bradmahn said:
If you want to bank on de Aza being a better offensive player next year, you are welcome but I think it's completely out of line with their histories, withstanding even a year where HR played through a shoulder injury, adjusted to a new league, and has been tasked with learning to field a new position.
I mean, I get we have to hate our own, but this would be rightly laughed out of consideration during any other season of their careers. Especially if half of your valuation model is relying on a partial season's worth of data about a player who spends more time in front of the Green Monster than anywhere else.
If you make Hanley the primary first baseman, you're going to have to layer quality depth behind him and hope that the increased opportunities in the field don't result in 1. a higher probability of injury and 2. worse defensive results. Considering they already have good depth behind him in the OF, I'm okay with allowing him an offseason to improve in the field, get healthy, and be the primary left fielder next year. Paying for a quality backup in de Aza or the like when the other three outfielders total about $13m in salary for 2016 is not a problem. In fact, if they want to continue to allow for the maturation of the young guys but not punt another season, it's a great way to do so.
I'm not banking on de Aza being a better offensive player, but I'm also telling you not to bank on Hanley being a stud on offense. You're the one making a case to bring de Aza back as a 5th OF on starter money, when we have gaping holes in the rotation and bullpen. My main point is that regardless of any other plans, continuing to play Hanley in LF is not a possibility. In terms of overall value - not just offense - he is the worst OF on the team this year and probably will be next year too. Play around with the projections if you don't believe me, and tell me what you think his midpoint production in LF (offense and defense) is likely to be.
In three of the last five seasons, Hanley has put up a wRC+ of 110 or less (assuming he doesn't go on a complete tear between now and September). He had a crazy outlier year in 2013 (but couldn't stay healthy) and a very good contract year in 2014. The average of the three major projection systems for him in 2015 was 118 wRC+ ... in 2016 he will be a year older and with a much worse 2015 under his belt.
Let's not fall back on the perceived inconclusiveness of defensive metrics, either. We know Hanley is a horrible LF. The only question is how horrible, and how much he might improve. Manny was good for around -20 UZR/150 in most seasons, but was putting up 150 wRC+ every year, something Hanley has never done over a full season. UZR thinks Hanley is more than half as bad over again as Manny (-32 UZR/150). Suppose Hanley gets to -20 UZR/150 in 2016, and puts up what is likely to be his midpoint offensive projection at around 115 wRC+. That's a relatively optimistic scenario that assumes defensive improvement, offensive rebound and improved health - and it's not even a 1 win player. It's basically replacement level.
I'm also not saying write Hanley's name in ink at 1B now. I'm saying TRY him there, because if he can be decent, he has a chance to not actively hurt the club. That same 115 wRC+ combined with mediocre 1B defense (say, bottom third of the league in UZR, rather than the basement as he currently is in LF) is probably still a 1 win player. And unlike in the OF, where we have a bunch of in-house options who project to be more valuable than Hanley, we have nobody else on the roster who projects to be a 1-win 1B, unless you buy what Travis Shaw is selling.
So try him at 1B now, because it also gives you some idea of whether it could work before you have to formulate plans for the winter. Then you either find a way to dump him, include him in the 1B mix with some other options in the spring, or you turn him into a 20M bench player / platoon DH / emergency LF. But you DON'T play him in LF 100 games a year.