I like big bats and I cannot lie: Acquiring a hitter

What about resigning Nunez to share time with Hanley at 1B/DH? I don't think he's ever played 1B, but I'd imagine he can handle the basics of the position. He'd also give them flexibility with his ability to play 2B/3B/SS to give guys a breather. If he stinks at 1B, they can look at playing Hanley more and keep Nunez to DH and backup IF.

Something like: Nunez (1B/DH), Beni (LF), Betts (RF), Devers (3B), Hanley (DH/1B), Bogaerts (SS), Pedroia (2B), Vazquez (C), JBJ (CF).

Another option: Trade JBJ for someone like Brandon Belt and sign JD Martinez to play LF. Not sure if Belt is the guy they want, but look for someone like that who they can plug in at 1B for a few years.
That would result in something like: Bogaerts, Beni, Betts, Martinez, Devers, Ramirez, Belt, Pedroia, Vazquez

moondog80 said:

I don't know if they'll pay 20 mil, but a platoon partner for Hanley goes a long way to saving 22 mil in 2019, so wouldn't that factor into the decision?

Click to expand...

I really don't think that would send a very good message to those who consider signing with the Sox in the future, not to mention the possible repercussions from the players union. If healthy, Hanley must be treated as an everyday player.

Savin Hillbilly said:

Yeah, if Hanley gets 95 starts, about a third of them will probably be vs. RHP.

Which is not necessarily an issue, since over his career he's had a very modest platoon split (136 to 123 wRC+). He's only had a wRC+ under 100 vs. RHP once since his 2011 injury year. If he's healthy and on his game, he's not a liability vs. RHP. And if he's not healthy or on his game, he's not that much of an asset vs. LHP. So the focus on platooning him is a bit puzzling.

Click to expand...

to keep him away his option vesting.

ElcaballitoMVP said:

What about resigning Nunez to share time with Hanley at 1B/DH? I don't think he's ever played 1B, but I'd imagine he can handle the basics of the position. He'd also give them flexibility with his ability to play 2B/3B/SS to give guys a breather. If he stinks at 1B, they can look at playing Hanley more and keep Nunez to DH and backup IF.

Something like: Nunez (1B/DH), Beni (LF), Betts (RF), Devers (3B), Hanley (DH/1B), Bogaerts (SS), Pedroia (2B), Vazquez (C), JBJ (CF).

Another option: Trade JBJ for someone like Brandon Belt and sign JD Martinez to play LF. Not sure if Belt is the guy they want, but look for someone like that who they can plug in at 1B for a few years.
That would result in something like: Bogaerts, Beni, Betts, Martinez, Devers, Ramirez, Belt, Pedroia, Vazquez

Click to expand...

Nunez seems to be a .750 OPS hitter who had a hot second half last year - .878 in all of 50 games. He did well for us, but if he's signed, it should be with an eye to him playing other IF positions besides 1B. Except that he did have that whole knee injury thing, so who knows if he can field 3B/SS/1B over a long season. Anyway, if he regresses to a .750 hitter at 1B/DH, he's basically 2017 Hanley, which is something we're trying to upgrade, not replace.

Maybe there's something new to Nunez's swing, or perhaps his leg is now 100%, but he does not seem like a piece to the Hanley puzzle, so much as a potential backup MI.

Kielty's Last Pitch said:

I really don't think that would send a very good message to those who consider signing with the Sox in the future, not to mention the possible repercussions from the players union. If healthy, Hanley must be treated as an everyday player.

Click to expand...

I think the Red Sox should be fine telling the union that Designated Hitters who hit .242 for the season are not guaranteed everyday jobs.

Rovin Romine said:

Nunez seems to be a .750 OPS hitter who had a hot second half last year - .878 in all of 50 games. He did well for us, but if he's signed, it should be with an eye to him playing other IF positions besides 1B. Except that he did have that whole knee injury thing, so who knows if he can field 3B/SS/1B over a long season. Anyway, if he regresses to a .750 hitter at 1B/DH, he's basically 2017 Hanley, which is something we're trying to upgrade, not replace.

Maybe there's something new to Nunez's swing, or perhaps his leg is now 100%, but he does not seem like a piece to the Hanley puzzle, so much as a potential backup MI.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I definitely agree that his bat would be a question mark at 1B or DH. I just don't see him signing up for a backup IF role. I'm picturing the Sox offering him an everyday role where he plays all over the place like Ben Zobrist back in the day, where he'd start at 1B/DH 3 days a week, give Pedey a day off at 2B and get occasional SS/3B duties when Devers and X need a day. I suppose it depends how they finish off the bench. If they could find a LHH 1B/corner OF type to bring off the bench, they'd have good depth. Who that is, I don't know. I don't see a great free agent fit, so it would likely have to come via trade.

Now, if Nunez would take a backup IF job, I'm game. I just don't see him signing up for that if the money is close to an everyday offer from someone else.

EdRalphRomero said:

I think the Red Sox should be fine telling the union that Designated Hitters who hit .242 for the season are not guaranteed everyday jobs.

Click to expand...

Or even "Players who cannot stay healthy are not guaranteed an every day job and by platooning him, we hope to keep him healthy enough to have a season more in line with his true talent level which will help him the next time he hits the free agent market."

ElcaballitoMVP said:

Yeah, I definitely agree that his bat would be a question mark at 1B or DH. I just don't see him signing up for a backup IF role. I'm picturing the Sox offering him an everyday role where he plays all over the place like Ben Zobrist back in the day, where he'd start at 1B/DH 3 days a week, give Pedey a day off at 2B and get occasional SS/3B duties when Devers and X need a day. I suppose it depends how they finish off the bench. If they could find a LHH 1B/corner OF type to bring off the bench, they'd have good depth. Who that is, I don't know. I don't see a great free agent fit, so it would likely have to come via trade.

Now, if Nunez would take a backup IF job, I'm game. I just don't see him signing up for that if the money is close to an everyday offer from someone else.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify though, we all like the idea of a Zobrist-type super sub - but Nunez isn't a very good fielder, pre-knee injury. His offense is probably better than Rutledge or Holt, but overall it might be something of a wash between the three, assuming all three players were healthy, available, and able to put up numbers in line with what we'd expect for them over a whole season. Marrero is probably the best defensively of the bunch, but the worst offensively. So basically it boils down to who is healthy/recovering, and that's information we don't have.

But as to the big bat, I don't think any player is off-limits if DD can get a reliable bat which is under control through the window of opportunity. 1B/DH just seems like the most obvious place, unless we're moving a player for a bat. I was going to type something like "DD might have flipped Devers for a 28 year old Donaldson, a la Espinoza/Pomeranz" and when I went to look up Donaldson's stats, it seems like a massively missed trade opportunity. Knowing what we know now, imagine picking him up at the end of 2014 for a Swihart/Owens package. (And missing Sandoval.)

Is Marco Hernandez not a part of their plans next season? Should we assume Brock Holt is finished(I think so)? IF we can get Nunez on a one year deal, great. His knee surgery might mean that is all he will get?

JD Martinez at 20 million a year for 4-5 years isnt any worse a deal than Hanley was.

J. D. Martinez's wRC+ has been rising the last three years, he is exactly what this lineup needs

2014 - 138
2015 - 141
2016 - 166

He gives you much more certainty then Hanley did when he got here - Hanley put up a 135 wRC+ the year before signing and only had 275-300 at bats the year before that

EdRalphRomero said:

I think the Red Sox should be fine telling the union that Designated Hitters who hit .242 for the season are not guaranteed everyday jobs.

Click to expand...

And I think the union would respond by pointing out a player of Hanley's stature who endured a debilitating injury all season has every right to expect his fulltime job back if he's given a clean bill of health in ST. Especially considering his 2015 season was even worse than his 2017 season, and yet that didn't prevent him from losing his fulltime job in 2016.

Kielty's Last Pitch said:

And I think the union would respond by pointing out a player of Hanley's stature who endured a debilitating injury all season has every right to expect his fulltime job back if he's given a clean bill of health in ST. Especially considering his 2015 season was even worse than his 2017 season, and yet that didn't prevent him from losing his fulltime job in 2016.

Click to expand...

And the Union can go pound sand. Nobody is entitled to a starting position. If Hanley's injury was so "debilitating" why did he play through it? "The Union" doesn't have the right to go around to MLB GMs and tell them how they are allowed to manage their rosters. They wouldn't even try to file a grievance because it is so ridiculous.

edit: Also, "a player of Hanley's stature"?? What stature is that? The guy isn't some legendary first ballot HoF. He is a guy who has amassed 0.2 bWAR over the last three seasons.

Savin Hillbilly said:

Yeah, if Hanley gets 95 starts, about a third of them will probably be vs. RHP.

Which is not necessarily an issue, since over his career he's had a very modest platoon split (136 to 123 wRC+). He's only had a wRC+ under 100 vs. RHP once since his 2011 injury year. If he's healthy and on his game, he's not a liability vs. RHP. And if he's not healthy or on his game, he's not that much of an asset vs. LHP. So the focus on platooning him is a bit puzzling.

Click to expand...

I agree. The talk of platooning is pretty much entirely wishcasting, which is why I was asking for plausible scenarios for how to do it. If Hanley is healthy, they will have a hard time justifying platooning him unless the other half of the platoon simply crushes RHP and there's no other way to get that player in the lineup. To platoon Hanley, they need a rationale beyond "we don't want to trigger his option for 2019" because that will guarantee a grievance filed by the players' association.

If Hanley is unproductive next year, then sure, it's easy to say he sucks and put him on the bench 4-5 days a week. But that isn't something they can pre-plan for with platoon partners and/or expensive back-up plans. The back-up plan for Hanley sucking has to be someone they can stash in AAA or someone who can play elsewhere on the diamond in the meantime, or all year if Hanley plays well.

Kielty's Last Pitch said:

And I think the union would respond by pointing out a player of Hanley's stature who endured a debilitating injury all season has every right to expect his fulltime job back if he's given a clean bill of health in ST. Especially considering his 2015 season was even worse than his 2017 season, and yet that didn't prevent him from losing his fulltime job in 2016.

Click to expand...

More like - he decided to wait until the offseason to have damaged tissue removed from his shoulder so he wouldn't lose any at bats during the season.

I wouldn't call that debilitating.

Red(s)HawksFan said:

I agree. The talk of platooning is pretty much entirely wishcasting, which is why I was asking for plausible scenarios for how to do it. If Hanley is healthy, they will have a hard time justifying platooning him unless the other half of the platoon simply crushes RHP and there's no other way to get that player in the lineup. To platoon Hanley, they need a rationale beyond "we don't want to trigger his option for 2019" because that will guarantee a grievance filed by the players' association.

If Hanley is unproductive next year, then sure, it's easy to say he sucks and put him on the bench 4-5 days a week. But that isn't something they can pre-plan for with platoon partners and/or expensive back-up plans. The back-up plan for Hanley sucking has to be someone they can stash in AAA or someone who can play elsewhere on the diamond in the meantime, or all year if Hanley plays well.

Click to expand...

if the Giants can do Marlon Byrd dirty like they did...i wish the MLBPA luck with this one.

they shut Byrd down the final weekend of the season with the sole purpose of keeping his option from vesting.

Snodgrass'Muff said:

Or even "Players who cannot stay healthy are not guaranteed an every day job and by platooning him, we hope to keep him healthy enough to have a season more in line with his true talent level which will help him the next time he hits the free agent market."

Click to expand...

That and every other reach being made on this platoon possibility sounds great in message board theory....but we both know that isn't how these things play out in reality here.

Kielty is right. Hanley was disappointing last year, but it was still a far cry from the disaster it would of had to have been for the Sox to give any of this serious consideration. There is a less of a threat of Hanley losing his starting gig/opportunity this winter then there was with Sandoval, which for better or for (far more likely at the time) worse we all knew was getting it's legit salvage chance going in and needed to be planned around.

Again, this is also a big part of the reason i keep harping the need to move Hanley back to first (at least to start the year). Taking last season's outcome path off the possibility table by making that play and then committing the DH spot elsewhere is the only feasible way to ultimately better protect ourselves against that option vesting without essentially doing him dirty. "We signed him to play the field and that's what we need him to do atm"...that's all we got. If Hanley holds up and hits...great. If he holds up but doesn't hit any better then last year...at least you gained some roster flexibility back. If he doesn't hold up...he gets DL'd, and this time there isn't any "I can't play the field because of my shoulder but I can still take atbats" scenario to keep that PA total climbing. At which point you hand the job off to Travis short term if Hanley has been hitting well enough, and/or start looking to trade for a reasonable fix if he hasn't.

Only at that last scenario do we get to a point where a platoon *might* be possible imo. But even then that potentially presents it's own set of problems as releasing him is kind of shooting yourself in the foot, and a 4 man bench that includes Hanley is probably going to make for a rough ride at times. But that is a bridge you cross if/when you get there I guess.

BJBossman said:

if the Giants can do Marlon Byrd dirty like they did...i wish the MLBPA luck with this one.

they shut Byrd down the final weekend of the season with the sole purpose of keeping his option from vesting.

Click to expand...

One weekend is a bit different than an entire season's worth of benching and limiting play, particularly at the end of the season when the roster is expanded and they can point to starting rookies to give them some experience in otherwise meaningless games.

With the roster limited to 25, and usually only 12-13 position players for 9 spots in the lineup, sitting a healthy and productive Hanley 2-3 days a week in June or July or August isn't going to go over as well. Especially if his replacement is demonstrably less productive.

MikeM makes a great point. We know Hanley can play 1B somewhat competently, so move forward with the idea he is the 1B next year. If he hits well and plays 1B at a mediocre level, great, that is solved for the next two years. If he gets hurt, DL him, see what Travis can do. I doubt JD Martinez is the kind of guy who loves playing in the field so much he would refuse to sign somewhere as primarily a DH.

sean1562 said:

MikeM makes a great point. We know Hanley can play 1B somewhat competently, so move forward with the idea he is the 1B next year. If he hits well and plays 1B at a mediocre level, great, that is solved for the next two years. If he gets hurt, DL him, see what Travis can do. I doubt JD Martinez is the kind of guy who loves playing in the field so much he would refuse to sign somewhere as primarily a DH.

Click to expand...

No, but if a team is looking to sign him as primarily a DH, they may be less inclined to spend the same kind of money on him as a team that views him as a full time outfielder. In other words, the Red Sox may not be interested in paying him 5/100-120 or whatever he might command from Arizona or someone else if they view him as a DH only. He's a good hitter, but is he worth paying $20M+ per year just to hit? Ortiz at his peak never commanded that, even factoring inflation into the equation. Not sure Martinez rises to that level.

sean1562 said:

And the Union can go pound sand. Nobody is entitled to a starting position. If Hanley's injury was so "debilitating" why did he play through it? "The Union" doesn't have the right to go around to MLB GMs and tell them how they are allowed to manage their rosters. They wouldn't even try to file a grievance because it is so ridiculous.

edit: Also, "a player of Hanley's stature"?? What stature is that? The guy isn't some legendary first ballot HoF. He is a guy who has amassed 0.2 bWAR over the last three seasons.

Click to expand...

Haha ... clearly you're not familiar with the power of the union, especially when it comes to preventing teams from intentionally devaluing player contracts. Not sure if you were around back then, but the union was THE reason why ARod didn't join the Red Sox in 2004. If you think teams can simply bench players to get out of vesting options, you haven't been paying much attention over the years.

Why did he play through it? Because he could, and because a team that finished dead last in HR with only 3 other legit power hitters couldn't afford to go without a guy who hit just one homerun fewer than the team leader and who had the 3rd-highest SLG% on the team (Devers' half season doesn't count) and oh by the way, the guy who absolutely raked when it counted the most - in the postseason.

What stature? The kind of stature where a guy gets an $88M/4yr contract to be what he's been commonly called an elite hitter based on a very productive and lengthy career, when healthy of course. Nobody is calling him a future HOF'er.

Hanley Ramirez will not be able to file a grievance with the Union because he has a right to a starting position next season. The Arod trade and Hanley Ramirez's vesting option are not remotely comparable events. If the team decides he is not worthy of a starting position with the club, the Union cannot step in and make them play him so he gets the ABs he needs for his option to vest. Lots of players get huge contracts and don't live up to them. The fact that Ben Cherington overpaid Hanley 3 years ago does not guarantee him a starting position with the Red Sox. Hanley was an elite hitter in his youth but that was many years ago.

I understand that Hanley will get every opportunity to demonstrate his worth next season. But the idea that he will be able to file a grievance with the Union and force his option to vest if the Red Sox decide it is not in the best interests of the team to start him is improbable, at best.

Kielty's Last Pitch said:

Haha ... clearly you're not familiar with the power of the union, especially when it comes to preventing teams from intentionally devaluing player contracts. Not sure if you were around back then, but the union was THE reason why ARod didn't join the Red Sox in 2004. If you think teams can simply bench players to get out of vesting options, you haven't been paying much attention over the years.

Click to expand...

This is a sincere question, not snark. Has the Players Union ever won a grievance regarding manipulation of playing time to prevent vesting or changed the playing time of a player related to same? I mean A-Rod was a player "intentionally devaluing" his own contract, during the offseason and the union blocked him from doing so. Not really comparable. I have a vague recollection of a hullabaloo regarding a team not bringing up a promising young player to prevent his service clock from starting (hullabaloo which resulted in bupkis if I remember correctly). But I can't think of a single instance of the Players Union actually doing anything related to option vesting.

I think that question has come up here before and it never has happened. But, that's because no team has ever really put them in position to do so in the first place. It just doesn't happen.

The only way Hanley doesn't hit his goal is if he goes on the DL, retires or gets traded, IMO. Not because of the union but because that's just how things work.

Kielty's Last Pitch said:

What stature? The kind of stature where a guy gets an $88M/4yr contract to be what he's been commonly called an elite hitter based on a very productive and lengthy career, when healthy of course. Nobody is calling him a future HOF'er.

Click to expand...

The last 4 years (I'm including 2014 to help your case... he had a 136 wRC+ that year) he has a 114 wRC+ combined. With the Red Sox it's 106. He's not an elite hitter anymore.

And no, health doesn't excuse away the lack of production in two of his three years in Boston because there is no reason to assume he will be healthy going forward. He's played 848 games since the end of the 2010 season. that's ~121 per season. And even then, not all of the time he does spend on the field is healthy, as we saw both this year and in 2015.

I don't think it's likely that the team is going to platoon him, especially not with the expressed purpose of keeping the option from vesting, but if they did, the union wouldn't have the much of an argument that they shouldn't be able to. He can't stay on the field, and his bat hasn't been elite for quite a few years, even when he's healthy.

Hell, with the exception of 2013 (which was only 86 games played), you can argue he hasn't been quite to the level of elite since 2009. 2013 is the closest he's gotten, that year he still only would have been the 23rd highest wRC+ in the majors if he had had enough PAs to qualify. His HR total in 2014 was 13, good for a tie of 89th in the majors.

Since the start of the 2011 season he's had more seasons at or below a 107 wRC+ than above. His wRC+ over that span is 118 with and average of 19.86 (hey!) home runs per season.

No matter how you slice it, he's an above average, not elite hitter, and he's hugely injury prone. Hopefully he has an uncharacteristically healthy season next year and gives the team his usual 20 or so home runs and can get on base about 35% of the time.

drbretto said:

I think that question has come up here before and it never has happened. But, that's because no team has ever really put them in position to do so in the first place. It just doesn't happen.

The only way Hanley doesn't hit his goal is if he goes on the DL, retires or gets traded, IMO. Not because of the union but because that's just how things work.

Click to expand...

That's exactly right on both counts. No team would be foolish enough to bench a player strictly to get out of an option year. And realistically, there would be no reason for Hanley to not reach the magical vestment number unless he retires or goes on the DL (if he gets traded, he'd get the option year with his new team).

http://crashburnalley.com/2015/06/25/no-the-phillies-arent-gaming-chase-utleys-vesting-option/

"Gaming Utley’s playing time would result in a fight with the player’s union and the fight wouldn’t be worth it. The implications of fighting Utley’s vesting option go beyond saving $15 million. Players with other teams and their agents will be watching and taking notes. If the Phillies develop a reputation as a team that likes to use the fine print to shimmy past financial obligations to players, future drafted players and free agents will be less likely to want to sign with the Phillies, and soon-to-be free agents will be hesitant to sign contract extensions."

Okay, anybody remember Steve Avery and the controversial decision to give him one more start, allowing his option to kick in, despite his pitching like crap? A brief refresher:

"That is probably why Avery was sent to the bullpen. Though Avery said he did not fault the team for the move, he was privately furious. His agent, Scott Boras, consulted the players association and a grievance was a possibility. The team would point to Avery's four starts before the demotion: 0-4, 18.47 with 27 hits and 16 walks in 12 2/3 innings.

But the union would cite an unwritten good faith clause that requires each team to give players the opportunity to reach incentives. Williams, who has known Avery since both were with the Braves, said the team would send a poor message to other players if it did not give Avery another start.

``I look at credibility,'' Williams said. ``I want good free agents to come to Boston because they want to come and help us win. You have to have good credibility.''

Red(s)HawksFan said:

No, but if a team is looking to sign him as primarily a DH, they may be less inclined to spend the same kind of money on him as a team that views him as a full time outfielder. In other words, the Red Sox may not be interested in paying him 5/100-120 or whatever he might command from Arizona or someone else if they view him as a DH only. He's a good hitter, but is he worth paying $20M+ per year just to hit? Ortiz at his peak never commanded that, even factoring inflation into the equation. Not sure Martinez rises to that level.

Click to expand...

If he's a -10 left fielder, though--which seems likely to be in the ballpark, given his recent RF defensive numbers--then he's exactly as valuable at DH as he is in left field (if you accept FG's positional adjustments). In that scenario, a team that would pay more for him to be their LFer than their DH would be making a mistake.

EDIT: And just because Ortiz never made $20M+, that doesn't mean his performance was never worth that much. In recent market terms, that's about a 2.5-WAR player, a level that Ortiz reached or surpassed in all but one of his final six years here.

The simple fact is that Hanley will be given a chance to prove if he can hit or not next season, assuming his recovery goes well.

If he can't hit, he will be replaced in the lineup.
If he can hit, he won't be replaced and we will be happy for the production it gives the team.

If there is a race for the division or a playoff spot and he's hitting, he will play.
If not, he will likely have been benched/traded/released long before that option consideration even comes into question

santadevil said:

The simple fact is that Hanley will be given a chance to prove if he can hit or not next season, assuming his recovery goes well.

If he can't hit, he will be replaced in the lineup.
If he can hit, he won't be replaced and we will be happy for the production it gives the team.

If there is a race for the division or a playoff spot and he's hitting, he will play.
If not, he will likely have been benched/traded/released long before that option consideration even comes into question

Click to expand...

Except in the scenario where he puts up league average production, in which case he won't be replaced and we won't really be happy. It will also guarantee we have him in 2019 for more of the same. It sucks and there isn't much they can do about it.

santadevil said:

The simple fact is that Hanley will be given a chance to prove if he can hit or not next season, assuming his recovery goes well.

If he can't hit, he will be replaced in the lineup.
If he can hit, he won't be replaced and we will be happy for the production it gives the team.

If there is a race for the division or a playoff spot and he's hitting, he will play.
If not, he will likely have been benched/traded/released long before that option consideration even comes into question

Click to expand...

Again, the option vests automatically with a DFA/release, so that really isn't an option if the goal is to avoid having to pay Hanley in 2019.

Red(s)HawksFan said:

Again, the option vests automatically with a DFA/release, so that really isn't an option if the goal is to avoid having to pay Hanley in 2019.

Click to expand...

Sorry, my fault. I didn't know that.
I need to stop posting without reading the whole thread

Everyone of us heals different and of course different injuries heal differently. But I remember what many of you were saying about Papi, from 2008 to 2010, when he was 32-34 years old.

MikeM said:

Signing JD Martinez and one of Hosmer/Santana/Moose, while watching our first round pick for 2 straight drafts drop 10 spots, is the true get crazy all-in atm/imo.

Click to expand...

Savin Hillbilly said:

Yeah, if Hanley gets 95 starts, about a third of them will probably be vs. RHP.

Which is not necessarily an issue, since over his career he's had a very modest platoon split (136 to 123 wRC+). He's only had a wRC+ under 100 vs. RHP once since his 2011 injury year. If he's healthy and on his game, he's not a liability vs. RHP. And if he's not healthy or on his game, he's not that much of an asset vs. LHP. So the focus on platooning him is a bit puzzling.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is if the sox are going "all in." And please keep in mind "all in" doesn't mean perfection nor should you be extremely concerned (slightly concerned okay- but not major concerned) if you don't have a terrfic backup.

If you are going all-in you can't rely on a full-season of an old, injury prone, lousy fielding, awful baserunning and lousy performance hitter.

What do you do to give the best opportunity to an old player who is more likely to breakdown if you play him too much? You give him rest, right? And overall for his career at least since 2012, he generally hits left-handed better than rh pitching. Not by much. So if you get a lefty bat that hit righties much better than lefties, and it doesn't matter much to Hanley plus you can give the 34 yo less game so he doesn't wear down as easily, why not at least for preseason planning purposes define him as a platoon vs lefties?

We hear people talking about reverting back to their mean. So 2016 for Hanley he was off the charts great vs lefties from a sox perpective, and downright patehtic this year. If you don't wear down the 34 year-old injury-prone player, wouldn't it be more likely to believe he'll revert back to being a bit better vs lefties than righties seeing how that's what he's basically done for his career?

**The platoon is more to BOTH 1.) rest Hanley and then 2.) get a better bat that can play more while handling righties better. This can be done if the Red Sox are going "all-in," right?

Let me state at the outset that I am hopeful that Hanley will be healthy and productive in 2018. As a fan, I am rooting for him.

But that is just a hope. Given the additional uncertainty arising from his recent surgery, I think the team can and should have a Plan B (or maybe even Plan A-2) in the event that Hanley is unhealthy and/or unproductive - having Sam Travis in reserve is probably not good enough. If the team therefore acquires another 1B/DH type who can perform as well or better than Hanley, then that player will be at least as deserving of playing time as Hanley, if not more so if he's more productive. And if that player is more productive than Hanley, then there's really not much that Hanley, his agent or the union can do about it (it would be different if they were giving he was performing at least acceptably, but they were nonetheless giving his ABs to an inferior player).

I think folks are overestimating the power of the union by just a bit (and I say this as an attorney who works for a labor union). The A-Rod situation was very different, in that he was giving up guaranteed money under his contract without getting what the union viewed as some other compensating benefit. Even if there's a requirement for the team to make a good faith effort to allow the player to achieve a target that triggers an option, good faith would not require the team to continue to give the player ABs when there were better players available.

The question is really whether the team can and should seek other credible options at 1B/DH in the event that Hanley is not healthy and productive. And I think the obvious answer is yes.

Red(s)HawksFan said:

I agree. The talk of platooning is pretty much entirely wishcasting, which is why I was asking for plausible scenarios for how to do it. If Hanley is healthy, they will have a hard time justifying platooning him unless the other half of the platoon simply crushes RHP and there's no other way to get that player in the lineup. To platoon Hanley, they need a rationale beyond "we don't want to trigger his option for 2019" because that will guarantee a grievance filed by the players' association.

If Hanley is unproductive next year, then sure, it's easy to say he sucks and put him on the bench 4-5 days a week. But that isn't something they can pre-plan for with platoon partners and/or expensive back-up plans. The back-up plan for Hanley sucking has to be someone they can stash in AAA or someone who can play elsewhere on the diamond in the meantime, or all year if Hanley plays well.

Click to expand...

How can anyone give a "plausible scenario" to your satisfaction (I don't mean that in a mean way) without knowing certain facts such as how much are the Red Sox going to spend? And what if the Red Sox release Hanley in 2018? Will they have to pay in any circumstances his 2019 potentially vested contract if they just release him? Sox are at about $208m now?

How much will JD Get? How much will Carlos Santana get? What about free agent sub players such as Austin Jackson and Michael Saunders? How good is the Sox Joe Kelly and his endurance? What about Thornburgh? Will he even pitch?

What about Bour? He isn't a superstar nor does he stink. Is he a platoon player? An average full-time player? Above average? All-star?

Once you know these things or believe what you feel are probable numbers you can probably develop something that you or anyone else would find plausible considering if the sox are going "all-in." Though you're "all-in" and mine and others - many people have a different meaning what all-in means. Which is why when you refer to plausibility-- what does it mean? You have to define it if you want to hold people's feet to the fire.

SO -- is it plausible the sox spend around $245m - not quite at the $250m level for 2 years then in 2020 take a drastic cut? Is that plausible by your account? If it is-- here is one scenario if they'll spend that. Get JD Martinez and get Carlos Santana. That's $244m and you can try to take it down from there by possibly whittling away other smaller salaries.

soxeast said:

Will they have to pay in any circumstances his 2019 potentially vested contract if they just release him? Sox are at about $208m now?
.

Click to expand...

We do know the answer to this. It has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, or at least the board since there's multiple Hanley threads.

Dewey'sCannon said:

Let me state at the outset that I am hopeful that Hanley will be healthy and productive in 2018. As a fan, I am rooting for him.

But that is just a hope. Given the additional uncertainty arising from his recent surgery, I think the team can and should have a Plan B (or maybe even Plan A-2) in the event that Hanley is unhealthy and/or unproductive - having Sam Travis in reserve is probably not good enough. If the team therefore acquires another 1B/DH type who can perform as well or better than Hanley, then that player will be at least as deserving of playing time as Hanley, if not more so if he's more productive. And if that player is more productive than Hanley, then there's really not much that Hanley, his agent or the union can do about it (it would be different if they were giving he was performing at least acceptably, but they were nonetheless giving his ABs to an inferior player).

I think folks are overestimating the power of the union by just a bit (and I say this as an attorney who works for a labor union). The A-Rod situation was very different, in that he was giving up guaranteed money under his contract without getting what the union viewed as some other compensating benefit. Even if there's a requirement for the team to make a good faith effort to allow the player to achieve a target that triggers an option, good faith would not require the team to continue to give the player ABs when there were better players available.

The question is really whether the team can and should seek other credible options at 1B/DH in the event that Hanley is not healthy and productive. And I think the obvious answer is yes.

Click to expand...

I don't think, given Hanley's production and health, that it would be difficult for the Sox to justify having him as a part time player next year, a 400 AB kind of player. I don't see any way that they could be forced or compelled by the union to play him more than that if they don't want to.

If Hanley thinks the Sox are manipulating his ABs to avoid the option vesting, imagine what the clubhouse atmosphere will be like. Between Price and Pedroia jumping on his bandwagon ........toxic baby, toxic.

Welcome to Boston Alex.

sean1562 said:

JD Martinez at 20 million a year for 4-5 years isnt any worse a deal than Hanley was.

Click to expand...

Too bad there's zero chance that's happening. He's getting Cespedes money at the minimum (4/$110M), and probably will end up with something like 6/$150M and maybe more. He's a better hitter than Cespedes and while he's not as good defensively, it's not a huge spread and really isn't going to matter since people are paying for the bats. He's easily the best hitter on the market and is going to get paid as such.

DD needs to acquire someone pre-breakout. The Yanks have been maddeningly good at that recently (Didi, Hicks, arguably Castro) and it's expedited their rebuild.

I'm not sure how that's done with a supposedly austere analytics department, or with several positions already locked up. But finding high-floor culture-change candidates with good peripherals should be as important as landing elite bats like JDM.

The entire sabermetric community (and a few in this thread) is in love with Nick Castellanos and his 45% hard hit rate (5th in baseball). He already shifted to the outfield to accommodate Jeimer Candelario, and he didn't seem upset about it. Since Candelario replaced him at 3B on 9/2, Castellanos hit .358/.377/651 for a .426 wOBA. Small sample size, but possibly significant. He wasn't a great third baseman, and he wouldn't have to play it here.

DD might have a leg up on acquiring him more than any other team. I love Beni, Bradley, and Betts, but if by some turn of events Castellanos is our LF next season, that'd be interesting.

chawson said:

DD needs to acquire someone pre-breakout. The Yanks have been maddeningly good at that recently (Didi, Hicks, Castro arguably) and it's expedited their rebuild.

I'm not sure how that's done with a supposedly austere analytics department, or with several positions already locked up. But finding high-floor culture-change candidates with good peripherals should be as important as landing elite bats like JDM.

The entire sabermetric community (and a few in this thread) is in love with Nick Castellanos and his 45% hard hit rate (5th in baseball). He already shifted to the outfield to accommodate Jeimer Candelario, and he didn't seem upset about it. Since Candelario replaced him at 3B on 9/2, Castellanos hit .358/.377/651 for a .426 wOBA. Small sample size, but possibly significant. He wasn't a great third baseman, and he wouldn't have to play it here.

DD might have a leg up on acquiring him more than any other team. I love Beni, Bradley, and Betts, but if by some turn of events Castellanos is our LF next season, that'd be interesting.

Click to expand...

couldn't he be our 1B or DH?

chawson said:

DD needs to acquire someone pre-breakout. The Yanks have been maddeningly good at that recently (Didi, Hicks, arguably Castro) and it's expedited their rebuild.

I'm not sure how that's done with a supposedly austere analytics department, or with several positions already locked up.

Click to expand...

Off-the-rack projections didn't hold a lot of love for the Yankees' pre-breakout acquisitions. These guys were all highly regarded by scouts (at least in the minors), though. Especially Hicks.

I like this idea, too. There are a few post-hype guys like Soler who really struggled in the majors this year. I sincerely doubt the Royals will give up on him after only one year in their system, though.

Devizier said:

Off-the-rack projections didn't hold a lot of love for the Yankees' pre-breakout acquisitions. These guys were all highly regarded by scouts (at least in the minors), though. Especially Hicks.

I like this idea, too. There are a few post-hype guys like Soler who really struggled in the majors this year. I sincerely doubt the Royals will give up on him after only one year in their system, though.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure this is the right approach. The Yankees acquired these guys while in the early stages of a rebuild. They had the ability to throw a few of them against the wall to see what stuck. The Red Sox are an already competitive roster with most of their roster spots filled already. They have limited spots open to try this approach and should probably be targeting more known quantities to fill them. If you can land a couple of these types for the bench on the cheap, okay. But getting them out on the field to "break out" is going to be a problem, so again... not sure there's a fit.

Priority has to be JD Martinez to fill the role of big bat..
2nd priority is signing either E.Nunez or Jed Lowrie to play Second Base while Pedroia rehabs his knee. Ill take offense over defense in that role.

And put Betts back into lead off position.

Betts
Nunez
Benintendi
Martinez
Ramirez / LHH (a number of options depending on how much they willing to spend)
Devers
Bogaerts
Vazquez / Leon
Bradley

Swihart (out of options), Marrero, Lin and Hernandez battle for the 2 Utility roles.
Pedroia will join the team in 2nd half when he is fully healed.

Sign minor league free Agent 6'7 Steven Moya who was the 2014 Eastern League MVP but has struggled to make the jump from AAA to Tigers line-up. He is the Puerto Rico born "Judge" so maybe Alex Cora can inspire him to rebound from a poor season. And we need a replacement for Brentz in Pawtucket anyway. .

Castillo, Barfield (re-signing with Sox) and Mayo would give the Sox some OF depth at AAA.

Butch Hobsons elbo chips said:

Priority has to be JD Martinez to fill the role of big bat..
2nd priority is signing either E.Nunez or Jed Lowrie to play Second Base while Pedroia rehabs his knee. Ill take offense over defense in that role.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, unless trading for Kinsler at 1/$10 is more attractive than whatever multi-year deals those guys fetch.

For a lot of reasons, we match extremely well with the Tigers right now.

Butch Hobsons elbo chips said:

Sign minor league free Agent 6'7 Steven Mayo who was the 2014 Eastern League MVP but has struggled to make the jump from AAA to Tigers line-up. He is the Puerto Rico born "Judge" so maybe Alex Cora can inspire him to rebound from a poor season. And we need a replacement for Brentz in Pawtucket anyway.

Click to expand...

I assume you mean Moya? Aside from being a power prospect and tall, he's got almost nothing in common with Judge. He has always struggled to keep his OBP's above .300 in the minors. While they should look to replace Brentz, Moya isn't the answer.

Justin Bour getting picked up off waivers led me to check in on some of the options that were bandied about this winter.

Our guys:
Martinez - .332/.399/.656, 35 HR, 178 wRC+, 4.8 fWAR
Moreland - .265/.334/.484, 14 HR, 117 wRC+, 1.2 fWAR - 15th of 38 1B with 250+ PA
Nunez - .264/.291/.371, 6 HR, 75 wRC+, -0.5 fWAR
Bradley - .213/.300/.370, 9 HR, 79 wRC+, 1.6 fWAR - 18th of 39 CF

FAs:
Santana - .217/.355/.399, 17 HR, 105 wRC+, 1.1 fWAR - 18th of 38
Alonso - .250/.317/.452, 20 HR, 106 wRC+, 1.0 fWAR - 19th
Duda - .239/.309/.400, 10 HR, 91 wRC+, 0.0 fWAR - 29th
Hosmer - .254/.321/.384, 10 HR, 92 wRC+, -0.6 fWAR - 34th
Morrison - .186/.276/.378, 15 HR, 74 wRC+, -0.7 fWAR - 35th
Moustakas - .253/.310/.470, 22 HR, 107 wRC+, 1.9 fWAR - 14th of 36 3B
Frazier - .216/.297/.368, 10 HR, 84 wRC+, 0.7 fWAR - 25th

Trade "possibilities:"
Abreu - .269/.329/.485, 20 HR, 118 wRC+, 1.1 fWAR - 17th
Belt - .278/.372/.470, 14 HR, 129 wRC+, 2.7 fWAR - 7th
Bour - .227/.347/.412, 19 HR. 107 wRC+, 0.4 fWAR - 24th
Castellanos - .283/.334/.478, 16 HR, 118 wRC+, 1.7 fWAR - 17th of 42 RF
Schwarber - .244/.362/.470, 20 HR, 117 wRC+, 2.5 fWAR - 13th of 44 LF

I didn't re-read any of the offseason threads to gather names; these were just a bunch of the guys that I remember being discussed. Obviously, we're only 3/4 of the way through season #1 of some of these guys' deals, but I think DD did pretty well in hindsight. July and August have been the best months for Nunez and JBJ; Moreland's July was awful, but hopefully he's back on track. But this could easily look even better by the end of the year.

tonyarmasjr said:

Hosmer - .254/.321/.384, 10 HR, 92 wRC+, -0.6 fWAR - 34th

Click to expand...

Oof. The Padres finally open up their wallets and this is what they get. Well, at least they only have to endure 7 more years of it before the contract is up.

Thanks for putting together that list. Agreed, DD did a great job in hindsight, and +1 for dropping Hanley (a gutsy move) and picking up Pearce (who has been a much better hitter).

It's pretty satisfying to re-read this thread while JDM hits his 36 HR of the season. Well done, DD.

Edit: I would never have guessed DD would have cut Hanley, let alone that no other team would pick him up at the league minimum. It seems very likely that Hanley's played his last MLB game.