Signing(s): A.J. Pollock with the Dodgers

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,911
14,888
To me this sort of show the logic that the Cardinals have, there is a reluctance among teams to give out super-long term deals. They would rather sign an older guy at 5 or less years than a younger guy at 8+ years because they view the 8+ year deals as more risky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Voight

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,705
17,089
Mulberry Street
Why would it be?

He's missed 1/3 of the season the last 2 years and has been worth just over 2 fWAR each of those seasons. He was great in 2015 but due to injuries hasnt been able to build on that breakout.

However the Dodgers have a habit of turning average players into something special so with a good player like him I would not be shocked if he returns to being a 5/6 win player.
 

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
48,383
39,369
Orange County, CA
He's missed 1/3 of the season the last 2 years and has been worth just over 2 fWAR each of those seasons. He was great in 2015 but due to injuries hasnt been able to build on that breakout.

However the Dodgers have a habit of turning average players into something special so with a good player like him I would not be shocked if he returns to being a 5/6 win player.
Pollock is very good and was well liked there and now is playing for their main rival. Don’t understand why you don’t think the fans would be upset just because “he’s injury prone”
 

rangerssharks414

Registered User
Mar 9, 2010
32,311
1,648
Long Island, NY
DBacks fans must be devastated.

I'm not. Pollock is an underrated player, but he hasn't been reliable with regards to staying on the field. I wouldn't have given him that contract.

Edit: He's on the wrong side of 30, and the Diamondbacks are in rebuilding mode. Re-signing Pollock would make no sense for them.
 

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
48,383
39,369
Orange County, CA
I'm not. Pollock is an underrated player, but he hasn't been reliable with regards to staying on the field. I wouldn't have given him that contract.

Edit: He's on the wrong side of 30, and the Diamondbacks are in rebuilding mode. Re-signing Pollock would make no sense for them.
Not so much that they didn't re-sign him but the fact that he went to the Dodgers
 

BSHH

HSVer & Rotflügel
Apr 12, 2009
2,155
279
Hamburg
give a 31 year old a 5 year deal but won't give a 26 year old an 8 year deal.

sure, man.
Aren't the Dodgers conscious about the luxury tax threshold? Pollock also provides a right-handed bat, which the Dodgers were reportedly looking for.

Gruß,
BSHH
 

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,911
14,888
give a 31 year old a 5 year deal but won't give a 26 year old an 8 year deal.

sure, man.

Cardinals have used the same logic on why they'd prefer a big Goldy deal than a big Harper deal. Teams view the more long-term deals as more risky than the age the players are at the end of those years. Easier to move or deal with a bust on a shorter deal, but if a 8-10 year deal doesn't work out, you are stuck.

How many 8+ year deals are actual successes, and how many fail? Granted, I'll give you that not many of those start when the player is 26, but look how Heyward turned out for the Cubs.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad