The Toronto Blue Jays carry one of the largest payrolls in Major League Baseball, but that spending hasn’t resulted in many contracts widely viewed as mistakes.
Most of the roster’s high salaries belong to productive players on a team built to contend. Still, every organization has at least one deal that attracts criticism — and for Toronto, one surprising name recently surfaced.
Bleacher Report’s annual ranking of the worst contracts for each MLB team pointed to shortstop Andrés Giménez as the Blue Jays’ most questionable deal. The selection raised eyebrows, especially considering the presence of other expensive players on the roster such as veteran starter José Berríos and often-injured outfielder Anthony Santander.
Yet the reasoning behind the criticism is fairly straightforward.
Offensive Production Has Lagged Behind the Salary
Giménez is earning close to $20 million annually, and last season his offensive production didn’t quite match that level of investment.
Measured by wRC+, he finished roughly 30 percent below league average at the plate. While his value has always been tied to elite defense rather than offensive power, critics argue that a player making that type of salary should contribute more consistently with the bat.
The good news for Toronto is that the underlying story of his 2025 season suggests improvement could be within reach.
Inconsistency Defined Last Season
Venezuela shortstop Andres Gimenez. | Sam Navarro-Imagn Images
Giménez’s biggest challenge last year was not a lack of ability but rather uneven performance across the calendar.
He began the season slowly, posting a .542 OPS during March and April — a stretch that put him in an early hole offensively. But once the season progressed, his numbers began to stabilize.
In May he produced a strong 122 wRC+. June brought a quieter stretch with a 72 mark, but July showed just how explosive his bat can be when he’s locked in, highlighted by a remarkable 295 wRC+ during that month.
Just as he seemed to be finding his rhythm, however, his season took another turn.
Injury Played a Major Role
Early in July, after a blistering start to the month, Giménez suffered a high ankle sprain.
Although he remained in the lineup, the injury lingered throughout the remainder of the season and into the postseason. By September, the effects were evident in his numbers, as he posted a 35 wRC+ during the final month.
Now entering the new season healthy, the Blue Jays believe he could rediscover the offensive form he briefly flashed during the middle of last year.
Even modest improvement at the plate could dramatically shift the perception surrounding his contract.
Defense Still Drives His Value
While the offensive criticism receives the most attention, Giménez’s defensive impact remains elite.
The 27-year-old built his reputation as one of baseball’s premier defensive infielders while playing second base for the Cleveland Guardians. Between 2022 and 2024, he won three consecutive Gold Gloves at the position.
Now transitioning into a larger role at shortstop for Toronto, his defensive metrics still stand out. Over the course of his career, Giménez has accumulated +8 Outs Above Average and +6 Defensive Runs Saved while playing short.
Even if he never develops into a middle-of-the-order hitter, that defensive reliability alone provides significant value.
The Narrative Could Change Quickly
In reality, Giménez’s contract likely falls into the category of “expensive but useful” rather than truly problematic.
If he can remain healthy and deliver even average offensive production, the criticism surrounding his deal could disappear quickly — especially given how valuable elite defense remains in the middle of the infield.
And when looking at the broader roster, some might argue that the Blue Jays have bigger financial concerns elsewhere.
For now, though, Giménez enters the season with something to prove.
The talent has never been in doubt. The challenge now is simply putting together a full season that reminds everyone why Toronto made such a significant investment in the first place.
Leave a Reply