JDM

drbretto · Jan 12, 2018

Well, true, yes, haha. But I didn't mean their whole career snapshot. I was referring mostly to Bonds' late career stretch where he pretty much broke baseball. Yeah, yeah, steroids. I'm sure he doesn't last that long to get there without them. But, I've never seen a better combination of perfect pitch recognition, perfect swing and perfect hand-eye coordination. And I don't think we'll ever see anything like it again. His numbers came from the fear he instilled throughout the league, but that fear was rational.

Cesar Crespo · Jan 12, 2018

drbretto said:
Well, true, yes, haha. But I didn't mean their whole career snapshot. I was referring mostly to Bonds' late career stretch where he pretty much broke baseball. Yeah, yeah, steroids. I'm sure he doesn't last that long to get there without them. But, I've never seen a better combination of perfect pitch recognition, perfect swing and perfect hand-eye coordination. And I don't think we'll ever see anything like it again. His numbers came from the fear he instilled throughout the league, but that fear was rational.

Ruth broke baseball between 1920-23 too. His records were the records Bond's was beating.

sezwho · Jan 12, 2018

geoduck no quahog said:
So...Boras is doing the "pray for injury" strategy?

Is that a bad play? A couple years back I had the opportunity to attend a presentation by an analytics team that had calculated the likelihood of an energy production dislocation, and they made a big bet based on it (which, at least as I understood their positions, would have ended up paying).

Sometimes a demand spike will present if you just wait, and there are enough pillow option hedges if he gets cornered, that its probably worth the bet.

drbretto · Jan 12, 2018

Does everything on the internet have to be a goddamn argument? I'm just to have a moment to appreciate Bonds in a thread where people brought it up. I give up. I don't care.

Hank Aaron and Mark McGuire want to have a word with you, too.

Cesar Crespo · Jan 12, 2018

drbretto said:
Does everything on the internet have to be a goddamn argument? I'm just to have a moment to appreciate Bonds in a thread where people brought it up. I give up. I don't care.

Hank Aaron and Mark McGuire want to have a word with you, too.

It's a baseball message board. I don't know why you are so sensitive/defensive about it. Maybe go look up Babe Ruth's 20-23 season and enjoy that too? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just pointing out other greatness. Cry more.

drbretto · Jan 12, 2018

I'm well versed on Babe Ruth's accomplishments, thanks.

nvalvo · Jan 12, 2018

Fangraphs piece on JDM's potential: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/j-d-martinezs-potential-for-falling-off-a-cliff/

This piece sort of underlines that $150m is an important threshold. If DD can get JDM signed for below that figure, it's probably a good deal. More than that, there's a declining chance that Martinez would be expected to "earn" it in a $/WAR sense.

My prediction remains JDM to Boston for 5/$120.

soxeast · Jan 15, 2018

Why would anyone want the risk trading for Hanley and in addition why take on the additional risk of him vesting? Thus I don't see how the Sox can get around the Hanley/Moreland and JDM issue. The Sox would be stuck with Hanley as mostly a platoon. Unless you give JDM quite a few games in left field and between that and having him bat other times he'd get more than the average "lefty platoon." But when I read some say trade him if Sox get JDM. Who is going to take him with that risk of vesting?

TheYaz67 · Jan 15, 2018

Well yeah, that's the other part of the problem looking for a trade destination for Hanley, the most likely team to trade for him would probably specifically be one that needs a big "platoon" bat (so as to avoid the vesting), so most likely an AL team that could DH him and which has a lineup that is presently more left handed.... which is a short list of teams.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jan 15, 2018

The other thing with regard to Hanley and potential platoon situations...he doesn't really have much of a split over his career. In fact, in two of the last three years he has hit righties better than lefties.

Essentially if he's healthy and going well, he's hitting everyone and you don't want him out of the lineup at all. And if he's not, he's not really a great candidate for a platoon. Makes it a tough sell.

Savin Hillbilly · Jan 15, 2018

nvalvo said:
My prediction remains JDM to Boston for 5/$120.

If 5/130 really was Boston's offer (which we don't know, I realize) and he ends up signing with the Sox for less than that, Scotty has a lot of 'splainin to do.

chawson · Jan 15, 2018

Howie Kendrick back to the Nats, which should end any pretense they’re in on JDM.

Kun Aguero · Jan 15, 2018

I was just perusing stats on BR. I checked on Jay Bruce & JDM in particular. Two numbers stood out to me. One is the number of games JDM averages per year. 110 per year for 7 years. Bruce? 141 per year for 10 years. The other is career HR averaged out if they played 162 games per year. JDM is 32. Bruce is.....32. Considering they are the same age, JDM is a liability in the field, and averages 30 less games per year, is he really worth TWICE the money and TWICE the length of contract more than Bruce?? I always thought the Sox should sign him for 26 mill per year. Now I am not so sure. Or did Bruce just sign an extremely team friendly deal?

bosockboy · Jan 15, 2018

chawson said:
Howie Kendrick back to the Nats, which should end any pretense they’re in on JDM.

Off thread topic but have to think Nunez could be back now. Maybe 2/10? Hard to believe but very possible based on Kendrick’s deal.

SoxFromThe207 · Jan 15, 2018

mfried said:
Since the slugging outfielder/DH might be the one important piece of new business for the Sox this offseason, I would love to see you all address the questions:
1) How much should Dombrowski pay?
2) If they take the plunge, will Bradley or Ramirez be exported? Should they? Can the Sox use Moreland, Ramirez, Martinez and Bradley?

Definitely think Hanley would have to move in order to sign JD.

Most likely a 5 year contract with roughly $25 - 30 mill per year.

Sam Ray Not · Jan 15, 2018

Kun Aguero said:
I was just perusing stats on BR. I checked on Jay Bruce & JDM in particular. Two numbers stood out to me. One is the number of games JDM averages per year. 110 per year for 7 years. Bruce? 141 per year for 10 years. The other is career HR averaged out if they played 162 games per year. JDM is 32. Bruce is.....32. Considering they are the same age, JDM is a liability in the field, and averages 30 less games per year, is he really worth TWICE the money and TWICE the length of contract more than Bruce?? I always thought the Sox should sign him for 26 mill per year. Now I am not so sure. Or did Bruce just sign an extremely team friendly deal?

1. Career numbers are not a great baseline for performance going forward. Recent seasons are typically much more predictive, so should be weighted more heavily. (Not sure if 3-2-1 weighting is still a thing, but am sure it's a much better predictor than career numbers). JDM after a slow start to his career blossomed as a hitter in 2014, at age 26, and has totally crushed Bruce since then.

2. "Home runs per 162 " is a poor proxy for overall hitting prowess. 2004 Bonds hit roughly as many "HR per 162" as 1992 Rob Deer or 2008 Ryan Howard ... and had an OPS+ of 263 to Deer's 145 and Howard's 125. Jay Bruce is Deer-like (cervine?) in his out-making prowess and general crappiness as a hitter: .319 career OBP, below .325 every season since 2013, with three seasons below .310. JDM has two straight seasons over .370 OBP; and his .690 SLG las season is 170 points better than Bruce has ever managed.

3. Marginal improvements in production tend to have disproportionate value in the marketplace, so it's not unusual for a player to make TWICE as much (for twice as long) as a marginally inferior player. And Jay Bruce is much more than marginally inferior to JD Martinez.

Snodgrass'Muff · Jan 15, 2018

Kun Aguero said:
I was just perusing stats on BR. I checked on Jay Bruce & JDM in particular. Two numbers stood out to me. One is the number of games JDM averages per year. 110 per year for 7 years. Bruce? 141 per year for 10 years. The other is career HR averaged out if they played 162 games per year. JDM is 32. Bruce is.....32. Considering they are the same age, JDM is a liability in the field, and averages 30 less games per year, is he really worth TWICE the money and TWICE the length of contract more than Bruce?? I always thought the Sox should sign him for 26 mill per year. Now I am not so sure. Or did Bruce just sign an extremely team friendly deal?

Going back 7 years on JD Martinez makes no sense. He very clearly made a change and broke out in 2014, so that's the point at which useful samples begin. And looking just at HR doesn't tell us much. For example...

Over the last 4 seasons JD Martinez has:

520 games played (130 per season)
128 HR
148 wRC+
.362 OBP
.574 SLG
-42.8 runs defensively (as in lost, not saved)

Bruce has:

587 games played (147 per season)
113 HR
101 wRC+
.303 OBP
.457 SLG
-45.7 runs defensively (as in lost, not saved)

In short, yes, he's worth twice as much.

nvalvo · Jan 15, 2018

Kun Aguero said:
I was just perusing stats on BR. I checked on Jay Bruce & JDM in particular. Two numbers stood out to me. One is the number of games JDM averages per year. 110 per year for 7 years. Bruce? 141 per year for 10 years. The other is career HR averaged out if they played 162 games per year. JDM is 32. Bruce is.....32. Considering they are the same age, JDM is a liability in the field, and averages 30 less games per year, is he really worth TWICE the money and TWICE the length of contract more than Bruce?? I always thought the Sox should sign him for 26 mill per year. Now I am not so sure. Or did Bruce just sign an extremely team friendly deal?

Bruce isn't an improvement over our current roster as it stands.

If we need a 110 OPS+ DH, Hanley is as good a bet to do that in 2018 as Bruce is, and he's already on the roster. The reason we're interested in JDM is because we think we need more like a 150 OPS+ out of the DH spot. Hanley's had that kind of season a few times, but not recently. Bruce will likely never have that kind of season. Martinez has now beaten that mark three times, and twice in a row.

As for landing spots for Hanley, two possibilities are Texas and KC, both of whom could use RH power in their 1B/DH situation. We'd need to send some money.

There's also the (limited) possibility that, if the team is serious about a flexible bench, he has a role here even after a Martinez signing. That would be to get 150 PA as a DH on games when JDM is either out or in LF resting one of the other OF, and maybe 2-300 PA at first, splitting time with Moreland. That would require a roster where some combination of Lin/Holt/Marco/Swihart have a lot of different IF/OF/C defensive responsibilities, so I'd call it quite unlikely but conceivable. And to be clear, I don't think this is a very good idea: it's the kind of plan that totally implodes as soon as the wrong two players are hurt simultaneously.

soxhop411 · Jan 15, 2018

One less suitor for JDM

Red(s)HawksFan · Jan 15, 2018

soxhop411 said:
One less suitor for JDM

And one less object of "they should trade for X" wishcast posts. Good news all around.

It's looking more and more like waiting JDM out has been the most prudent course of action, despite the impatience of some fans and media voices.

nvalvo · Jan 15, 2018

Not that it was ever all that likely, but Andrew McCutchen is off the board.

Pending a physical, he's been traded to San Francisco, which *probably* takes them out of the JDM market.

(Although a Martinez-McCutchen-Pence OF left to right would be something to watch.)

edit: SF press suggests that the Giants' FO sees McCutchen in a corner spot, so that takes them out on JDM.

Kun Aguero · Jan 15, 2018

nvalvo said:
Bruce isn't an improvement over our current roster as it stands.

If we need a 110 OPS+ DH, Hanley is as good a bet to do that in 2018 as Bruce is, and he's already on the roster. The reason we're interested in JDM is because we think we need more like a 150 OPS+ out of the DH spot. Hanley's had that kind of season a few times, but not recently. Bruce will likely never have that kind of season. Martinez has now beaten that mark three times, and twice in a row.

As for landing spots for Hanley, two possibilities are Texas and KC, both of whom could use RH power in their 1B/DH situation. We'd need to send some money.

There's also the (limited) possibility that, if the team is serious about a flexible bench, he has a role here even after a Martinez signing. That would be to get 150 PA as a DH on games when JDM is either out or in LF resting one of the other OF, and maybe 2-300 PA at first, splitting time with Moreland. That would require a roster where some combination of Lin/Holt/Marco/Swihart have a lot of different IF/OF/C defensive responsibilities, so I'd call it quite unlikely but conceivable. And to be clear, I don't think this is a very good idea: it's the kind of plan that totally implodes as soon as the wrong two players are hurt simultaneously.

Average OPS+ is 110 for Bruce and 130 for JDM. And that 150 OPS+ is in 119 games and 123 games. If he is playing 30 games less, does the extra OPS+ really matter? You simply must include health when assessing a player also. It doesn't matter what numbers he has if he is not in the lineup.

Also I see a 150+ for JDM in 2014 and 2017. 2016 was 142. What two years in a row did he do it? I do have old eyes but I don't see it.

Snodgrass'Muff · Jan 15, 2018

Kun Aguero said:
Average OPS+ is 110 for Bruce and 130 for JDM. And that 150 OPS+ is in 119 games and 123 games. If he is playing 30 games less, does the extra OPS+ really matter? You simply must include health when assessing a player also. It doesn't matter what numbers he has if he is not in the lineup.

Also I see a 150+ for JDM in 2014 and 2017. 2016 was 142. What two years in a row did he do it? I do have old eyes but I don't see it.

You need to stop including 2011-2013 when projecting Martinez going forward.

Edit:

https://www.mlb.com/news/revamped-swing-offers-jd-martinez-new-outlook/c-68326200
http://diamondkinetics.com/looking-further-into-j-d-martinezs-swing-adjustments/
https://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/mlb/diamondbacks/2017/10/07/coaching-duo-behind-j-d-martinezs-dangerous-swing/743537001/

RedOctober3829 · Jan 15, 2018

Bob Nightengale says in his reporting of the Cutch trade that the Giants are not and have never been in on JD Martinez.

nvalvo · Jan 15, 2018

Kun Aguero said:
Average OPS+ is 110 for Bruce and 130 for JDM. And that OPS+ is in 119 games and 123 games. If he is playing 30 games less, does the extra OPS+ really matter? You simply must include health when assessing a player also. It doesn't matter what numbers he has if he is not in the lineup 20-25% of the time.

Also I see a 150+ for JDM in 2014 and 2017. What year was the third one?

Okay, I guess it's two, but he's averaged 149 OPS+ over the last four seasons.

It's true, his pre-breakout numbers in Houston weigh down his statistics, but since he remade his swing for fly balls in 2014, he's been a different guy. It's not just results. He's a totally different hitter over those two spans, with a completely different batted ball profile: with Houston, he hit 0.87 GB/FB. Since Houston, 0.63 GB/FB. (That's using the B-R definition, which rolls LD into FB.) He pops up many fewer balls, well below average. He hits many more line drives, well above average. He's gone from putting a lower than average proportion of his FB into the seats to a *much* higher than average amount, which is still more impressive because B-R's numbers include his LD spike in the denominator.

(Or... what Snodgrass said.)

chawson · Jan 15, 2018

RedOctober3829 said:
Bob Nightengale says in his reporting of the Cutch trade that the Giants are not and have never been in on JD Martinez.

No. But the Cutch trade propels the Giants roughly 3 WAR in the projections. They’re now the fifth-best team in the NL, ahead of the D-backs and Mets for a WC seat. If/when they sign Cain or Dyson, it’ll bump them higher.

Unlike our situation, where we’re already comfortably projected to make the playoffs, stakes are high that Arizona responds.

MikeM · Jan 15, 2018

nvalvo said:
Bruce isn't an improvement over our current roster as it stands.

Huh? Our lineup as it stands? I guess I can see that...if we are basically left pretending that 2017 never happened.

Which with the last visible and potential fall back option of McCutchen now off the table is currently looking even more certain to be one of the either/or off-season strategies DD is going to end up going with.

pinkunicornsox · Jan 15, 2018

Could we start a separate thread to talk about Jay Bruce who is not coming to the Red Sox due to the fact he signed with the Mets and get this thread back on track?

chawson · Jan 15, 2018

McCutchen is not the last fallback trade option. We might not be able to see them all, but they’re definitely out there.

A heavily subsidized Cabrera is one. Nelson Cruz once the Mariners fall out of the WC race is another. Castellanos, Smoak, Grichuk, Beltre, Donaldson, Headley, Joyce, Machado.

There’s no way DD turns down the opportunity to save $22M in next year’s FA market, when Betts, Bradley, Bogaerts, and Vazquez all need arb raises. I really think Hanley’s only on this team as a bluff.

MikeM · Jan 15, 2018

chawson said:
McCutchen is not the last fallback trade option. We might not be able to see them all, but they’re definitely out there.

A heavily subsidized Cabrera is one. Nelson Cruz once the Mariners fall out of the WC race is another. Castellanos, Smoak, Grichuk, Beltre, Donaldson, Headley, Joyce, Machado.

There’s no way DD turns down the opportunity to save $22M in next year’s FA market, when Betts, Bradley, Bogaerts, and Vazquez all need arb raises. I really think Hanley’s only on this team as a bluff.

Cabrera isn't a reasonable fall back option as much as it would be DD accelerating the current organizational transition we are making towards being the next Detroit Tigers after our current window runs it's course. Beyond that, we realistically don't have the trade chips and/or roster flexibility to get any of the select few guys on your list that *might* get traded this off-season.

Let's not sugar coat this. As far as any upgrading in the offseason plan goes, by any visible account DD has currently backed himself into a corner with all his eggs sitting in one non-reach'y basket. Which after today is looking to be shaping up as a potential stare down with Arizona.

chawson · Jan 15, 2018

MikeM said:
Cabrera isn't a reasonable fall back option as much as it would be DD accelerating the current organizational transition we are making towards being the next Detroit Tigers after our current window runs it's course. Beyond that, we realistically don't have the trade chips and/or roster flexibility to get any of the select few guys on your list that *might* get traded this off-season.

Let's not sugar coat this. As far as any upgrading in the offseason plan goes, by any visible account DD has currently backed himself into a corner with all his eggs sitting in one non-reach'y basket. Which after today is looking to be shaping up as a potential stare down with Arizona.

I mean that those guys could be available at the trade deadline, not this offseason.

Look, there’s no way DD wants Hanley’s $22 million option to vest, especially before a historic FA class. Even if he roars back and puts up a .900 OPS in 2018, would we bank on him being worth another $22 million in his age-35 season?

If Hanley’s hitting well by July and is a vital cog on a playoff-bound team, you can’t just cut him to keep him from hitting 493 PAs. And with his 2019 option he still won’t have any trade value even if he’s hitting. He has to be replaced now.

One way to address that problem is if the Tigers take Hanley as part of a Cabrera trade. Doing that also absolves the Sox of the bad optics of cutting a guy to keep his option from vesting (which is shitty business and I’m not trying to glorify).

I hear your concerns and I share some of them, but surely there is a price at which Hall of Fame hitter Miguel Cabrera makes reasonable sense as a Red Sox DH. If he’s healthy, Miggy at 6/$70 is a good deal, especially if JDM isn’t budging from $150. That’s the Tigers paying half and taking back Hanley. That’s a ton of money for the Tigers to pick up; seen another way, they’d be saving $70M and gaining a roster spot for a team that’s going nowhere.

FWIW, Steamer projects Cabrera for a .368 wOBA next year. It projects JDM at .371 wOBA.

Sampo Gida · Jan 15, 2018

chawson said:
I mean that those guys could be available at the trade deadline, not this offseason.

Look, there’s no way DD wants Hanley’s $22 million option to vest, especially before a historic FA class. Even if he roars back and puts up a .900 OPS in 2018, would we bank on him being worth another $22 million in his age-35 season?

If Hanley’s hitting well by July and is a vital cog on a playoff-bound team, you can’t just cut him to keep him from hitting 493 PAs. And with his 2019 option he still won’t have any trade value even if he’s hitting. He has to be replaced now.

One way to address that problem is if the Tigers take Hanley as part of a Cabrera trade. Doing that also absolves the Sox of the bad optics of cutting a guy to keep his option from vesting (which is shitty business and I’m not trying to glorify).

I hear your concerns and I share some of them, but surely there is a price at which Hall of Fame hitter Miguel Cabrera makes reasonable sense as a Red Sox DH. If he’s healthy, Miggy at 6/$70 is a good deal, especially if JDM isn’t budging from $150. That’s the Tigers paying half and taking back Hanley. That’s a ton of money for the Tigers to pick up; seen another way, they’d be saving $70M and gaining a roster spot for a team that’s going nowhere.

FWIW, Steamer projects Cabrera for a .368 wOBA next year. It projects JDM at .371 wOBA.

Pretty much they have to pick up half his salary and not expect much in return, but even then. He looked cooked last year and while that was was due to injury, it was his second 2nd injury in 3 years. Never really known as someone who took care of himself I fear he won't age well in the last 3 years

For 90 million over 6 years I wouldn't mind giving him a shot. It could pay off nicely for 3 years or so and then perhaps dead money , but they can structure it so Tigers pay more of the 90 million at the back end and 15 million AAV shouldn't hurt too much at the end if MLBPA can get their act together and bump the threshold significantly. Throwing in Hanley as part of the deal means Tigers only eat 70 million or so. That bumps the AAV up to 18 million though , so I prefer to keep Hanley and make sure his option does not vest.

soxeast · Jan 16, 2018

Red(s)HawksFan said:
The other thing with regard to Hanley and potential platoon situations...he doesn't really have much of a split over his career. In fact, in two of the last three years he has hit righties better than lefties.

Essentially if he's healthy and going well, he's hitting everyone and you don't want him out of the lineup at all. And if he's not, he's not really a great candidate for a platoon. Makes it a tough sell.

I think Hanely is a platoon. But ofc when he is goign good can hit anyone. Not completely ideal as a platoon but still better vs lefties. I looked up his numbers from 2010 to present.

2010 Hit slightly better vs righties . 020 OPS difference.
2011 Hit lefties extremely better .361 OPS difference.
2012 Hit lefties a bit better .049 OPS difference
2013 Hit lefties much better .141 OPS difference.
2014 Hit lefties a bit better .068 OPS difference
2015 Hit slightly better vs righties .010 OPS difference.
2016 Hit lefties extremely better .301 OPS difference..
2017 Hit righties extremely better .090 OPS difference.

Red(s)HawksFan · Jan 16, 2018

soxeast said:
I think Hanely is a platoon. But ofc when he is goign good can hit anyone. Not completely ideal as a platoon but still better vs lefties. I looked up his numbers from 2010 to present.

2010 Hit slightly better vs righties . 020 OPS difference.
2011 Hit lefties extremely better .361 OPS difference.
2012 Hit lefties a bit better .049 OPS difference
2013 Hit lefties much better .141 OPS difference.
2014 Hit lefties a bit better .068 OPS difference
2015 Hit slightly better vs righties .010 OPS difference.
2016 Hit lefties extremely better .301 OPS difference..
2017 Hit righties extremely better .090 OPS difference.

A difference in OPS of less than .100 isn't significant enough to justify a platoon (it certainly doesn't represent an "extreme" difference). My point here is that if he's hitting well in general, pitcher handedness makes no difference....

Seasons where he hit LHP better than RHP:
2016: .796 vs RHP, .866 overall OPS
2014: .801 vs RHP, .817 overall
2013: 1.001 vs RHP, 1.040 overall
2012: .745 vs RHP, .759 overall
2011: .633 vs RHP, .712 overall

His OPS vs RHP tends to track with how he hits overall. If he's hitting well in a platoon (primarily against LHP), it's highly likely he's going to be hit well enough to justify playing full time. And no doubt Hanley knows this. This is not a clear cut case that it would work well or that the player would be amenable to it...even before the vesting option is brought into the discussion. All I'm saying is that the whole thing is a sticky messy situation and thus not something a potential trade partner is going to be keen on bringing into their house.

chawson · Jan 16, 2018

With all due respect, Hanley's splits are beside the point.

Our payroll today is roughly $200M after arb payouts.
In 2019, $26.33 million will come off the books in Kimbrel, Kelly, Pomeranz and Craig.
Also in 2019, we'll have arb increases for Betts, Bradley, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Barnes, Smith, Thornburg, Leon, Hembree, Rodriguez, Wright, Smith, Workman, Elias, and Hembree. There's also a $2.5MM increase for Sale (which I'm not sure affects AAV).

Not all those guys will be on the roster next year, but realistically, that money is a wash. It leaves us with roughly the same $35MM of space under the $237 million figure in 2019 that we have now—except unlike this offseason, we'll need to fill 300 elite innings vacated by Kimbrel, Kelly, and Pomeranz. How well does Hanley have to play this season for you to believe his age-35 season is worth picking up for $22M? For two-thirds of our available money? In a winter with an historic FA class?

I love Hanley, but to me, the answer is impossibly high. If he's OPSing .650 in June, the decision's easy. But if the Sox open the season with Hanley and he's putting up a .900 OPS over 400 PAs by the end of July, DD's fucked. Cutting or trading him would destroy clubhouse morale, and would be seen by players, the union, and the league as a naked declaration that the Sox are trying to keep his option from vesting. The decision has to be made now.

Minneapolis Millers · Jan 16, 2018

chawson said:
...If he's OPSing .650 in June, the decision's easy. But if the Sox open the season with Hanley and he's putting up a .900 OPS over 400 PAs by the end of July, DD's fucked. Cutting or trading him would destroy clubhouse morale, and would be seen by players, the union, and the league as a naked declaration that the Sox are trying to keep his option from vesting. The decision has to be made now.

This is likely to be but not necessarily true. If we're hitting the crap out of the ball but need pitching, we could trade a good-hitting HR for a pitcher (for example), avoid his option, and not cause a mutiny. This is the franchise that traded Nomar mid-year in a World Series-winning season, after all.

chawson · Jan 16, 2018

Minneapolis Millers said:
This is likely to be but not necessarily true. If we're hitting the crap out of the ball but need pitching, we could trade a good-hitting HR for a pitcher (for example), avoid his option, and not cause a mutiny. This is the franchise that traded Nomar mid-year in a World Series-winning season, after all.

What team would want to trade for an expensive, inconsistently productive, 34-year-old mostly-DH that wouldn't also need the pitching they'd be trading us for their own stretch/playoff run?

Buzzkill Pauley · Jan 16, 2018

chawson said:
With all due respect, Hanley's splits are beside the point.

Our payroll today is roughly $200M after arb payouts.
In 2019, $26.33 million will come off the books in Kimbrel, Kelly, Pomeranz and Craig.
In 2019, we'll have arb increases for Betts, Bradley, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Barnes, Smith, Thornburg, Leon, Hembree, Rodriguez, Wright, Smith, Workman, Elias, and Hembree. There's also a $2.5MM increase for Sale (which I'm not sure affects AAV).

Not all those guys will be on the roster next year, but realistically, that's a wash. It leaves us with roughly the same $35MM of cap space under the $237 million figure in 2019 that we have now—except unlike this offseason, we'll need to fill 300 elite innings vacated by Kimbrel, Kelly, and Pomeranz. How well does Hanley have to play this season for you to believe his age-35 season is worth picking up for $22M? For two-thirds of our available money? In a winter with an historic FA class?

I love Hanley, but to me, the answer is impossibly high. If he's OPSing .650 in June, the decision's easy. But if the Sox open the season with Hanley and he's putting up a .900 OPS over 400 PAs by the end of July, DD's fucked. Cutting or trading him woulwd destroy clubhouse morale, and would be seen by players, the union, and the league as a naked declaration that the Sox are trying to keep his option from vesting. The decision has to be made now.

No, it doesn’t because there are loads of other options.

As one other option, DDski may be loath to exceed the $237MM secondary cap in 2018 because he has already discussed the potential need to do so in 2019. One year of dropping in the draft is bad enough, but two in a row would be really problematic. So exceeding the secondary cap in 2019 might be necessary to continue fielding a team with Championship aspirations.

Another option is to tear it down after 2018. Probably not really popular, but it’s an option. Especially if the 2018-19 Free Agent class is asking for the moon, the Sox should easily find takers for two years of Mookie, two years of JBJ, one year of Bogaerts, one year of Porcello, and one year of Sale. Sure would suck to lose those guys, but trading them for prospects would certainly cover the $41MM due Panda and Hanley in 2019. Then the team can build its offense around Benintendi, Devers, and JDM, and can build it’s pitching around Price and EdRo.

There are lots other options between these two extremes; however they all share one commonality: that it’s not so urgent to deal with Hanley as you appear to believe.

chawson · Jan 16, 2018

Buzzkill Pauley said:
No, it doesn’t because there are loads of other options.

As one other option, DDski may be loath to exceed the $237MM secondary cap in 2018 because he has already discussed the potential need to do so in 2019. One year of dropping in the draft is bad enough, but two in a row would be really problematic. So exceeding the secondary cap in 2019 might be necessary to continue fielding a team with Championship aspirations.

Another option is to tear it down after 2018. Probably not really popular, but it’s an option. Especially if the 2018-19 Free Agent class is asking for the moon, the Sox should easily find takers for two years of Mookie, two years of JBJ, one year of Bogaerts, one year of Porcello, and one year of Sale. Sure would suck to lose those guys, but trading them for prospects would certainly cover the $41MM due Panda and Hanley in 2019. Then the team can build its offense around Benintendi, Devers, and JDM, and can build it’s pitching around Price and EdRo.

There are lots other options between these two extremes; however they all share one commonality: that it’s not so urgent to deal with Hanley as you appear to believe.

Even if either of these nuclear options occur, why do you think Hanley at $22 million is our best DH option in 2019?

Buzzkill Pauley · Jan 16, 2018

chawson said:
Even if either of these nuclear options occur, why do you think Hanley at $22 million is our best DH option in 2019?

Don’t you mean 1B?

Because if JDM signs with the Red Sox, then he’ll probably be the team’s best DH option in 2019. If he doesn’t, the whole scenario of fiscal crisis you laid out above will be entirely moot.

chawson · Jan 16, 2018

Buzzkill Pauley said:
Don’t you mean 1B?

Because if JDM signs with the Red Sox, then he’ll probably be the team’s best DH option in 2019. If he doesn’t, the whole scenario of fiscal crisis you laid out above will be entirely moot.

No, I mean DH. We already have a 1B under contract for 2019. Would you rather spend $22 million for 35-year-old Hanley to play first in 2019 or $6.5 million for 33-year-old Mitch Moreland to do it? (Assuming we find a taker for Moreland's contract in a trade.)

If the Sox sign JDM, Hanley's gone. He's either traded for another team's dead meat or he's DFA'd. But that'd also be the case if they trade for Castellanos, or sign Lucas Duda or Neil Walker to a 1/$10 million deal in the next month. The $22 million payroll space in 2019 is too valuable, and the risk of triggering his option or committing a damaging ethical foul by cutting a productive player mid-season is too great.

Minneapolis Millers · Jan 16, 2018

chawson said:
What team would want to trade for an expensive, inconsistently productive, 34-year-old mostly-DH that wouldn't also need the pitching they'd be trading us for their own stretch/playoff run?

A team with surplus pitching that experiences injuries to its line-up. Houston and Cleveland could be in that spot with a key injury or two. Maybe the Cubs will be, especially if they add another FA starter, or even the Mets. How can we predict injuries or breakouts?

The point is, there's a greater than zero chance that a trade along those lines materializes. Maybe the Sox would have to send an extra $5M to make it happen, but it's certainly on the list of possibilities. Which is why I don't think DD is necessarily screwed if he doesn't move Hanley this offseason.

chawson · Jan 16, 2018

Minneapolis Millers said:
A team with surplus pitching that experiences injuries to its line-up. Houston and Cleveland could be in that spot with a key injury or two. Maybe the Cubs will be, especially if they add another FA starter, or even the Mets. How can we predict injuries or breakouts?

The point is, there's a greater than zero chance that a trade along those lines materializes. Maybe the Sox would have to send an extra $5M to make it happen, but it's certainly on the list of possibilities. Which is why I don't think DD is necessarily screwed if he doesn't move Hanley this offseason.

I really don't see it. The teams with playoff aspirations are already ridiculously small, and there's a surplus of cheap-to-acquire first basemen in the league. Your hypothetical presumes a team wants to trade for a guy who's been DHing the first few months of 2018 and give him a first baseman's glove, especially one who has a history of complaining about playing first base, and was too hurt to play it most of last season. By that point, there'd be scores of Nelson Cruzes, Brad Millers, Matt Joyces, Nick Markakises, Joe Mauers, and Chase Headleys available for the stretch run who wouldn't cost $10 million and surplus pitching.

I don't know a team where even a mashing Hanley would offer enough of an upgrade that they'd give up something of value for him. The Cubs have Rizzo. The Mets have Dominic Smith, Adrian Gonzalez, and Jay Bruce. Cleveland signed Yonder Alonso to play first and have Encarnacion DHing. The Astros have Gurriel and Gattis. In the slim chance one of those individual players get hurt, those teams have better options available. Playoff-bound NL teams would be less inclined to trade for him; playoff-bound AL teams are our competition.

Buzzkill Pauley · Jan 16, 2018

chawson said:
No, I mean DH. We already have a 1B under contract for 2019. Would you rather spend $22 million for 35-year-old Hanley to play first in 2019 or $6.5 million for 33-year-old Mitch Moreland to do it? (Assuming we find a taker for Moreland's contract in a trade.)

If the Sox sign JDM, Hanley's gone. He's either traded for another team's dead meat or he's DFA'd. But that'd also be the case if they trade for Castellanos, or sign Lucas Duda or Neil Walker to a 1/$10 million deal. The $22 million payroll space in 2019 is too valuable, and the risk of triggering his option or committing an ethical foul by cutting a productive player mid-season is too great.

I’m sorry. I’m having trouble keeping track of all your hypotheticals issues besetting 2019 that apparently need to be redressed immediately.

But my big bat question is this: if Hanley’s so productive a hitter in the middle of the lineup that he can’t be moved or platooned without losing the rest of the clubhouse, what’s the problem paying him? Aren’t you also advocating paying more than $22M for JDM to be a .900+ OPSing DH?

And no, there’s no way Hanley gets DFA’d before the season starts.

chawson · Jan 16, 2018

Buzzkill Pauley said:
I’m sorry. I’m having trouble keeping track of all your hypotheticals issues besetting 2019 that apparently need to be redressed immediately.

But my big bat question is this: if Hanley’s so productive a hitter in the middle of the lineup that he can’t be moved or platooned without losing the rest of the clubhouse, what’s the problem paying him? Aren’t you also advocating paying more than $22M for JDM to be a .900+ OPSing DH?

And no, there’s no way Hanley gets DFA’d before the season starts.

Respectfully, I'm don't understand what's hard to follow. The first principle is that the Sox shouldn't want to pay Hanley $22 million in 2019 under any circumstances, no matter how good he may be next year. There's nothing hypothetical about Mitch Moreland being under contract for 2019, nor there being countless better/cheaper options, via FA or trade, who are better bets to DH for us in 2019.

Observing that principle, it's better that we address that now, for the reasons I outlined above.

If DD wants to blow over the $237 million secondary tax threshold and take the financial/draft pick hit, then you're right, my point's moot. But I have no indication they want to do that. Because of the draft pick, I hope they don't.

Minneapolis Millers · Jan 16, 2018

chawson said:
I really don't see it. The teams with playoff aspirations are already ridiculously small, and there's a surplus of cheap-to-acquire first basemen in the league. And that presumes a team wants to trade for a guy who's been DHing the first few months of 2018 and give him a first baseman's glove, especially one who has a history of complaining about playing first base, and was too hurt to play it most of last season. By that point, there'd be scores of Nelson Cruzes, Brad Millers, Matt Joyces, Nick Markakises, Joe Mauers, and Chase Headleys available for the stretch run who wouldn't cost $10 million and surplus pitching.

I don't know a team where even a mashing Hanley would offer enough of an upgrade that they'd give up something of value for him. The Cubs have Rizzo. The Mets have Dominic Smith, Adrian Gonzalez, and Jay Bruce. Cleveland signed Yonder Alonso to play first and have Encarnacion DHing. The Astros have Gurriel and Gattis. In the slim chance one of those individual players get hurt, those teams have better options available. Playoff-bound NL teams would be less inclined to trade for him; playoff-bound AL teams are our competition.

If Hanley's playing like Brad Miller or Matt Joyce, then no, he won't be tradable. But then he WOULD be benchable. If he's OPS'ing .900, in the situation you fear, and we still really want to trade him to avoid the option, then there should be a market for his services. There won't be THAT many .900 guys (with a history of actually being good) available in July. And if your primary motivation is to dump him because of the option, the we could add $5M and get an Addison Reed-type (solid set-up guy) back. Or we could keep him for our own playoff push and deal with the option and the possibility of trading a subsidized Hanley next off-season.

I don't think the situation is as dire as you paint. But YMMV.

chawson · Jan 16, 2018

Minneapolis Millers said:
If Hanley's playing like Brad Miller or Matt Joyce, then no, he won't be tradable. But then he WOULD be benchable.

Matt Joyce had a better year than Hanley's last year; Brad Miller had a better one the year before, so I reject the premise here. To your larger point, if he's "benchable" and we're playing a better guy at DH, then Hanley's not worth the roster spot. Not with the fleet of cheaply available players on the 18-20 teams not in playoff contention.

Minneapolis Millers said:
If he's OPS'ing .900, in the situation you fear, and we still really want to trade him to avoid the option, then there should be a market for his services. There won't be THAT many .900 guys (with a history of actually being good) available in July.

In a league with more parity, maybe, but not this one. Hanley's market would be limited to the superteams (NYY, CHC, WAS, HOU, CLE, LAD) or the small handful of teams fighting for a Wild Card spot (LAA, MIN, STL, ARI, COL, SF, NYM, maybe SEA and TOR). Except the NL teams would be disinclined to give up anything of value for an expensive DH (and would have better options to play first base in-house and via trade) and the AL teams would be our direct competition. He has no value to the scores of rebuilding teams unless they wanna swap one of their own bad contracts.

Minneapolis Millers said:
And if your primary motivation is to dump him because of the option, the we could add $5M and get an Addison Reed-type (solid set-up guy) back.

Yes, the option is the primary motivation. And again, no contender would trade us a valuable piece of their bullpen, and no non-contender would play Hanley.

Minneapolis Millers said:
Or we could keep him for our own playoff push and deal with the option and the possibility of trading a subsidized Hanley next off-season.

Committing $22 million to a 35-year-old 1-WAR DH in a 2019 offseason when we need to replace a #3 starter and two stud relievers and have only $35 million to do it is dumb. So would be paying $10 million for him to play for another team.

Not trying to be combative with the multiple pullquotes. Just going for clarity.

Hawk68 · Jan 16, 2018

I believe that much of the play/sit/trade/release Hanley Ramirez discussion is a tail chase over complicated by consideration of free agent opinion regarding the organization.

Football is bottom line business. And nobody is more ready to cut a player loose when it is the right thing for the team than Coach Belichick. Yet, players want to play for the Patriots - for their own reasons.

Baseball is a bottom line business. If Hanley's cost exceeds his value, he will be gone by any means necessary. And the next batch of free agent players will assess their options and accept the offer best meeting their needs - as they always do.

Dewey'sCannon · Jan 16, 2018

I agree with BP - there's zero chance that Hanley gets DFA'd now, even if they sign JDM. They aren't going to eat the $22m for 2018 (just to avoid the 2019 option) when there's a chance he can make a positive contribution to a contending team in 2018. If he sucks, or isn't healthy, then they won't have worry about the option because he won't get the PAs to trigger it. But if he has a 900 OPS, I don't see that as a bad thing, even if it triggers the 2019 option. It's not like the Sox are really going to be major players for Harper, Machado or Kershaw next offseason - none of those guys is coming to Boston. If they really need to free up salary to resign (or replace) other guys next offseason, then it shouldn't be that hard to trade a 900 OPS Hanley on a one-year deal.

chawson · Jan 16, 2018

Hawk68 said:
I believe that much of the play/sit/trade/release Hanley Ramirez discussion is a tail chase over complicated by consideration of free agent opinion regarding the organization.

Football is bottom line business. And nobody is more ready to cut a player loose when it is the right thing for the team than Coach Belichick. Yet, players want to play for the Patriots - for their own reasons.

Baseball is a bottom line business. If Hanley's cost exceeds his value, he will be gone by any means necessary. And the next batch of free agent players will assess their options and accept the offer best meeting their needs - as they always do.

You could say this about every business if you’re looking at it from the owners’ perspective.

Morally speaking, with the amount of money in baseball, it’s kind of a shitty situation for Hanley to be in. But that doesn’t make his 2019 forecast any brighter.

JDM

Member

79

Member

Member

79

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

news aggravator

Member

Member

New Member

oppresses WARmongers

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Member

Member

Member

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!

Member

New Member

Member

Member