a place like Oakland or Philly too. One of those teams may be able to offer him more games on paper, but if he starts slow he could easily lose some or all of those PAs to some kid, or end up buried or traded somewhere lousy or whatever else. If a contender is offering him a part time but well-defined role that plays to his strengths, he might reasonably conclude that it's in his best long term interest to put up a nice slash line in a major market for a contender, with some room for upside if the other guy breaks down. And if it's a close call, he might be enticed if our offer is a million bucks better than the next best, which is why I say I would be fine adding Plouffe for 4-5M instead of 2 or 3 if that's what it takes and the FO thinks he's a good bet.

And I don't really agree that Holt's presumed status as the "primary backup" for 3b really matters here. If we have a RHH 3B who can put up a .775-.800ish line against LHP with good defense, then in my mind that makes Holt the primary backup against RHP. You've got Hernandez and possibly Rutledge in AAA if you need another MI for a week or so, and as far as in-game scenarios go, I personally think the option for some RH thump off the bench is more important than the chance to use Josh Rutledge as a defensive replacement if both our starting MI are out of the game.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
As to Plouffe getting time, let's remember Brock Holt is going to be the primary backup at 2B and 3B, secondary at OF and even 1B.
As to the bolded: Not if we have Trevor Plouffe, he isn't. Plouffe is a better hitter than Holt, and a better defensive corner infielder, so it would be silly to give Holt preference over him at those spots.

Signing Plouffe assumes that Holt reverts to his arguably natural job, which is to back up middle infield and occasionally outfield. It also assumes that we do not carry another UIF like Hernandez or Rutledge.

As far as teams that could give Plouffe a larger role, on a closer look (being one of those bored guys you mention), I'm not sure there are any. You mention Oakland, Philly and SD; but all three of those teams have incumbents at 3B (the only position where Plouffe is likely to be attractive as a full-time player for anybody). If SD shops Solarte, maybe that creates an opening for Plouffe, though this seems unlikely since their motive for shopping Solarte would presumably be financial, and Plouffe will cost about as much (granted, they'd come out ahead by whatever value Solarte would fetch, so maybe not so unlikely). Philly and Oakland have young, cost-controlled guys at 3B; either of them might underperform Plouffe next year, but there's a decent chance they won't, and why spend the extra couple of million to roll that pair of dice?

Obviously, there's lots of time for trades or other signings to change this picture. But right now it's hard for me to find a team where you can say "clearly these guys have a hole at 3B that it would make sense to sign Plouffe to fill."
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
PP,

While I agree with the general point that we shouldn't project our own desires onto Plouffe or assume it's a desirable scenario for him, let's not forget that there is downside risk for him in going to a place like Oakland or Philly too. One of those teams may be able to offer him more games on paper, but if he starts slow he could easily lose some or all of those PAs to some kid, or end up buried or traded somewhere lousy or whatever else. If a contender is offering him a part time but well-defined role that plays to his strengths, he might reasonably conclude that it's in his best long term interest to put up a nice slash line in a major market for a contender, with some room for upside if the other guy breaks down. And if it's a close call, he might be enticed if our offer is a million bucks better than the next best, which is why I say I would be fine adding Plouffe for 4-5M instead of 2 or 3 if that's what it takes and the FO thinks he's a good bet.

And I don't really agree that Holt's presumed status as the "primary backup" for 3b really matters here. If we have a RHH 3B who can put up a .775-.800ish line against LHP with good defense, then in my mind that makes Holt the primary backup against RHP. You've got Hernandez and possibly Rutledge in AAA if you need another MI for a week or so, and as far as in-game scenarios go, I personally think the option for some RH thump off the bench is more important than the chance to use Josh Rutledge as a defensive replacement if both our starting MI are out of the game.

Holt might be 2nd on the depth chart if Panda falls flat on his face, but if Panda is servicable, Plouffe would be in line for more playing time. Barring injuries, Holt role is backup 2b/SS and 5th OF. Plouffe is the better fit at 1b/3b due to his handedness and if he can play LF, even better. Also, as you pointed out, he would be able to put up a nice slash line because he would be strictly platooned and someone might pay for that next year. If he can put up that .800 OPS with good defense in 250ish PA, some team would look at him as a starter.

If Plouffe is signed, I wonder if Holt would be shopped around. Some team might see him as a starter and there are probably better options for left handed bench bat and better options for a defensive 2b/SS. It would probably depend on the return, as Holt would still have a role here. Just a smaller one than the last few years.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
I wouldn't be too quick to shop Holt, since Plouffe is presumably only signed for a year and is no sure thing... I feel like trading Holt might net some long term value in prospects in exchange for the small drop off from Holt to Hernandez / Rutledge on the present roster, plus the increased risks in terms of depth if someone sucks or gets hurt. Given how this team is currently built, I'd be inclined to take the present value, versatility & depth there, and keep Holt unless the offer is way better than expected.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I'd hate to see Holt go. He's the Sox version of Ben Zobrist and his versatility provides much more value than his stat lines represent.
Can we stop saying this? Zobrist is an outstanding hitter. Holt is not. It would be closer to the truth to say he's the Sox version of Sean Rodriguez.

Holt was hugely valuable to the Sox in 2014 and the first half of 2015, when the roster was in a bit of a shambles between declining vets and underperforming kids. When your starting lineup looks like the Riddler's costume, versatility is a major asset, which is why the Rays have leaned heavily on guys like Zobrist and Rodriguez. When you have a solid starting lineup with relatively few question marks, as the Sox now do, it's still useful but not as important.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Can we stop saying this? Zobrist is an outstanding hitter. Holt is not. It would be closer to the truth to say he's the Sox version of Sean Rodriguez.
Thank you. Zobrist is twenty-ish percent better than league average as a hitter, while Holt is ten or so percent worse.

Zobrist hit cleanup for the Cubs in the World Series, and no one thought that was terribly remarkable or surprising. Holt is useful as a bench bat you don't mind playing several times a week.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Can we stop saying [Holt is the Sox version of Ben Zobrist]? Zobrist is an outstanding hitter. Holt is not. It would be closer to the truth to say he's the Sox version of Sean Rodriguez.
I actually looked at Fangraphs and did a comp before writing that. Yes, Zobrist is a much better hitter than Holt right now, but when you compare up their hitting stats by age, they kind of match up. Holt actually had a better rookie year and 2nd year than Zobrist even though Holt was a year younger. Their 3rd season stats are roughly the same. Zobrist hit with more power in 2008 (12 HRs) than Holt (4 HRs) did in 2014, but Holt had a higher average (.281) than Zobrist (.254). Zobrist played 62 games in 2008. Holt played 106 games in 2014.

My point was less about them being the same at the plate, though, than the obvious fact that their Swiss Army Knife versatily has value that doesn't show up on a slash line. [Edit:] For example, having Holt behind Sandoval allowed the Sox to trade Shaw (and change) for Thornburg. Thought experiment: would anyone trade Holt for Plouffe straight up?

I cop to being guilty of projecting Holt's future offensive production as being similar to Zobrist's, but right now, Brock Holt is like a 2008 version of Ben Zobrist. (Is that better?) If he turns out to be a 2009 version of Zobrist, you'd sorely regret trading him.
 
Last edited:

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I cop to being guilty of projecting Holt's future offensive production as being similar to Zobrist's, but right now, Brock Holt is like a 2008 version of Ben Zobrist. (Is that better?) If he turns out to be a 2009 version of Zobrist, you'd sorely regret trading him.
You mean 2008, when Zobrist had a 123 wRC+, a figure that Brock Holt has never touched and has no apparent hope of touching?

In making the year-by-year comparison, you looked strictly at rate stats without checking opportunity. (An easy mistake to fall into, and one I have been known to make.) In Zobrist's first two years, he was terrible at the plate, but he was terrible in pretty small samples (about 300 PA total). He figured things out, started to get regular playing time, and once that happened, showed great plate discipline and above-average power.

By contrast, aside from his first year with the Sox when he struggled badly, Holt has been quite consistent: average-ish walk and K rates, better than average BABIP, worse than average power. It all adds up to a reliably fringe-average offensive profile. There's no apparent reason to imagine any caterpillar-to-butterfly thing on the horizon for him. I suppose anything is possible, but he looks to me like a guy who's already getting the absolute maximum out of his athletic gifts through alertness and hard work, which is why he's so easy to root for.
 
Last edited:

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
You mean 2008, when Zobrist had a 123 wRC+, a figure that Brock Holt has never touched and has no apparent hope of touching?

In making the year-by-year comparison, you looked strictly at rate stats without checking opportunity. (An easy mistake to fall into, and one I have been known to make.) In Zobrist's first two years, he was terrible at the plate, but he was terrible in pretty small samples (about 300 PA total). He figured things out, started to get regular playing time, and once that happened, showed great plate discipline and above-average power.

By contrast, Holt has been quite consistent: average-ish walk and K rates, better than average BABIP, worse than average power. It all adds up to a reliably fringe-average offensive profile. There's no apparent reason to imagine any caterpillar-to-butterfly thing on the horizon for him. I suppose anything is possible, but he looks to me like a guy who's already getting the absolute maximum out of his athletic gifts through alertness and hard work, which is why he's so easy to root for.
Good point about PAs and wRC+. I was seduced by the similarity of their comparison line graphs. Holt is no Zobrist at the plate and isn't likely to turn into one. I'm still rooting for him, though, and prefer him to Trevor Plouffe.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
One of the raps on Holt I've heard is his lack of stamina, i.e. he doesn't seem able to sustain above-average performance in an every-day role. I don't understand how any athletically fit pro can get tired. (I mean any more tired than any other physically fit player.) Is that just another way of saying he's not good enough to be an everyday player? Does being a utility player -- prepping for 3B one week, OF the next... -- take more out of you physically and mentally? If the Sandoval resurrection doesn't work out, is possible that Holt could be a viable Plan B and perform better in a full-time role than as a super-utility backup? This is a question, not an argument.
 
Last edited:

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
One of the raps on Holt I've heard is his lack of stamina, i.e. he doesn't seem able to sustain above-average performance in an every-day role. I don't understand how any athletically fit pro can get tired. (I mean any more tired than any other physically fit player.) Is that just another way of saying he's not good enough to be an everyday player? Does being a utility player -- prepping for 3B one week, OF the next... -- take more out of you physically and mentally? If the Sandoval resurrection doesn't work out, is possible that Holt could be a viable Pan B and perform better in a full-time role than as a super-utility backup? This is a question, not an argument.
Agree with your thinking.

I like Holt and appreciate his role, but the fact of the matter is that over a large sample size, his ceiling is defined not by his stamina, but by his talent level.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,677
Maine
I think it's less a stamina issue and more simply an exposure issue. The more he plays, the more exposed his weak points become and the less impact a hot streak can have. It's not a product of playing multiple positions so much as playing 5-6 games a week versus 2-3.

Last season, he wasn't bouncing around nearly as much as he has in past seasons. Through the end of July (roughly when they called up Benintendi), he only played an infield position 13 times out of 103 games played. Despite being able to focus on being the strong half of the LF platoon and little else, he still slashed 257/327/397 to that point. Not great, not horrible, just what he is.

I suppose that kind of line is acceptable at 3B IF he's also playing net-zero defense or better. Career-wise, 3B is his worst defensive position. I think he brings much more value to the team in the super-utility role than as a primary starter at any position, mainly because I don't think his offense is going to be any different either way.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I think it's less a stamina issue and more simply an exposure issue. The more he plays, the more exposed his weak points become and the less impact a hot streak can have. It's not a product of playing multiple positions so much as playing 5-6 games a week versus 2-3.
It goes along with the exposure thing in a way, but when he's playing a part time role the manager can pick spots where Holt is more likely to succeed and sit him on days he is not.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Another thing to consider and I'm not sure how much weight it carries, but at times Holt's slot in the batting order may depend on where he's playing and who he's playing for. There might be a day or two when he hits up near the top of the order giving Pedroia or Bogaerts a day off with some big bats behind him and at other times during the season he may have been hitting closer to the bottom of the order where there a black whole of suck for a portion of the season. Of course this doesn't account for all difficulties that he encountered when playing as more of a regular, but certainly something that might contribute.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
There generally isn't a lot of 'rumors' about guys in that tax bracket or utility guys. As to specific teams, why wouldn't the A's, Phillies or Padres or similar teams that are looking to build assets he interested and have room to offer him a much more guaranteed number of games played drop $3M and have a trade chip at the deadline? It's great you think Pablo is toast and while that's certainly an unknown, he's going to get half the season the show if that's true or not. 30 year old guys with a decent track record, coming off an injury season, generally don't settle for shit money and fifth seat on the bench, hoping for the $19M guy to crap out. They take playing time and a chance to make one last contract, not $2-3M on a one year deal. If he takes $2M to be a bench guy he needs to fire his agent.
*cough*
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
The debate in question was never that Plouffe wouldn't sign with another team if one happened to offering him a starting gig. It is also not like the A's were ever a shoo in landing spot either with Healy already in-house.

Honestly this strikes me as another somewhat puzzling move out of Beane, unless I'm just missing the part where Healy's glove wouldn't play at third. Then again his decision to not cut bait on Alonso didn't make much sense to me either.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Who exactly are these teams though? I've yet to see even the hint of a rumor that one team was considering him as a starter option, much less plenty.

Pablo was the worst player in the league in 2015, can't hit lefties, and just sat out 2016. If Plouffe ends up having to take a backup role somewhere then targeting the one here is hardly bad business imo.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Again, your whole argument that a better backup opportunity would exist elsewhere doesn't amount to anything here if Oakland did indeed sign him to be their starter at 3rd.

Good call though I guess if you honestly had Oakland already moving Healy to a full time DH role on his 25th birthday.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
No, my argument is that a backup opportunity is never better than a starting opportunity, not when you're 30 years old, coming off an injured season and not ready to become a journeyman utility guy. That you think backup Red Sox is better than starter Any Other Team in that situation is either wearing Sox colored glasses or just being extremely naive as to the motivations of the average professional athlete. Which is to extend and maximize their income as far as they can. As it should be.

This is in no way surprising from either side and I'm not sure how you don't grasp that. There's nothing to question about Beane. This is what he does. Healy can split time at first, DH and 3B, while Plouffe can play everyday, reestablish his value and get moved at the deadline. It's not going to hurt Healy, who isn't anything special to begin with and it basically equates to buying prospects for Oakland (or any other team that took the opportunity).

Healy will be fine and his service clock isn't an issue right now, nor is he banging on the door as a stud young guy that Oakland should build around in their upcoming window. So considerations towards him are secondary. You acquire assets by the means you have. Teams like the As, this is an avenue. It's not rocket science.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
You seem to be missing the part where I never stated that a backup role on the Red Sox would be more appealing then a starting one somewhere else.

I also disagree with your no-brainer logic there. Trever Plouffe simply isn't a good enough everyday player to warrant Healy's move off third imo, and really isn't worthy of a serious "bankable asset for the trade deadline" investment viewpoint at that.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I disagree that it is unlikely here. There is a very real and very visible possibility on the table that Pablo's comeback plays out to be a complete bust. A slightly over .700 OPS people claim they'd be content with here isn't going to secure him the job imo if his defense still sucks, and year 3 of a terrible contract is beyond the point where salvage hopes alone are going to keep him afloat.

As far as potential opportunities go there is a fairly decent chance this may end up being one of the better ones Plouffe will see this winter.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
If one of those teams isn't offering him a starting gig I'm failing to see why he would be looking at "a much more guaranteed number of games" elsewhere then he would here. On top of what I already pointed out we just signed LHH Mitch Moreland as our starting first baseman, and the one prospect here who might have been a serious threat to knock on the door in 2017 already got traded. Plus he'd joining one of the AL favorites to boot.

Grass isn't getting much greener then that.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
As to your assessment of Plouffe vs Healy, Plouffe is a year removed from a 2.5 war season and two years off a 3.9 war season. He's a legit player. Healy is a 25 yo rookie that was never a prospect and doesn't promise very much. In the event he blossoms, half a season isn't going to stunt his growth and even if you get lottery tickets for Plouffe, it's 9/10 worth it. You can always move a good utility guy at the deadline. Christ we just traded for Aaron Hill and his bloated salary.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
You can keep firing away all you want with those quotes, but I'm still waiting to see the one where I state a belief that he would pass up a starting gig to sign here.

Not really buying all that heavily into the absolute WAR math stating that Plouffe's .244/.307/.435 and .258/.328/.423 seasons were worth X amount better then replacement, and $50m+ (or whatever they are calculating per/war value at these days). Plus I believe you are selling Healy short here. Guy slashed .304/.337/.524 with showing decent power in almost half a season in 2016. Just because he's not coming with a can't miss prospect pedigree doesn't mean there isn't room or reason for some optimism there.

If I'm an Oakland fan here I'm already frustrated that Beane didn't move on from their no bat first baseman. Now instead of going out and maybe adding:

1. Another bat that offered more upside potential then what Plouffe can realistically offer.

-or-

2. Somebody who at least capitalizes more on the opportunity value present, and offers the chance at securing a longer term solution.

...they are set with 2 limited upside and fairly mediocre corner IF starters, both on rental contracts. While moving the 25yo kid who might actually have a bright future there to a full time DH role, instead of leaving him be and at least going into the following year with a better idea of what you have there going forward.

Maybe I do need a rocket science degree to see the no-brainer logic in all that I guess? Because Beane's plan there seems like it lacks any real direction imo.
 
Last edited:

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Alright PP, congrats on being right. But let's not pretend it takes a crystal ball to guess that Billy Beane might sign a fringe-platoon vet coming off injury and looking for a make good deal [emoji14]
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Which is why the Red Sox should have been looking at him as a starter, and not a backup.
Plouffe spent a ton of time on the DL last year and has a career .308 OBP. He shouldn't be considered for the primary starter's job on any contending team, especially one that is already paying Pablo Sandoval 20 million to be on the roster and needs to find out if they have any chance of getting any value out of him in the next couple years.

Dombrowski absolutely could not have promised Plouffe anything more than a backup role. It was never even a remote possibility.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,051
Florida
Which is why the Red Sox should have been looking at him as a starter, and not a backup.
Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. Even as somebody who thinks there is a better probability that Pablo busts here then anything else.

Plouffe's entire appeal here revolved around being the best visible and small cash only insurance possibility on the table. Like Snod basically pointed out above though, being worth the look given our current roster makeup isn't the same as *wanting* him to be our starting third baseman. At least enough where you give up on Panda without even giving it that one last try, and/or lose any sleep latter over some missed opportunity factor.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I really hope they've got some proprietary defensive data that makes Brock Holt being the everyday 3B a very solid option for a hopeful division winner. Or some SABRmetric magic indicating that Rutledge is the next Geronimo Berroa. Because anyone thinking of Panda as anything other than a last-ditch shot in the dark is fooling themselves. Like I said, its most akin to bringing in Grady Sizemore to compete for an OF spot in 2014 than anything else.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I really hope they've got some proprietary defensive data that makes Brock Holt being the everyday 3B a very solid option for a hopeful division winner. Or some SABRmetric magic indicating that Rutledge is the next Geronimo Berroa. Because anyone thinking of Panda as anything other than a last-ditch shot in the dark is fooling themselves. Like I said, its most akin to bringing in Grady Sizemore to compete for an OF spot in 2014 than anything else.
There's this other 3b in Portland who finished with a monster half year too. It's not likely, but it's there. Anyone in AA can theoretically be in the majors by July. Even if it is a 20 year old.
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
There's this other 3b in Portland who finished with a monster half year too. It's not likely, but it's there. Anyone in AA can theoretically be in the majors by July. Even if it is a 20 year old.
But that would leave our farm system in the bottom half of MLB. Especially after Benintendi loses prospect status. For shame, end of snarky sarcasm.