There's never a bad 1 year deal in baseball. Eaton will probably be fine - he'll definitely be better than he was in the 60 game sprint. Everyone deserves a mulligan for that year - one bad 15 game stretch is equivalent to a bad 40 game stretch in a normal year. That can gut a player statistically. Same with 1-2 bad starts for a pitcher or giving up 4 runs in a relief appearance. I'm not worried about Eaton statistically
What I don't want to hear is that they won't operate at the top of the market because of money issues. **** that. They had bottom 5 payrolls for years and they told the fans that that would provide them with economic flexibility to attempt to sign stars when they were in their competitive window. They had George Springer - a player that would have literally set their lineup and it's finances for years on end - right there for the taking. Just had to offer the most money, everything else sells itself (chicago in the summer, winning club, etc.)
But they didn't. They went for a player that was probably 4th tier of the RF available (3rd if you think Brantley is DH only, which I do at this point, though he still rakes)
It's disgusting. A Brantley contract will be 5/100 or so. That's FAR from what Heyward signed for in both dollars and years, so I hate when people use him as a comparison. It's funny to me how a team like the small market Padres has no problem nutting up massive deals for Will Meyers, Eric Hosmer and Manny Machado but the White Sox are crying poor in their market. It's a slap in the face to me as a fan that they are budgeting like they're the Reds but have paid pennies towards payroll in the last 4 years, all things considered.