The future at 3rd

[Savin Hillbilly]

Panda is not high on my list of preferred third basemen. That said, he'll be really good for a few years at least. Probably long enough to shift to DH. He'll be overpaid there, but they can afford it.

 
He will certainly be overpaid there. I do like Sandoval, but not at the terms that are being thrown around. He's a 4-win third baseman, right now, in his prime. Which makes him a 2-win DH, right now, in his prime. So if that's where the Sox see him for most of a long-term deal, they sure better hope his offense holds up.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

He had a 739 OPS last year. I'm skeptical that, given his trends in performance, he's capable of being an adequate DH in a few years. A guy who swings at everything and is fat isn't likely to age well, is he?

 
He's not likely to be vintage David Ortiz, but he has a good amount of falling to do before he wouldn't be useful as a DH. OPS is a terrible way to make your point. Using something like wRC+ he was 11% better than league average in 2014. He was 16% better in 2013. There aren't many players left in the majors who you can call pure DH's these days. Of the guys listed as DH in fangraphs.com's leader board you can make an argument for Victor Martinez (115 games as a DH), Nelson Cruz (89), Chris Carter (118), Adam Dunn (93), and Billy Butler (108). So there's David Ortiz, then there's a different version of the DH, then there are teams that just use it as a roster spot they can cycle players through.
 
What he'll provide the team in the last half of his contract is a bat that's about league average or maybe a bit better, who can DH, play 1st and even cover 3rd on the rare occasion, who isn't a Jonathan Herrera at the plate. Bringing up that roster floor is an easier way to secure more wins than trying to raise the ceiling. He'll be overpaid for what he is at that point, but the team will be able to afford it.
 
Edit: I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm not thrilled with the idea of landing him for 6 years at 20 million per or so.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
He will certainly be overpaid there. I do like Sandoval, but not at the terms that are being thrown around. He's a 4-win third baseman, right now, in his prime. Which makes him a 2-win DH, right now, in his prime. So if that's where the Sox see him for most of a long-term deal, they sure better hope his offense holds up.

 
I can't imagine they'd sign him if they thought he'd be off of third after the second year of a six year deal. They have to believe he'd be there for at least three, and maybe four or I just don't see how they pull the trigger.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

He had a 739 OPS last year. I'm skeptical that, given his trends in performance, he's capable of being an adequate DH in a few years. A guy who swings at everything and is fat isn't likely to age well, is he?

This is the big picture here. I hope the Red Sox aren't worrying too much about the trees and miss the forest by going "all in" for a guy who isn't going to age well and whose numbers have been steadily dropping for years now.
 
Sandoval's contract is shaping up to be one of those where a few years later, everyone is wondering "what in the world were they thinking when they gave him that deal? Couldn't they see the obvious staring them right in the face?"

 

[Rasputin]

This is the big picture here. I hope the Red Sox aren't worrying too much about the trees and miss the forest by going "all in" for a guy who isn't going to age well and whose numbers have been steadily dropping for years now.
 
Sandoval's contract is shaping up to be one of those where a few years later, everyone is wondering "what in the world were they thinking when they gave him that deal? Couldn't they see the obvious staring them right in the face?"

 
I think this contract is all about the next three years and they care much less about the three after that.
 
We've got a lot of young talent. It's likely to be better three years from now than it is now because the guys who are in the majors and near the majors will have had time to mature. 2018 would be Bogaerts' fifth full season, Bett's fourth, and probably the third full season of Owens and or Eduardo Rodriguez. Also, in three  years there's a decent chance Rafael Devers is crawling up Panda's ass.

 

[kazuneko]

Not seeing how a guy who put up a .739 OPS last season could possible be seen as a viable DH four years from now. Even if he doesn't decline much with the bat, if a 32 year old Panda can't field a position his value will be only be a tiny fraction of that $20 million per year that he's supposedly seeking.  I mean, that's the type of production you could otherwise get from eminently fungible hitters like Garret Jones.
I also must admit I've always had a distaste for switch-hitters with huge platoon splits. I mean, if Sandoval isn't a platoon candidate yet he may be one soon. His 2014 OPS against LHP (.563) was actually worse than the Sox's team OPS for 3rd base last season (.579) and for his career he's got a Lance Berkman-like .142 OPS split. 

 

[YTF]

All of a sudden people are OK with shifting Sandoval to DH after a couple of years at 3rd? Are you really ok with overpaying the guy in the neighborhood of 20 per for 5-6 years because 3rd base is a black hole only to make him a 20 million per season DH when he's no longer able to play third? I repeat...A $20,000,000 PER SEASON DH? MLB is getting more and more away from the one dimensional DH. Ortiz, V Mart, Adam Dunn and perhaps a couple more but teams are more and more looking toward using the slot as a way to carry an extra position player as well a spot to rotate guys into in order to give a semi day off. For those willing to accept this JUST as a means to move on and focus on pitching, I'd rather address the pitching and worry about 3rd base after.

 

[Average Reds]

I think the issue of the weight is a bit of a red herring.  What scares me about Sandoval is the declining production over a relatively large sample size during what should be the prime of his career.  Given the recent trends (and with his exceptional postseason as an outlier) it feels like a multi-year contract for Sandoval is simply an albatross-in-waiting. 
 
I like Sandoval as a player.  I don't like him for an extended period of time.  I really don't like him for an extended period of time at huge dollars.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

All of a sudden people are OK with shifting Sandoval to DH after a couple of years at 3rd? Are you really ok with overpaying the guy in the neighborhood of 20 per for 5-6 years because 3rd base is a black hole only to make him a 20 million per season DH when he's no longer able to play third? I repeat...A $20,000,000 PER SEASON DH? MLB is getting more and more away from the one dimensional DH. Ortiz, V Mart, Adam Dunn and perhaps a couple more but teams are more and more looking toward using the slot as a way to carry an extra position player as well a spot to rotate guys into in order to give a semi day off. For those willing to accept this JUST as a means to move on and focus on pitching, I'd rather address the pitching and worry about 3rd base after.

Well lets say for instance the Red Sox decide to go this route and sign two starters and miss on Panda Headley Ramirez and to a lesser extent Lowrie whom I haven't heard the drum bang that hard on bringing him back for 50 games a year. What's next? You're taking a gamble that once again the Sox will find an internal answer as the number 1 scenario. Cecchini had a down year, Middlebrooks has had a down 24 months and Devers is 3 years away. Marrero hit like crap in Pawtucket and putting him at SS and Xander at 3rd will not help this offense improve on last years numbers. Brock Holt is not the answer.

Furthermore what options are on the trade market? Donaldson has been mentioned but Beane has gone on record about him being a huge part of the future. Beltre as far as we know is not available.

The pitching part should be easy. Sign Lester and then get a secondary pitcher which this market is very deep with. Whether the Sox get Sandoval or Hanley doesn't matter as long as they come away with one of the two.

As for Sandoval in general the approach here is to try and get his production on a discount for the first three years and have his production exceed the money he's getting paid while hoping his production over the last 2-3 years doesn't drop drastically. Yes the guy is fat. That doesn't mean he's 100% assured to break down. You want to get a fair deal for all parties so if Sandoval is underpaid for his production over the first 3 years which is a solid bet and overpaid for his last two or three then the contract is better than most signed in free agency. He is still 28.

 

[YTF]

Tyrone, thanks for the response. I appreciate your points and I too want to see the black hole at 3rd taken care of ASAP. My comments were Sandoval specific and honestly I would like to see the Sox try to lock down Headley or Hanley and do it sooner rather than later. My concerns are for those who are accepting that signing Panda MAY be a short term answer on a huge contract and suggesting that we simply slide Sandoval into the DH if he can't play 3rd in a couple of years. Realistically were talking 18-20 million on the back end of a 5-6 deal to swing a bat and maybe play occasionally in the field when needed. That's 2-4 million more than The Sox pay Ortiz to do that same job now, but they do it because he's David Ortiz.

 

[KillerBs]

People don't seem to want to talk about the alternatives to Sandoval/Headley/Ramirez.
 
The Mets seem cool to Cespedes now so the mooted Murphy deal doesn't appear to have legs.
 
The argument against signing any of the Big 3 3b does seem to imply a preference for some combo of Jed Lowrie, Brock Holt, Garin Cecchini and WMB manning the hot corner.
 
On Sandoval, I think people are underestimating his defense. He appears to play an average to minimally plus 3B, despite his weight. He also can play 1b, where I would expect he is also pretty good. The ability to flip him to 1b against certain RHPers to give Napoli some days off, and another lefty bat (Holt or GC) in the lineup, would be a plus.   

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Tyrone, thanks for the response. I appreciate your points and I too want to see the black hole at 3rd taken care of ASAP. My comments were Sandoval specific and honestly I would like to see the Sox try to lock down Headley or Hanley and do it sooner rather than later. My concerns are for those who are accepting that signing Panda MAY be a short term answer on a huge contract and suggesting that we simply slide Sandoval into the DH if he can't play 3rd in a couple of years. Realistically were talking 18-20 million on the back end of a 5-6 deal to swing a bat and maybe play occasionally in the field when needed. That's 2-4 million more than The Sox pay Ortiz to do that same job now, but they do it because he's David Ortiz.

I understand. In a perfect world Sandoval would probably not be your 1st choice as a 3rd baseman. But everyone on the market actually has injury issues. Especially Lowrie who is probably a good candidate to have the Disabled List named after him when he retires. The goal is to buy wins. So if his WAR in 4 years is worth 85 million than all he has to do to cover a 100 million dollar deal is have 15 million of production over the last two years. Its possible. In a perfect world I would certainly take Hanley though.

 

[Van Everyman]

Rosenthal:

@Ken_Rosenthal: Sandoval market appears down to #SFGiants, #RedSox. #WhiteSox interest seems limited, #BlueJays same. And Red Sox weighing other options.

@Ken_Rosenthal: As with any FA, things can change quickly for Sandoval; a new team could jump into bidding. But unless BOS makes big play, SF favorite.

 

[TigerBlood]

I understand. In a perfect world Sandoval would probably not be your 1st choice as a 3rd baseman. But everyone on the market actually has injury issues. Especially Lowrie who is probably a good candidate to have the Disabled List named after him when he retires. The goal is to buy wins. So if his WAR in 4 years is worth 85 million than all he has to do to cover a 100 million dollar deal is have 15 million of production over the last two years. Its possible. In a perfect world I would certainly take Hanley though.

 
Think about this situation though. Its kind of the reverse of the Sandoval route except you pay even less. 100 million of WAR is about 13-14 wins right? at $7-8 million per win?
 
Suppose they get no one at all this offseason (money and trades went to other areas of needs). We get 1.5, maybe 2 WAR from WMB, Holt, Cechhini. Say we do that for a year. Then next season we can snag Beltre off the market for his last couple years for ~$16-17/per, who should still be good for 4 or so per year and would benefit from taking some days at DH. So 3 years in we've got ~9 WAR accumulated. Not to mention, Devers, Coyle, Chavis, Guerra have been developing, we will have a much better idea of whether Xander is a legit SS, you get the idea, and have spent about $35 million for the young guys and Beltre. I'm not even going to try to pretend I have an idea of what might happen 4-6 years down the road. But if the first 3 years play out like this, then they only need to get 4 or 5 WAR over 3 years from that spot on the roster for it to be equal what you propose Panda needs to do just to be worth his contract. And they have about $65 million to do it. I believe the FO could find a way to squeeze 4-5 WAR out of third base with that budget, probably much less.
 
The point is that while signing one of this year's free agents is AN option for 3B, there are other ways to solve 3B long term. The biggest plus about going the Sandoval/Hanley route is that Boston almost definitely gets more production in 2015 than they otherwise would, and our draft pick is protected.

 

[czar]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-six-years-for-pablo-sandoval-isnt-crazy/
 
Dave Cameron's take on giving Pablo 6 years.

My issue with Dave's take is that he assumes Sandoval will be worth ~3.5 fWAR next year.

Given that he hasn't reached that number since 2011 (2012 if you want to prorate for injury), I think he's far from a slam dunk to provide net positive value at something like $18m next year and very close to a slam dunk NOT to provide $18m of value towards the end of the contract.

Maybe his numbers are based off Steamer which projects 3.8 fWAR based on some massive comeback in the SLG department (reaching levels not seen in the last 3 years). I get that (not that Steamer is taking this into account) you can argue a little suppression in 2012-2014 based on the hamate bone injuries, but it's very rare for players who are 29 to repeat their age 25 season rather than 26-28.

His argument would be more appealing if the Sox could do something like 6/84, but sounds like that's under what he is going to get.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

I would guess that's it more likely in Ben's mind that the worst (fat) case with Sandoval is moving him to 1B and not DH. As nimble as he is at this weight at 3B, he could probably add 30 pounds and still be nimble enough and obviously have the glove skills to play 1B. Napoli is 33 and all. 
 
Pablo is not Prince Fielder II.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Pablo is not Prince Fielder II.

 
He doesn't have Prince's bat, though, either. And speaking of sobering comps.....
 
Anyway, an average-fielding 1B is only worth about a half-win a year more than a DH with comparable offense. Even at first, Panda is only worth about 2.5 wins a year at the same offensive level that makes him a 4-win 3B (unless his glove plays significantly better at first than third, which I guess is possible).

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

 
Think about this situation though. Its kind of the reverse of the Sandoval route except you pay even less. 100 million of WAR is about 13-14 wins right? at $7-8 million per win?
 
Suppose they get no one at all this offseason (money and trades went to other areas of needs). We get 1.5, maybe 2 WAR from WMB, Holt, Cechhini. Say we do that for a year. Then next season we can snag Beltre off the market for his last couple years for ~$16-17/per, who should still be good for 4 or so per year and would benefit from taking some days at DH. So 3 years in we've got ~9 WAR accumulated. Not to mention, Devers, Coyle, Chavis, Guerra have been developing, we will have a much better idea of whether Xander is a legit SS, you get the idea, and have spent about $35 million for the young guys and Beltre. I'm not even going to try to pretend I have an idea of what might happen 4-6 years down the road. But if the first 3 years play out like this, then they only need to get 4 or 5 WAR over 3 years from that spot on the roster for it to be equal what you propose Panda needs to do just to be worth his contract. And they have about $65 million to do it. I believe the FO could find a way to squeeze 4-5 WAR out of third base with that budget, probably much less.
 
The point is that while signing one of this year's free agents is AN option for 3B, there are other ways to solve 3B long term. The biggest plus about going the Sandoval/Hanley route is that Boston almost definitely gets more production in 2015 than they otherwise would, and our draft pick is protected.

You do bring up a valid point with Beltre. You are also banking on some combination of Holt WMB and Cecchini to get over 1.5 WAR which is not guaranteed by any stretch in 2015. Could WMB figure it out next year? Sure anything is possible and he did have a great first year in the majors. Is it smart to bank on? That's a different story.

Holt had a career year, Cecchini plays highly questionable defense and struggled at the plate last year and WMB has been a mess for two years. Leaving the only internal option as Marrero at SS and Xander at 3rd. Again could this work? Sure but you're putting your faith in Marrero hitting .240- .250 while providing elite defense. He didn't even hit that well in Pawtucket overall. If the team wants to keep the youth movement train going then status quo is surely the way to go. But by all accounts they want to go for it in 2015.

If this is the case then you're going after Panda or Hanley. Headley probably won't live up to his contract. As for Beltre? If you're having trouble with the concept of giving Panda a long term deal why would you give someone in his late 30s 16-17 million a year? I love Beltre and would love to get him back but not at 17 million

 

[ivanvamp]

The good thing about giving Panda a six-year deal is that it only takes him through age 34.  That's not exactly the beginning of his peak years, but it's not like they'd be signing him through age 37 or 38.  
 
If they do sign him, I'm sure I'll think he's not worth the money.  But he'll be a solid baseball player and they'll have their 3b situation settled within a couple of weeks after the start of the offseason, and they can then concentrate on SP.

 

[TigerBlood]

You do bring up a valid point with Beltre. You are also banking on some combination of Holt WMB and Cecchini to get over 1.5 WAR which is not guaranteed by any stretch in 2015. Could WMB figure it out next year? Sure anything is possible and he did have a great first year in the majors. Is it smart to bank on? That's a different story.

Holt had a career year, Cecchini plays highly questionable defense and struggled at the plate last year and WMB has been a mess for two years. Leaving the only internal option as Marrero at SS and Xander at 3rd. Again could this work? Sure but you're putting your faith in Marrero hitting .240- .250 while providing elite defense. He didn't even hit that well in Pawtucket overall. If the team wants to keep the youth movement train going then status quo is surely the way to go. But by all accounts they want to go for it in 2015.

If this is the case then you're going after Panda or Hanley. Headley probably won't live up to his contract. As for Beltre? If you're having trouble with the concept of giving Panda a long term deal why would you give someone in his late 30s 16-17 million a year? I love Beltre and would love to get him back but not at 17 million

Steamer projects WMB at 1.2 WAR, Cechhini at .9 over a combined 627 PA. Holt's has some bug where he has just 1 plate appearance, but his projected OPS is similar to Cechhini's. So yes, I think 1.5 WAR from that combination is not out of the question.
 
Beltre has had consistent bWAR and fWAR numbers between 5-7 for the last half a dozen or so years. I am cautiously proposing he puts up 4 per year in those two years. Which is very much worth $17mil per. They also have an entire year to monitor any regression in Beltre's performance. If he does, that's too bad but Daniel Murphy is also FA, as are others who would not require the dollars or years that you want to give to Sandoval just because WIN NOW!!!!
 
The point of my post is not that this exact formula of players and contracts = better than Sandoval at 6/100. Rather, I believe you have decided that Boston's only option is to sign one of the FAs available now and they should just accept it, which is not the case.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

The good thing about giving Panda a six-year deal is that it only takes him through age 34.  That's not exactly the beginning of his peak years, but it's not like they'd be signing him through age 37 or 38.  
 
If they do sign him, I'm sure I'll think he's not worth the money.  But he'll be a solid baseball player and they'll have their 3b situation settled within a couple of weeks after the start of the offseason, and they can then concentrate on SP.

 
I'd guess this is exactly how BC feels right now. Well, first, he talks about "checking off boxes," and Panda gets a lot of boxes checked off: 1. fills a need now at 3B; 2. feels a need later at 3B or 1B/DH (point taken it's not maximizing value, just that it exists as a fallback); 3. Under 30; 4. Lefty bat; 5. Good clubhouse guy (shown to be a priority in 2013 and worth extra $$ and years to guys like Vic and Gomes); 6. Popularity with fans doesn't hurt, even if I hope it's not one of Ben's boxes.
 
With all that, locking in Panda allows Ben to really start dealing. And if we're dying to see him get started, how do you think he feels? 
 
1. X is now definitely a SS, which means he can include either X or Marrero in trade talks;
2. WMB can go into trade talks (if he's not already), or consideration of a shift to 1B can be made in earnest;
3. Clarification on finances and just how much is left to spend on pitchers, via FA or trade.

 

[MakMan44]

 
I'd guess this is exactly how BC feels right now. Well, first, he talks about "checking off boxes," and Panda gets a lot of boxes checked off: 1. fills a need now at 3B; 2. feels a need later at 3B or 1B/DH (point taken it's not maximizing value, just that it exists as a fallback); 3. Under 30; 4. Lefty bat; 5. Good clubhouse guy (shown to be a priority in 2013 and worth extra $$ and years to guys like Vic and Gomes); 6. Popularity with fans doesn't hurt, even if I hope it's not one of Ben's boxes.
 
With all that, locking in Panda allows Ben to really start dealing. And if we're dying to see him get started, how do you think he feels? 
 
1. X is now definitely a SS, which means he can include either X or Marrero in trade talks;
2. WMB can go into trade talks (if he's not already), or consideration of a shift to 1B can be made in earnest;
3. Clarification on finances and just how much is left to spend on pitchers, via FA or trade.

Exactly. We're projecting for 6 years down the line, but there's probably very real value with giving up that 6th year if you can get the deal done early. It doesn't sound like there's much competition for Pablo right now, but in a few weeks the entire market may have shifted. 

 

[ALiveH]

We should also think about SS options in FA & sliding Bogaerts to 3B.

 

[MakMan44]

We should also think about SS options in FA & sliding Bogaerts to 3B.

WE should, but I doubt the Red Sox are. 

 

[DJnVa]

Per Rosenthal's tweet above, it doesn't look like the Sox have made a "big play" for Pablo yet. So, it's silly season for baseball. We've heard they're all in, and now that they haven't made a big play. This all could be due diligence on a FA player who plays a position of need.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
I'd guess this is exactly how BC feels right now. Well, first, he talks about "checking off boxes," and Panda gets a lot of boxes checked off: 1. fills a need now at 3B; 2. feels a need later at 3B or 1B/DH (point taken it's not maximizing value, just that it exists as a fallback); 3. Under 30; 4. Lefty bat; 5. Good clubhouse guy (shown to be a priority in 2013 and worth extra $$ and years to guys like Vic and Gomes); 6. Popularity with fans doesn't hurt, even if I hope it's not one of Ben's boxes.
 
With all that, locking in Panda allows Ben to really start dealing. And if we're dying to see him get started, how do you think he feels? 
 
1. X is now definitely a SS, which means he can include either X or Marrero in trade talks;
2. WMB can go into trade talks (if he's not already), or consideration of a shift to 1B can be made in earnest;
3. Clarification on finances and just how much is left to spend on pitchers, via FA or trade.

 
 
It would be quite interesting to know if that was the key factor vs. signing Hanley.
 
Edit: Sandoval being under 30 is probably more relevant.

 

[IpswichSox]

Buster with interesting comp to Ellsbury production and injury history:
 
 

[T]he bidding will come down to whether some team separates itself from the Giants, in the way that the Yankees separated themselves from Boston in the bidding for Jacoby Ellsbury last winter....Over the past four seasons, Sandoval has 65 homers among 179 extra-base hits. Over the past four seasons, Ellsbury has 57 homers among 197 extra-base hits. There was certainly concern over Ellsbury's injury history, but over the past four years, Ellsbury has played in 515 games, and Sandoval, affected by his well-documented issues with conditioning, has played in 523 games.

 

[NDame616]

 
I'd guess this is exactly how BC feels right now. Well, first, he talks about "checking off boxes," and Panda gets a lot of boxes checked off: 1. fills a need now at 3B; 2. feels a need later at 3B or 1B/DH (point taken it's not maximizing value, just that it exists as a fallback); 3. Under 30; 4. Lefty bat; 5. Good clubhouse guy (shown to be a priority in 2013 and worth extra $$ and years to guys like Vic and Gomes); 6. Popularity with fans doesn't hurt, even if I hope it's not one of Ben's boxes.
 
With all that, locking in Panda allows Ben to really start dealing. And if we're dying to see him get started, how do you think he feels? 
 
1. X is now definitely a SS, which means he can include either X or Marrero in trade talks;
2. WMB can go into trade talks (if he's not already), or consideration of a shift to 1B can be made in earnest;
3. Clarification on finances and just how much is left to spend on pitchers, via FA or trade.

 
I think the market for a 3B/1B who hit .213 over the past 2 years, has a history of injuries, strikes out 5X as often as he walks and refused to play winter ball to turn it around may be limited.
 
At this point, WMB is a last second throw into a trade that has 0 impact on the deal.

 

[IpswichSox]

https://twitter.com/nickcafardo/status/532584043150200832

PHOENIX – The Red Sox and Pablo Sandoval are looking into a face-to-face meeting in Boston in the near future, perhaps as early as next week, a major league source indicated Wednesday morning.

 

[Van Everyman]

They'll be meeting here:

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

Why the heck are people posting non-park adjusted numbers for Sandoval given that he plays his home games in AT&T park, which suppresses run scoring by nearly 10% and is the single hardest park in baseball to hit a home run in (30% fewer than league average)? His road games are split between extreme pitchers parks (Dodgers, Petco) and hitters parks (Coors, Chase). The same could honestly be said about Headley's numbers in Petco and Hanley's LAD numbers as well.

 

[MakMan44]

^^^
Pablo's wRC+ for the last 3 seasons(2014 1st): 111, 116, 118
Headley: 103, 114, 145
Hanley: 135, 191, 106

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

My issue with Dave's take is that he assumes Sandoval will be worth ~3.5 fWAR next year.

Given that he hasn't reached that number since 2011 (2012 if you want to prorate for injury), I think he's far from a slam dunk to provide net positive value at something like $18m next year and very close to a slam dunk NOT to provide $18m of value towards the end of the contract.

Maybe his numbers are based off Steamer which projects 3.8 fWAR based on some massive comeback in the SLG department (reaching levels not seen in the last 3 years). I get that (not that Steamer is taking this into account) you can argue a little suppression in 2012-2014 based on the hamate bone injuries, but it's very rare for players who are 29 to repeat their age 25 season rather than 26-28.

His argument would be more appealing if the Sox could do something like 6/84, but sounds like that's under what he is going to get.

Exactly. If you reduce the starting baseline to 3 fWAR and keep all the other assumptions, you end up with the conclusion that a reasonable deal is not 6/103 but 6/82 or thereabouts. That's the difference between saying that the Red Sox should sign Panda at the rumored price (roughly 6/100) and saying that they should run away from this deal.

 

[GRPhilipp]

Sincere question: Why are so many posters here treating this as a two-horse race between Pablo and Hanley?  To me, Headley seems like he belongs in the conversation on at least even footing with those guys, but he is left out much of the time (not by you, Captain).  Why?
 
Is it because people implicitly assume the Yankees will re-sign him?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Is it because people implicitly assume the Yankees will re-sign him?

 
Yeah, pretty much I think.  Once the news came out that the Yankees were in discussions with him even after he said he wanted to play full time at 3B, I think everyone basically started assuming the Yankees were prepared to offer that or they wouldn't have committed to talking to him.  If they do, history would suggest his ultimate destination is a foregone conclusion unless the Sox are prepared to be stupid.  Headley is far and away my preferred option, and has been for months, but my assumption for the last week has been that ship has sailed.  Very much hope to be wrong though.

 

[KillerBs]

Maybe the Sox are worried about the herniated disc in Headley's back but it is hard to argue with Headley if he is going for 1/2 the price and years of Sandoval/Ramirez esp as there is no draft pick comp.     

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

I'd sure hope at some point there is a timebomb offer made to Headly before Sandoval is done.
 
"Chase, we're going into it hot and heavy with Panda starting tomorrow.  If you take <insert healthy offer here... 3/39 with a vestable option?> now, let me get you a pen.  If not, there's no guarantee we're staying the market for you and if we reach the finish line with Sandoval we'll be out which would drop your bargaining position.  I know you don't want to be a Yankee -- long losing tradition there, bad school system, have to share charter flights with A-Rod, etc.  You have until cocktail hour to decide..."

 

[Drek717]

Sincere question: Why are so many posters here treating this as a two-horse race between Pablo and Hanley?  To me, Headley seems like he belongs in the conversation on at least even footing with those guys, but he is left out much of the time (not by you, Captain).  Why?
 
Is it because people implicitly assume the Yankees will re-sign him?

Yes, because what deal would you offer Headley that they wouldn't top?
 
For example, the deals I'd offer each player as an armchair GM would be something like this:
 
Headley - 3/$45M with a vesting 4th year option at $15M based on 250 games played at 3B between 2016 and 2017.
Sandoval - 6/$96M
Hanley - 4/$68M, 5th year option for another $17M that vests if he sees >500 PA in each of 2017 and 2018.
 
There is no way NYY doesn't one up that Headley deal by guaranteeing the 4th year.  Give him 4/$60M and the  yankees will give 5/$75M.  I mean, we're talking about the team that gave Carlos Beltran a 3/$45M deal and Jacoby Ellsbury 7 years.  They talk a lot about frugality, but they always give more years when asked.
 
Sandoval at that is probably something SF would match, but that's borderline as sometimes they get real stingy.  If the Sox had to go over the top at 6/$102M that's better than landing no one, but at that point you're at the edge of reasonable.
 
Hanley is interesting.  Some FA prognosticators predicted him at 4/$64M, others say he's definitely getting over $100M.  If the market isn't real hot for him (which it might not be as he really can't stick at SS anymore, the Dodgers have Seager, the Yankees have a full OF, 1B, DH, and want Headley at 3B, etc.) he could be had at a deal and his bat is clearly the most capable of aging well as a 1B/DH/LF.
 
Also, lets stop wasting our breath talking about trading for Beltre until there is real substance to him being moved.  Texas isn't looking to trade the single best player on their team who has a fair deal for short years for anything short of a king's ransom.  If we want another alternative from these three I'd add Jed Lowrie, but he'd need to be on a make good deal given his dubious health and huge offensive decline last season.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Hanley is interesting.  Some FA prognosticators predicted him at 4/$64M, others say he's definitely getting over $100M.  If the market isn't real hot for him (which it might not be as he really can't stick at SS anymore, the Dodgers have Seager, the Yankees have a full OF, 1B, DH, and want Headley at 3B, etc.) he could be had at a deal and his bat is clearly the most capable of aging well as a 1B/DH/LF.

Personally, I think Hanley at 4/64 or anywhere close is a pipe dream. Choo got 7/130 at the same age and money hasn't dried up in the interim. Predictions have been all over the map (I've seen anywhere from 4/68 to 6/132) but I really can't see Hanley getting less than five years and at least $100M total. If his market is cold and expected contract creeps down toward $100M, plenty of teams will be interested.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Sincere question: Why are so many posters here treating this as a two-horse race between Pablo and Hanley?  To me, Headley seems like he belongs in the conversation on at least even footing with those guys, but he is left out much of the time (not by you, Captain).  Why?
 
Is it because people implicitly assume the Yankees will re-sign him?

It's because the talent gap between Headley and the other two is significant. Hanley is the most talented out of the three while Sandoval has the best post season resume. Headley had one excellent year. I do not think he's going to be worth what he gets on the market.

 

[soxhop411]

Joon Lee ‏@iamjoonlee 32m32 minutes ago Ithaca, NY
Despite the strong reported interest from #RedSox on Pablo Sandoval, there isn’t an offer on the table yet from team per source
 
 
https://twitter.com/iamjoonlee/status/532617874108862464

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

One thing I hadn't completely wrapped my head around is the shocking crappiness of the likely 3B classes after the 2015 and 2016 seasons. That makes me a little bit more willing to bite the bullet and overpay for one of the Headley/Hanley/Panda troika. Because if internal options don't work out, you're either looking at a trade down the line or choosing from a free agent menu whose most desirable items seem likely to be David Freese (after 2015), a 37-year-old Aramis Ramirez (after 2015), Trevor Plouffe (after 2016), or a 38-year-old Beltre (after 2016).

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

There hasn't been any apparent availability on Beltre, but I'd sure want to sniff around there too.  Superior fielder, power that plays at Fenway, and a costly but very short commitment ($18MM in 2015, and a vesting option for $16M in 2016 that goes away if he can't stay healthy next year).  You'd think the Rangers, who are at least a year or two away from serious contention, would be open to finding a way out of that.
 
Something like Cecchini and Barnes ("Injury Attorneys, 800-888-8888") and a lower-level flyer seems like a nice return and appropriate use of the Sox ML depth.
 
 
Fake Edit:  Also I really wanted to write "Cecchini and Barnes, Injury Attorneys, 800-888-8888".  But you probably knew that.

 

[williams_482]

It's because the talent gap between Headley and the other two is significant. Hanley is the most talented out of the three while Sandoval has the best post season resume. Headley had one excellent year. I do not think he's going to be worth what he gets on the market.

I don't see the talent gap between Headley and Sandoval being at all significant. Steamer thinks Headley is trivially better than Sandoval (4.1 vs 3.8 WAR in 2015) and the contracts being proposed for Headley are drastically smaller than those being suggested for Sandoval. Headley is slightly older, doesn't have a postseason resume, and gets most of his value from OBP and defense as opposed to power, three factors that seem to affect his price but shouldn't have any significant effect on how much he can help a team*. 
 
As for the claim that the Yankees are just going to outbid us, that doesn't mean the Red Sox should just let them. If they are willing to give Headley enough money that Sandoval actually becomes the better value, make them do it. 
 
*Age might make a bigger difference on the tail end of a longer term deal given the slightly steeper declines of older players, but given that nobody expects Headley to get more than four years and nobody with any sense expects the back end of Sandoval's contract to look good, it really doesn't matter here. 

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I don't see the talent gap between Headley and Sandoval being at all significant. Steamer thinks Headley is trivially better than Sandoval (4.1 vs 3.8 WAR in 2015) and the contracts being proposed for Headley are drastically smaller than those being suggested for Sandoval. Headley is slightly older, doesn't have a postseason resume, and gets most of his value from OBP and defense as opposed to power, three factors that seem to affect his price but shouldn't have any significant effect on how much he can help a team*. 
 
As for the claim that the Yankees are just going to outbid us, that doesn't mean the Red Sox should just let them. If they are willing to give Headley enough money that Sandoval actually becomes the better value, make them do it. 
 
*Age might make a bigger difference on the tail end of a longer term deal given the slightly steeper declines of older players, but given that nobody expects Headley to get more than four years and nobody with any sense expects the back end of Sandoval's contract to look good, it really doesn't matter here. 

Headley has had one really good season. I'm not sure he will ever be a consistent 4 WAR player again. His value does fit defensively but is his upside worth 15 million a year or 5 million less than Hanley or Panda? I disagree.

Hanley Ramirez is the number 1 option at 3rd. When he's healthy he is an MVP level or slightly below MVP level player. Hanley is my first choice, Headley isn't even on my list.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Quick question on WAR (since it seems to be the thumbnail of choice in this thread).  How much does WAR assume a standard lineup around the player?  I'd assume that whatever WAR Barry Bonds had at his peak wouldn't translate into actual wins if he was surrounded by awful players.  

 

[MakMan44]

Where is anyone projecting Headley is going to get $15 per? I've seen estimates $11-$13 which be right in line with a 2 win player and probably underpaid if he's closer to 3.

EDIT: Savin makes a much better argument.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

It's because the talent gap between Headley and the other two is significant. Hanley is the most talented out of the three while Sandoval has the best post season resume. Headley had one excellent year. I do not think he's going to be worth what he gets on the market.

 
And the ironic part is that his market perception is suffering for it more than benefiting from it. He had one excellent year, yes, and also four other years ranging from average to very good.
 
Obvoiusly, how you see him relative to Sandoval is going to depend on how much importance you place on defense. Headley has a 114 career wRC+. Sandoval, 122. So clearly Sandoval is the better hitter. But if you factor in defense, the advanced metrics say that Pablo is essentially a league average 3B (career DRS 0, UZR/150 2.2). Headley has a career DRS of 29 (in about 4.5 years' worth of innings) and a UZR/150 of 10.8. So Headley has been about 6 to 8 runs a year better on defense than Sandoval. I think you'd have a hard time making a case that the offensive difference is bigger than that.
 
So I think Headley is, at worst, as good a player as Sandoval. It might make more sense to go longer with Sandoval, but not by as much as the age difference between them, due both to the general durability questions around Panda's weight, and also the related question of whether he'll need to move to a position where his skills have less value. If you're willing to give Panda 6 years, you should be willing to give Headley 4. And the AAV of the Headley deal should be, if anything, a bit higher. So any logic that produces a 6/110 deal for Panda should justify at least a 4/72 deal for Headley. The fact that nobody is talking about anything remotely that big for Headley means that he is much the better value of the two, and therefore is the guy we should be going after.

 

[EvilEmpire]

And the ironic part is that his market perception is suffering for it more than benefiting from it. He had one excellent year, yes, and also four other years ranging from average to very good.
 
Obvoiusly, how you see him relative to Sandoval is going to depend on how much importance you place on defense. Headley has a 114 career wRC+. Sandoval, 122. So clearly Sandoval is the better hitter. But if you factor in defense, the advanced metrics say that Pablo is essentially a league average 3B (career DRS 0, UZR/150 2.2). Headley has a career DRS of 29 (in about 4.5 years' worth of innings) and a UZR/150 of 10.8. So Headley has been about 6 to 8 runs a year better on defense than Sandoval. I think you'd have a hard time making a case that the offensive difference is bigger than that.
 
So I think Headley is, at worst, as good a player as Sandoval. It might make more sense to go longer with Sandoval, but not by as much as the age difference between them, due both to the general durability questions around Panda's weight, and also the related question of whether he'll need to move to a position where his skills have less value. If you're willing to give Panda 6 years, you should be willing to give Headley 4. And the AAV of the Headley deal should be, if anything, a bit higher. So any logic that produces a 6/110 deal for Panda should justify at least a 4/72 deal for Headley. The fact that nobody is talking about anything remotely that big for Headley means that he is much the better value of the two, and therefore is the guy we should be going after.

Just stop already. Saved the detailed (and excellent, I think) analysis until after the Yankees re-sign him, please.

I do think the Yankees will end up going four years on Headley though. 4/64, maybe a bit higher if the Sox push them, which I think they will.

As you suggested earlier, I think Panda is a smokescreen. Headley, with Hanley as a backup plan. Hope I'm wrong though.

 

[ehaz]

Victor Martinez inking 4/68 should dispel any insane notion that Hanley Ramirez is going to sign for anything south of $100 million