Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

Hanley DFA'd (5/25 Update)

Discussion in 'Red Sox Forum' started by Pozo the Clown, Feb 20, 2018.

  1. gedman211

    gedman211 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,121
    Interesting that the Sox have the same issue this year as last, when they rode Chris Young all season as the situational righty bat. A decision from which I still suffer PTSD. Then they tried to patch it up with Rajai Davis who proved predictably useless. I still contend that Bryce Brentz could've popped a few over the monster down the stretch, but he probably wasn't going to be a difference maker. This season they aren't in any better shape to match up with a late game LOOGY, since Nunez has some weird reverse splits, especially in terms of power. Hanley could've been a real threat off the bench, but now it's up to DD work some deadline magic with maybe $3 mil in payroll and a Flotsam and Jetsam prospect package. Not a lot of holes on this club, but I'll be keen to see how this gets addressed over the next few months.
     
  2. samuelLsamson

    samuelLsamson lurker

    Messages:
    976
    I'm wondering if this is disallowed by the rules governing MLB incentives - it would make some sense that if it's not allowed to structure bonuses to take into account statistical achievement that teams are also prohibited from building in "punitive" contractual terms that are based on statistics, outside of the ones listed on the link I provided.
     
  3. wade boggs chicken dinner

    wade boggs chicken dinner Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,778
    I understand that and I also understand the ban on personal services contracts and milestone bonuses. Still, I would love to try to figure out a contract that (1) gives a player appropriate value for a baseline level of performance, (2) protects against injury, and (3) protects the club against a Pedro Sandoval or Chris Davis level of suck, which is in no one's interest except the individual players.
     
  4. doc

    doc Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,873
    An interesting scenario would be if all player made say $1.5 M per year, but the playoff bonuses were huge, like $15 to $20M per player. I think Finley hap proposed something like that once upon a time.
     
  5. dhappy42

    dhappy42 Member

    Messages:
    4,906
    Is Hanley suiting up for today’s alumni game?
     
  6. Hank Scorpio

    Hank Scorpio Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,863
    Wouldn’t that have the effect of cliques of highly talented players forming and clustering themselves towards certain franchises to maximize their payday?

    I think it’d essentially be certain guys in the players union picking their own teams, like kids playing kickball.
     
  7. dhappy42

    dhappy42 Member

    Messages:
    4,906
    Sorta like the NBA.
     
  8. BCsMightyJoeYoung

    BCsMightyJoeYoung Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,033
    Leaving aside the practical issue of both sides wanting to maximize their return ..

    Philosophically, Players and Teams are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. Players want to be paid for what the have accomplished. Teams, on the other hand, want to pay players for what they are likely to accomplish.

    This should be pretty obvious .. but in Hanley’s case (and Sandoval as well) the contract reflected past performance.

    So , an incentive based wage structure is probably the fairest all around.

    Basing wages on team performance (it IS a team game after all) makes sense. But then you run into the problem of good players not wanting to play for bad teams.

    Basing wages on individual performance - something simple like WAR - also makes sense. But then you run into the issue of players not doing the small ball stuff - instead maximizing their own stats.

    I think a combination of the two -say 25% Team and 75% Player could be an interesting way to do this.
     
  9. Red(s)HawksFan

    Red(s)HawksFan Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,214
    Clearly, you have to get rid of free agency and re-institute the reserve clause. I mean, that's more or less how the league worked back then in terms of players getting big bonuses, relative to salary, for World Series appearances.

    Just a couple examples...

    In 1920, the average salary was $5,000. The World Series share that year was $4,168 to the winner and the loser got $2,419. So the average player stood to nearly double their income by winning the World Series.

    In 1960, the average salary was $16,000. World Series share that year was $8,417 to the winner and the loser got $5,214.

    Contrast that to more modern era, such as in 2001 when the minimum salary for a player was $200,000 and the World Series share for the winner was $294,783 and the loser got $238,653. Or last year when the league minimum was $400,000 and World Series shares were $438,901 to the winners and $259,722 to the losers. The only players significantly augmenting their income with a World Series win are rookies.
     
  10. tonyarmasjr

    tonyarmasjr Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    978
    I haven't seen much of his play out there recently, and any defensive stats of his are going to be pretty worthless at this point in the season. He's obviously not a gold glover, but has his defense been a detriment to this point?

    Be careful...I can see the devil twisting his way into you...

    I think that regression is bound to work both directions. The top-heavy lineup is due in part to Moreland and Betts hitting above their heads (though let's hope we're wrong!), but also to Nunez, JBJ, Swihart and the catchers all being at or below a 65 wRC+. I'd wager pretty heavily that not more than 1 or 2 of those guys are there in September - and none down in the teens, twenties, or forties (Swihart, Vazquez, JBJ respectively). If they don't start trending up at some point, either their PAs or roster spots will disappear. There's enough shit to throw against the wall that you can find a guy or two to put up a 70+ at the bottom of the lineup. It doesn't need to be a high-upside guy. Any of Travis, Lind, some other random DFA, Olt, Ohlman, DeJesus, Lin, Butler, Tavarez, Barfield, etc. could potentially be an improvement down the road. It would depend on who can right the ship and who has the hot hand behind those who can't. Very few teams carry 9+ above average hitters; we just need the bottom to be generally competent to lengthen the lineup. I believe we'll see that becoming the case in another month or two - one way or another.
     
  11. Manramsclan

    Manramsclan Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,433
    Reading is fundamental
     
  12. Reverend

    Reverend for king and country Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    37,359
    So is attention to indefinite pronouns.
     
  13. YTF

    YTF Well-Known Member Silver Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,314
    Today's lineup is an example of why I think we may see DD making a complimentary move to Hanley's DFA. I realize that the plan wasn't for both Mookie and J.D. to have today off, but it happened. The starting line up was not terribly impressive and that bench as currently constructed isn't much to write home about.
     
  14. Red(s)HawksFan

    Red(s)HawksFan Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,214
    A lineup with Benintendi, Bogaerts, Moreland, Pedroia, and Devers at the top should be able to put up more than one run most of the time. Sometimes you have to tip your hat to the opposing pitcher.

    I honestly was surprised that the move when Betts was scratched was Swihart rather than Martinez, but I suppose at this point in the year, when you commit to giving a guy a rest day, you don't ask him to start a game with no notice. Later in the year, you're not going to have those guys on the bench voluntarily like that.

    As for a complimentary move to replace Hanley...what's out there? They have no free cash and no prospects so they're limited to shopping the scrap heap. What are the chances they find someone in their price range that significantly upgrades the current bench?
     
  15. chawson

    chawson Well-Known Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,324
    The Giants are reportedly considering cutting Hunter Pence with Mac Williamson performing well.

    Pence has brutal major league numbers this year (while hurt) and is 35. But he hits lefties well historically (124 wRC+), and reportedly has been re-tooling his swing in the minors, which has apparently paying off.

    https://www.sfgate.com/giants/article/Giants-Hunter-Pence-feels-ready-to-return-to-12946708.php

    Pence is on the last year of his deal making $18.5 million. That’s close enough to Hanley’s that I could conceive of a swap working for both teams, which means he could cost us nothing. I could see the Giants interested in Hanley. He’d complement Brandon Belt against LHP, and play first when Belt plays the outfield.
     
    #615 chawson, May 27, 2018
    Last edited: May 27, 2018
  16. sean1562

    sean1562 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,084
    The black holes in our lineup arent at 1B or DH, they are in CF(today RF) and catcher. Getting Nunez out of an everyday role and playing Moreland more will help this team's offense. But IDK how far we can carry JBJ any longer, and one of Leon/Vazquez needs to improve
     
  17. Byrdbrain

    Byrdbrain Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    7,920
    They have the second best offense in MLB just a tick behind the Yankees and they are in first place.
    It would be great to get more out of CF and catcher but as for how long can they keep going like this I would answer all season.

    Edit: The other two guys are right as well, Sandy and JBJ have both been better recently.
     
    #617 Byrdbrain, May 27, 2018
    Last edited: May 27, 2018
  18. Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat

    Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat has big, douchey shoulders Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    31,065
    Sandy has improved. He's had a very good May.
     
  19. chawson

    chawson Well-Known Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,324
    JBJ is 5 for 17 with a .739 OPS and 103 wRC+ since he shortened his leg kick at the plate last Monday. Modest, but that’s a very good player with everything else he brings.
     
  20. Oppo

    Oppo Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    Isn't Posey playing 1b when Belt is out or in the OF?
     
  21. chawson

    chawson Well-Known Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,324
    Posey’s logged 51 innings there, yeah. And Sandoval 50, which is more than he’s played at third. Posey’s numbers are a little down this year and I could imagine him using a bit more rest than he’s getting. It may even be the case, if this move were to happen, that Hanley replaces Sandoval on their roster.

    It’s still kind of a long shot, but it almost looks like there could be a sort of market for Hanley in the NL West — or at least his next 300 PAs. His bat would help, in various ways, the Giants (above), Dodgers (platoon with 1B/OF Bellinger) Rockies (replacing Ian Desmond). Each of those teams is somewhat desperate for offense, and each have comparably negative contracts to trade.

    It’s a better scenario than the Angels scooping him up in a week for nothing.
     
    #621 chawson, May 27, 2018
    Last edited: May 27, 2018
  22. gedman211

    gedman211 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,121
    Puig is relatively cheap. He's also relatively a knucklehead.
     
  23. Al Zarilla

    Al Zarilla Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    48,030
    When Belt plays the outfield it’s because Posey is getting a “rest” playing first base, so no place for Hanley. Giants are competitive, kind of, so they may go for a guy who could be a big bat.
     
  24. Red(s)HawksFan

    Red(s)HawksFan Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,214
    Not cheap enough unless the Dodgers subsidize. His cap hit would be a prorated amount of his $6M AAV. Even at $3M for half the year, that might be too much.
     
  25. soxeast

    soxeast lurker

    Messages:
    206
    Trade Pomeranz.
     
  26. JimBoSox9

    JimBoSox9 will you be my friend? SoSH Member

    Messages:
    16,507
    One of the biggest commonalities I've seen across all the idiots and fools I've met, is definitely a consistent eagerness to sell low.
     
  27. soxeast

    soxeast lurker

    Messages:
    206
    Please provide the link where I said to sell low or make a trade now. You assumed that didn't you?
     
  28. sean1562

    sean1562 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,084
    Regardless, outside of the back and forth, what would Pomeranz even fetch? Who would trade for him? He has no value if he is a bad SP to anyone that would want him.
     
  29. soxeast

    soxeast lurker

    Messages:
    206
    He has no value right now. But right now the Sox have the best or 2nd best record in all of baseball, right? So is there this huge rush to acquire a player? No.

    And isn't it probable that while we'd assume our players regress to their mean that we will also have players that improve to their mean? Or will only "Mookie Betts" regress without any player improvements?

    Pomeranz has had 2 solid years - so now he's going to fall off the cliff for the entire year? Possible but I doubt it. Even if you throw him in the bullpen, at some point you'd expect he'd come out if it, right?

    Pomz has already shown for 2 straight years he can "perform." And the Sox have Castillo in the minors who hits LH pitching extremely well as one option though I'm an advocate like probably 99% of the people to wait. Frankly I think I'd prefer to go after a catcher later in the year with the expectation Pomz will come out of it.
     
    #629 soxeast, May 28, 2018
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
  30. sean1562

    sean1562 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,084
    If Pomeranz "comes out of it" why would we trade him, and for what? If Pom is a 3.3-3.5 ERA starter on this team he is incredibly valuable. I guess I don't see what your point is? Trade him to a contender that is also looking to unload a catcher? a useful bench piece? If Pom is an asset worth trading for then he is a huge asset to this team. If he sucks, nobody that could use him would want him.

    What would be a viable and beneficial Pomeranz trade? Who do we trade him to exactly and for what? Which playoff team would see Pomeranz as an upgrade worthy of seeking out?
     
  31. YTF

    YTF Well-Known Member Silver Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,314
    Every MLB lineup should be able to put up more than one run most of the time. My post has nothing to do with the score of the game or tipping my hat to the opposing pitcher but rather the lineup they were forced to present. There seems to be little help waiting in the wings and I'm not quite sure of Washington's situation, but Ryan Zimmerman looks to be close to returning. I wonder if that may make Mark Reynolds and his $1M contract available. Flexibility at the corners with power possibly replacing some of the Holt/Nunez redundancy.
     
  32. Drek717

    Drek717 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,536
    Pomeranz has also been a valuable reliever in his career, if he loses his starting job the club could absolutely get value out of a good left handed reliever in the pen.
     
  33. grimshaw

    grimshaw the new rudy SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,365
    Mark Reynolds hasn't played 3b since 2015 and has almost no career platoon split. He's also basically a league average overall bat which makes him a poor first baseman. It's by no means a given that Swihart could out produce him at 1b, but it's possible. Cora doesn't want one position guys either. He wants flexibility.
     
    #633 grimshaw, May 28, 2018
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
  34. NDame616

    NDame616 will bailey SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,719
    When you suggest trading a player that usually implies "now" or relatively soon. I suppose you could've meant "trade him in the off season" which would be a pretty confusing suggestion about the 2018 Sox.

    And since you probably implied trading him now (or soon), which would be the definition of selling low since he's 1-2 with a 6.75 ERA
     
  35. Drek717

    Drek717 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,536
    Pomeranz also has just over 5 years of ML service time entering this season, so it would take some pretty unique circumstances for him not to be a free agent after this season.
     
  36. NDame616

    NDame616 will bailey SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,719
    thought he had 1 more year of arbitration. Head still foggy after game 7....
     
  37. chawson

    chawson Well-Known Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,324
    The time to trade Pomeranz was clearly last offseason, when he won 17 games yet lost a ton of velocity down the stretch.

    On the other hand, maybe DD tried and found no one was buying. Jake Odorizzi was roughly comparable value to Pom this offseason, a little worse yet cheaper and with another year of control, and the Twins got him for a shortstop prospect who won't make the majors.

    Anyway, this is all getting off-track from Hanley.
     
  38. sean1562

    sean1562 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,084
    As a nats fan, I’ll believe Zimmerman is healthy when he has played two straight months. Guy is very injury prone and likes to play through them and suck. Wouldn’t be surprised if they give him loads of time to return especially considering the tear Reynolds is on
     
  39. soxeast

    soxeast lurker

    Messages:
    206
    Now we're asking a different question, right? I responded to the poster who said we have nothing to trade. So we agree we have an asset but do we agree we heave this asset that can be traded without affecting the team much? I think we do. Just don't need to trade right now and just patiently wait.

    Because we're going to have a strong Sale, a very good Price, a possible solid Erod, an inning eater pretty good Porcello-- -- how many pretty good/ good starters do you want to have vs having "balance?" IF the catcher's continue to hit extremely poorly and JBJ continues to be an obscenely lousy hitter too, you might not be able to keep putting pressure on the other hitters along with the pitching because inevetably you're going to struggle to score runs.

    **If you think that JBJ and the catcher's are a concern, why wouldn't you give up something very good to fill that hole at a position you are "strong in depth" with? If you don't feel you need solid replacements at catcher or with JBJ then what is the concern for this team?

    When you trade players-- you have to give up something to get something. Getting someone for example like Ramos in a 3team deal. If Tampa Bay is out of it, what is there reason to keep Ramos? As a result, with all the teams in the playoffs-- if you want to mention Pomeranz now is 3.3 - 3.5 ERA guy from this point going forward, wouldn't a team in the playoff hunt trade some pretty good minor league prospect for that?
     
  40. soxeast

    soxeast lurker

    Messages:
    206
    I didn't say trade him now because I meant not to trade him now because I don't know the moment he will get his value. Now the thread is being hijacked a bit, isn't it? So I'm going to offer a bunch of trade alternatives on a thread regarding Hanley right off the bat?

    Anyways, usually the reply someone gets isn't as nasty as that dude sent to me, is it? Therefore to my initial point when I said trade him as an alternative as a reply to a poster who said the Sox will have nothing to give up "usually" doesn't mean "all the time," does it? Therefore that dude went a bit off-the-wall, didn't he? We have the best record in the league. When someone (whom I replied to) is speaking of prospects or future trades, offering a name doesn't necessarily mean "all the time" does it?

    I didn;'t imply it - just because you are trying to twist it to fit your point doesn't make it right.

    Now that we're over it - and you are my friend--- and now you know what I meant instead of trying to twist what I said - it is a possibility that Pomeranz can be a solid trade chip in the future, isn't it?
     
  41. soxeast

    soxeast lurker

    Messages:
    206
    You mean a team that needs starting pitching down the stretch and won't be sidelined with potentially a long term contract wouldn't find Pomeranz attractive for a stretch run?

    Anyways this is why I kept my 1st reply brief to redsoxoctober regarding the trade.
     
    #641 soxeast, May 28, 2018
    Last edited: May 28, 2018
  42. Devizier

    Devizier Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,296
    Any chance Olt gets one last try at the majors? I wouldn't expect a ton, but he offers some positional flexibility and he pulls the ball at a fair clip.
     
  43. chawson

    chawson Well-Known Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,324
    Pom’s velocity is down. Maybe it returns in the bullpen, or maybe it’s related to these triceps scares he’s had two consecutive springs. Whatever the case, until it’s back, no contending team should see him as a good option for their rotation.

    My post speculated that DD might’ve sold high last offseason before Pom fully pumpkined, but maybe the warning signs were already apparent to the league.
     
  44. soxeast

    soxeast lurker

    Messages:
    206
    No team will now. But that has never been the argument. Two posters assumed I was talking now. I wasn't.

    But do you expect his velocity will come back? Last year it was down to start the year too, wasn't it?. Why is last year different than this year? AT this moment if the Red Sox felt he velocity will not come back - then when do you expect they'll dump him to the bullpen with no possibility of coming back as a starter and performing at a pretty good level?

    **Mookie Betts will probably regress. Why won't Pomeranz improve? Last year he had a similar issue, didn't he? Players on this team all can't regress without other players improving. I suppose that's possible but highly unlikely. Pomeranz has had 2 years of success. Why is it clear that he won't improve to his norm as the season progresses thus turning into a trade chip later in the year?

    Are we in a disagreement whether his velocity will come back enough to be a pretty good starter? If so -- and then you are right - then yes Sox can't trade him for much. But if I'm right and he reverts back to his norm of the past 2 years, then he is a good trade chip, isn't he?
     
  45. tonyarmasjr

    tonyarmasjr Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    978
    Agreed. All four of our guys who have struggled so mightily (Leon, JBJ, Vazquez, Swihart) will be better going forward. AA players are typically capable of/project in the 50-60 wRC+ range. All of these guys are, at worst, decent AAA-level talent at the plate. They've all also had some form of at least modest success at the MLB level. It just isn't realistic that they'll be so bad over an entire season - they're off to a rough start, but they will improve. None of them are JD Martinez, but they only need to be generally capable at the plate to provide some value and not be a collective black hole at the bottom of the lineup.

    Of all the potential Red Sox players in 2018, ZiPS projected Joseph Monge, Jake Romanski, Deven Marrero, Cole Sturgeon, Danny Mars, and Henry Urrutia in the low-to-mid 50s wRC+. Last year, Josh Rutledge, Marrero, and the vertigo version of Brock Holt were at that level. Do people really believe that all 4 of the guys currently on the 25-man roster are worse hitters than that list?
     
  46. YTF

    YTF Well-Known Member Silver Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,314
    Right, but with Zimmerman back is there room for both Reynolds and Matt Adams?
     
  47. chawson

    chawson Well-Known Member Bronze Supporter

    Messages:
    1,324
    It's not a matter of regression, it's health. I doubt Pomeranz is experiencing a natural decline in skills at age 29. He's throwing less hard, which indicates he could be hiding an injury.

    If Pom is healthy and good, we won't be trading him, because he's more useful to us than anyone.
     
  48. soxeast

    soxeast lurker

    Messages:
    206
    If Pom's health is fine-- and obviously you have to contend with the Yanks and Houston-- he is a trade chip was my point. It's not too much of a stretch to say that Sale/Price/ERod and Porcello with a combo of Wright and Velazquez is a potentially fine starting group --

    Pomeranz can be traded for example for a weakness at catcher. I'm not saying 100% dump him. The poster redsoxoctober said we had no one. if Pomeranz gets healthy - his injury seems similar to last year-- he is a trade chip for a position that is/can become a weakness.And Sox are 37-17. If the starters match what we're doing - we won't miss Pomeranz.

    I don't agree with you and Sean by assuming IF Pomeranz is good it means you don't automatically trade him. If the team isn't hitting enough and you want to contend for a a title while your starting staff is very good even without Pomeranz- imo you absolutley trade him. Houston and the Yanks can score even with good pitching. You need to take advantage of their suspect pitching too and not be forced to always try to win close games with pitching and defense. Nor do I agree with the bold. If the staff is good without him just like now - then he can be more useful to other teams while the SOx get for example Ramos in return in a 3team deal later in the season.
     
  49. Average Reds

    Average Reds Dope Staff Member Dope V&N Mod SoSH Member

    Messages:
    24,292
    I am shamed. I will do better.
     
  50. Rovin Romine

    Rovin Romine Johnny Rico Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,002
    Last I checked, we already have a weakness at catcher.
     

Share This Page