Who plays 1B next year?

[Drek717]

What do you guys think happens if Shaw produces for the rest of the season? Would be a tragedy to send him back to AAA. 

I'd go into 2016 with Sandoval at 3B, Hanley at 1B, and Shaw as the insurance policy for both, spelling them for a combined 3-5 games each week.  If one of them really gets it going maybe his timeshare decreases, but if he gets it going instead he could take ABs from either of them.
 
That also sets up the opportunity to move Brock Holt for value this season, as I think he will be a much sought after answer to starting infield problems of other teams.  Given that Deven Marrero's future is clearly as a defense first MI until he proves otherwise and that he'll be 25 tomorrow it would make a lot of sense to cash in Brock Holt when his value is at it's highest, moving Marrero into his MI role with Shaw backing up the corners.  Then get a strong bat to team with Mookie, Bradley, and Castillo for four good OFs (CarGo is the dream solution for this).

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

I'd go into 2016 with Sandoval at 3B, Hanley at 1B, and Shaw as the insurance policy for both, spelling them for a combined 3-5 games each week.  If one of them really gets it going maybe his timeshare decreases, but if he gets it going instead he could take ABs from either of them.
 
That also sets up the opportunity to move Brock Holt for value this season, as I think he will be a much sought after answer to starting infield problems of other teams.  Given that Deven Marrero's future is clearly as a defense first MI until he proves otherwise and that he'll be 25 tomorrow it would make a lot of sense to cash in Brock Holt when his value is at it's highest, moving Marrero into his MI role with Shaw backing up the corners.  Then get a strong bat to team with Mookie, Bradley, and Castillo for four good OFs (CarGo is the dream solution for this).

 
I think of Holt more as a 4th/5th (depending on where/if Hanley plays) outfielder than a MI at this point. Can play all 3 outfield positions pretty well, whereas his defense in the infield is more questionable. Certainly he can cover for a guy in the infield, and he's probably a better long-term replacement than Marrero, but there's room for both.

 

[Drek717]

 
I think of Holt more as a 4th/5th (depending on where/if Hanley plays) outfielder than a MI at this point. Can play all 3 outfield positions pretty well, whereas his defense in the infield is more questionable. Certainly he can cover for a guy in the infield, and he's probably a better long-term replacement than Marrero, but there's room for both.

He's a starting quality 2B at the ML level though.  That is significant value and I'd be surprised if there isn't a single team interested in paying something for it.  Meanwhile the Red Sox have young player under team control who projects to be a worthwhile middle infielder in Marrero.  The lost value for the Sox is far less than Holt's likely trade value.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

He's a starting quality 2B at the ML level though.  That is significant value and I'd be surprised if there isn't a single team interested in paying something for it.  Meanwhile the Red Sox have young player under team control who projects to be a worthwhile middle infielder in Marrero.  The lost value for the Sox is far less than Holt's likely trade value.

 
They have a young player under team control who IS a worthwhile middle infielder in Holt.  What is this obsession some people have with trying to trade Brock Holt?  His ability to competently back up 7 different positions is a unique and valuable asset to have.  I'm not saying the guy is untouchable, but it would have to be the right deal to justify moving him.  And Marrero's presence shouldn't have an impact on that at all.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
They have a young player under team control who IS a worthwhile middle infielder in Holt.  What is this obsession some people have with trying to trade Brock Holt?  His ability to competently back up 7 different positions is a unique and valuable asset to have.  I'm not saying the guy is untouchable, but it would have to be the right deal to justify moving him.  And Marrero's presence shouldn't have an impact on that at all.

 
I don't think anyone would say Marrero's presence should be a factor in the sense that we're worried about Holt blocking him. The point is more that having a good defensive middle infielder knocking at the door, and a trio of defensively versatile young outfielders, might make Holt overkill in terms of filling a role. It's not that we need to trade Holt. It's just that some other team might need what he has to offer more than we do, and that might result in an offer we would be smart to pounce on.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
He'll have all of March to prove that he deserves to stay in the big leagues.
 
And with all of the uncertainty about Hanley playing 1B, he's a whopper of an insurance policy.  Surely, between Hanley and Travis, one of the two will play a competent 1B next year, no?

Except that ST stats are even more meaningless than garbage time September stats.

 

[Drek717]

 
They have a young player under team control who IS a worthwhile middle infielder in Holt.  What is this obsession some people have with trying to trade Brock Holt?  His ability to competently back up 7 different positions is a unique and valuable asset to have.  I'm not saying the guy is untouchable, but it would have to be the right deal to justify moving him.  And Marrero's presence shouldn't have an impact on that at all.

The only factor Marrero plays is that the Red Sox woudn't even need to look for Holt's replacement.  The reason to trade Brock Holt is that when Pedroia comes back Brock Holt is worth far more to a team that will start him every day than to the Red Sox who will use him as a super sub.  Especially if that same Red Sox club has Travis Shaw on the bench as a corner infield backup, as they would then have a solid LHB with some defensive versatility on-hand.
 
I don't have an obsession with trading Brock Holt, up until a few months ago I was with you arguing that the Sox should be the club reaping the rewards of his versatility and break out offensive production.  Since then however Jackie Bradley has reemerged as a worthwhile contributor and Travis Shaw has broken out in a big way at the ML level.  I'd rather have Bradley getting time in the OF and Shaw on the bench since neither one would fetch anything close to what Holt can get in a trade.
 
If no team is willing to pay a nice price for Holt then absolutely keep him, but I would be rather surprised if someone doesn't see him as a great solution to their hole at 2B, maybe 3B, or even SS if they're a bit brave.  He'd probably even be a meaningful component (not the centerpiece of course) in a trade for Sonny Gray if Oakland is interested in moving him, as their 2B spot is wide open with no real help in sight.

 

[Rasputin]

The only factor Marrero plays is that the Red Sox woudn't even need to look for Holt's replacement.  The reason to trade Brock Holt is that when Pedroia comes back Brock Holt is worth far more to a team that will start him every day than to the Red Sox who will use him as a super sub.  Especially if that same Red Sox club has Travis Shaw on the bench as a corner infield backup, as they would then have a solid LHB with some defensive versatility on-hand.

 
I don't give a shit about extracting the most value from an asset. I give a shit about winning games, and winning games now. Brock Holt is not going to bring back an ace. He is not going to bring back a good starting first baseman. At best he is going to bring back a bullpen arm, and at that, it's not going to be a studly one. The best we can hope for is a plainclothes stud who hasn't really started studding yet.
 
I'd rather just keep Holt.

 

[benhogan]

 
I don't give a shit about extracting the most value from an asset. I give a shit about winning games, and winning games now. Brock Holt is not going to bring back an ace. He is not going to bring back a good starting first baseman. At best he is going to bring back a bullpen arm, and at that, it's not going to be a studly one. The best we can hope for is a plainclothes stud who hasn't really started studding yet.
 
I'd rather just keep Holt.

I think DREK was suggesting combining Holt with some of our prospects for an Ace level pitcher.
 
His suggestion kind of caught me off guard, but it does make sense.  Many have argued that the 'Donaldson' trade happened because Billy Beane was very intrigued by Brett Lawrie.  Well if thats true, maybe a Holt package with some of our prospects does land us a Sonny Gray-type
 
Its worth kicking the tires on it and I hope our new front office has the same 'persistence' as the Blue Jays front office of last off-season.

 

[Super Nomario]

The only factor Marrero plays is that the Red Sox woudn't even need to look for Holt's replacement.  The reason to trade Brock Holt is that when Pedroia comes back Brock Holt is worth far more to a team that will start him every day than to the Red Sox who will use him as a super sub.

Holt has been a regular player the last two seasons as a super sub. He finished 5th on the team in PA in 2014 and is 6th so far this year. I don't see it as a limited role where we're not getting full value out of him, and while it's nice to think that health will be better and he won't need to play as much as 2016, I'm not sure it's realistic.
 

 Especially if that same Red Sox club has Travis Shaw on the bench as a corner infield backup, as they would then have a solid LHB with some defensive versatility on-hand.

That's great if we get the Shaw that's hitting .350/.398/.638 in 88 MLB PAs, not so nice if we get the Shaw that hit .249/.318/.356 in 322 AAA ones.
 

His suggestion kind of caught me off guard, but it does make sense.  Many have argued that the 'Donaldson' trade happened because Billy Beane was very intrigued by Brett Lawrie.  Well if thats true, maybe a Holt package with some of our prospects does land us a Sonny Gray-type.

Lawrie and Holt are pretty different animals. Lawrie looked like he had a decent chance to be a future star - he turned 25 in January and entered the season with a 104 OPS+, and he showed power in the minors that he hasn't translated to the major leagues yet. The problem is that he really hasn't developed since he was 22, and this year is more of the same. Holt is a better player, but Lawrie was an upside play. At the end of the day, I don't think Holt is going to fetch much in the trade market because he's not a high-ceiling guy.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Holt is a better player, but Lawrie was an upside play. At the end of the day, I don't think Holt is going to fetch much in the trade market because he's not a high-ceiling guy.

Maybe so, but that just means the high upside guy(s) need to be the prospects, which we have. Holt/Owens/ Devers or Margot for Gray? A trade along those lines is feasible.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
I don't give a shit about extracting the most value from an asset. I give a shit about winning games, and winning games now. Brock Holt is not going to bring back an ace. He is not going to bring back a good starting first baseman. At best he is going to bring back a bullpen arm, and at that, it's not going to be a studly one. The best we can hope for is a plainclothes stud who hasn't really started studding yet.

 
This assumes that Holt can only be moved in a one-up trade. As MM suggests, his trade value might be most effectively realized as the low-ceiling/high-floor stabilizer in a major deal with a top prospect as a centerpiece. 

 

[benhogan]

Holt has been a regular player the last two seasons as a super sub. He finished 5th on the team in PA in 2014 and is 6th so far this year. I don't see it as a limited role where we're not getting full value out of him, and while it's nice to think that health will be better and he won't need to play as much as 2016, I'm not sure it's realistic.
 
That's great if we get the Shaw that's hitting .350/.398/.638 in 88 MLB PAs, not so nice if we get the Shaw that hit .249/.318/.356 in 322 AAA ones.
 
Lawrie and Holt are pretty different animals. Lawrie looked like he had a decent chance to be a future star - he turned 25 in January and entered the season with a 104 OPS+, and he showed power in the minors that he hasn't translated to the major leagues yet. The problem is that he really hasn't developed since he was 22, and this year is more of the same. Holt is a better player, but Lawrie was an upside play. At the end of the day, I don't think Holt is going to fetch much in the trade market because he's not a high-ceiling guy.

agreed, Holt has been the better player the last 2 seasons.  
 
In addition to that Holt has more positional versatility then Lawrie, makes less (MLB minimum next season), and would offer more team control (4 years) then Lawrie (3 arb years) did last off-season.
 
'December 2015 Holt' is a pretty comparable asset to 'December 2014 Brett Lawrie'.

 

[Drek717]

Holt has been a regular player the last two seasons as a super sub. He finished 5th on the team in PA in 2014 and is 6th so far this year. I don't see it as a limited role where we're not getting full value out of him, and while it's nice to think that health will be better and he won't need to play as much as 2016, I'm not sure it's realistic.
 
That's great if we get the Shaw that's hitting .350/.398/.638 in 88 MLB PAs, not so nice if we get the Shaw that hit .249/.318/.356 in 322 AAA ones.
 
Lawrie and Holt are pretty different animals. Lawrie looked like he had a decent chance to be a future star - he turned 25 in January and entered the season with a 104 OPS+, and he showed power in the minors that he hasn't translated to the major leagues yet. The problem is that he really hasn't developed since he was 22, and this year is more of the same. Holt is a better player, but Lawrie was an upside play. At the end of the day, I don't think Holt is going to fetch much in the trade market because he's not a high-ceiling guy.

 
Look, I'm not saying you give the guy away, but if someone is willing to come with real value for him?  He's the most most valuable "luxury" asset this team has.
 
I'm suggesting something like what Minny Millers posted.  Owens or Johnson, Manuel Margot, and Brock Holt for Sonny Gray.  Beane gets a solution to a gaping 2B hole, a young CF of the future when his current CF was just about the only good OF prospect in his top 20 (who was 25 when promoted and 19th if I recall on MLB.com's list of A's prospects, so not a stud), and a young SP who has the potential to be the next Sonny Gray he trades for more value in three years.  The Sox trade prospect riches into concrete SP production.
 
Or maybe the fact Braves really are willing to deal Julio Teheran and they see Holt as a nice starting 3B option who is also the backup plan at 2B if Jace Peterson continues to not hit.
 
Brock Holt provides a ton of value in a trade.  He's a proven ML level player who made the All-Star game last year.  Not only does he offer a higher floor than any prospect, he also comes with more name credibility attached for front offices concerned about appearing competitive to the fans.  Does all that mean the Sox should actively look to get him out the door?  Not at all.  But I think it is entirely possible some other club will place a premium on Brock Holt as a starter who can bat 1 or 2 in a lineup and with the right team he could be the stabilizing factor who makes one or two unproven prospects enough to bring home a major upgrade somewhere else.  Somewhere that has a clear every day or every five days kind of role.

 

[WenZink]

Brock Holt is a 27 year old player in his second full year.  He has an OPS of 714 over 1000 PA.  This year he had an incredible April where his OPS was ..970 and it's now settling back to 757 for the year.  His value is based on his ability to play 6 positions on the field and do them adequately.  But Brock Holt does not provide a ton of value in a trade.  He does not have a higher floor than most prospects., nor will he bring a premium.  As good as a fit he is with the Red Sox, teams aren't going to pay a premium for a swiss-army knife.  Holt is not as good as Ben Zobrist once was, who had much more power and thus could bat anywhere in the lineup as well as being versatile in the field.
 
To think that Holt would be considered a significant part of a trade to get a Sonny Gray is just wrong.  Holt would be a throw-in to any trade of that magnitude.  Gray is a cost controlled young pitcher that leads AL starters in ERA.
 
Edit -- Just noticed this has NOTHING to do with the thread topic, so, Brock Holt will not play 1b next year

 

[Drek717]

Brock Holt is a 27 year old player in his second full year.  He has an OPS of 714 over 1000 PA.  This year he had an incredible April where his OPS was ..970 and it's now settling back to 757 for the year.  His value is based on his ability to play 6 positions on the field and do them adequately.  But Brock Holt does not provide a ton of value in a trade.  He does not have a higher floor than most prospects., nor will he bring a premium.  As good as a fit he is with the Red Sox, teams aren't going to pay a premium for a swiss-army knife.  Holt is not as good as Ben Zobrist once was, who had much more power and thus could bat anywhere in the lineup as well as being versatile in the field.
 
To think that Holt would be considered a significant part of a trade to get a Sonny Gray is just wrong.  Holt would be a throw-in to any trade of that magnitude.  Gray is a cost controlled young pitcher that leads AL starters in ERA.
 
Edit -- Just noticed this has NOTHING to do with the thread topic, so, Brock Holt will not play 1b next year

Holt is currently 8th in offensive WAR for 2Bs.  He looks like an above average or better defensive second baseman.  His wRC+ is 9th among all 2Bs.  His 111 wRC+ would rank 10th among all CFs if a team thought he'd fit them there, which isn't a crazy assumption to make.  He would land at 11th for 3Bs.
 
Streaky or not, he looks like a top 10 player at one of several hard to fill positions.  He's a significant piece, either for the 2016 Red Sox or in a trade to assemble the 2016 Red Sox.  He isn't going to be the headliner for someone like Gray, but then unless the club wants to trade Betts for him no one is a 1:1 swap.  Holt is a very strong second or third piece in a deal for any comparably elite player.
 
As for the relevance to 1B, Brock Holt does actually play 1B some and his future with the club does have significance with regards to the future of Travis Shaw on the club.  Shaw isn't as versatile, but he can cover 1B, 3B, and LF, leading to some significant overlap between he and Holt at the very positions we currently are most likely to have additional playing time to dole out.

 

[WenZink]

Holt is currently 8th in offensive WAR for 2Bs.  He looks like an above average or better defensive second baseman.  His wRC+ is 9th among all 2Bs.  His 111 wRC+ would rank 10th among all CFs if a team thought he'd fit them there, which isn't a crazy assumption to make.  He would land at 11th for 3Bs.
 
Streaky or not, he looks like a top 10 player at one of several hard to fill positions.  He's a significant piece, either for the 2016 Red Sox or in a trade to assemble the 2016 Red Sox.  He isn't going to be the headliner for someone like Gray, but then unless the club wants to trade Betts for him no one is a 1:1 swap.  Holt is a very strong second or third piece in a deal for any comparably elite player.
 
As for the relevance to 1B, Brock Holt does actually play 1B some and his future with the club does have significance with regards to the future of Travis Shaw on the club.  Shaw isn't as versatile, but he can cover 1B, 3B, and LF, leading to some significant overlap between he and Holt at the very positions we currently are most likely to have additional playing time to dole out.

 
2 years ago folks were making citing Daniel Nava stats as to why he had so much value in trade.
 
Last month on fangraphs, Dave Cameron rated the top 50 players in terms of trade value -- weighing the various components, including WAR, Age, contract status.  Sonny Gray was #14, and Mookie Betts was #11.  So there's your trade offer if you want Sonny Gray.  Brock Holt was not in the top 50 and never will be.
 
Last June, on the the AngelsWin.com message board, a poster wondered if the Sox' desperation for starting pitching would enable a trade of Mookie to pick up the last year and a half of CJ Wilson's contract.  Johnson, Margot and Holt for Sonny Gray is just as laughable.

 

[AB in DC]

 
Look, I'm not saying you give the guy away, but if someone is willing to come with real value for him?  He's the most most valuable "luxury" asset this team has.
 

 
But that's the whole point.  If another team makes you an offer that improves your ballclub, then of course you make the deal.  That's true about anyone on the roster.  But this notion that you can just put a guy on the trading block and expect another team to offer equal value is ludicrous.  It's like trying to sell your house -- if you're a "motivated seller", then all you're going to get is low-ball offers.  Unless you can somehow gin up a bidding war, good luck getting your asking price.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
But that's the whole point.  If another team makes you an offer that improves your ballclub, then of course you make the deal.  That's true about anyone on the roster.  But this notion that you can just put a guy on the trading block and expect another team to offer equal value is ludicrous.  It's like trying to sell your house -- if you're a "motivated seller", then all you're going to get is low-ball offers.  Unless you can somehow gin up a bidding war, good luck getting your asking price.

 
Straw man alert: can you point me to anything anyone has said about Holt, in this thread or others, that suggests we need to "put the guy on the trading block" and play the role of "motivated sellers"?

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Who plays first next year? Nick Cafardo says it shouldn't be Hanley: "But please, please don’t consider Ramirez at first base."
 
So I vote for Hanley.

 

[AB in DC]

 
Straw man alert: can you point me to anything anyone has said about Holt, in this thread or others, that suggests we need to "put the guy on the trading block" and play the role of "motivated sellers"?

 
I'm not going to call out individual posters, but yeah, I've seen comments like that quite a few times -- not always with respect to Holt, but the point is the same.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Straw man alert: can you point me to anything anyone has said about Holt, in this thread or others, that suggests we need to "put the guy on the trading block" and play the role of "motivated sellers"?

 
I think we're all smart enough to recognize that any player is trade-able in the right situation, thus it should go without saying that if another team inquires about player X and makes the right offer, the team should listen and/or pull the trigger.  But when a poster makes the suggestion that player X might be a good chip to deal away for the mythical "something better" or that he has more trade value than on-field value to the team, I read that as wanting them to proactively shop him around.  Maybe not to the extent of being "motivated sellers" or desperate to deal him, but definitely making it known he can be had and essentially asking "what will you give me for him?"
 
It goes back to the pre-deadline threads where people were speculating and proposing deals involving Napoli and Victorino.  Those were situations where posters wanted to see the team move those guys out as soon as possible for whatever they could get.  Multiple times during in those discussions, Holt's name came up as another possible trade candidate in the same vein because "he had value" and supposedly could net something useful in return.  The talk here in this thread seems like more of the same to me.

 

[ALiveH]

I'd much rather they not invest any significant resources in position players this offseason and instead use those resources on the most glaring roster need - a small number high-caliber pitchers.
 
We have so many good young position players.  There's lots of $ invested in Pablo & HR who would be sell-low guys right now & who hold down the fort until the next blue-chip position players (Devers, Margot, Moncada) arrive in a couple years.
 
Craig's 0.710 in Pawtucket at age 30 inspires zero confidence.
 
Shaw's performance is encouraging, and if he can post solid numbers from now through the end of the year, then he definitely should get a shot part-time on the MLB roster, but it seems really risky to hand him a starting job in year 1 based on relatively SSS of success, especially given pretty modest success over his minor league career (a LSS) as an "old" guy at each level.
 
I know i keep repeating myself, but I refuse to believe that a major-league SS at age 30 can't play 1B or 3B at age 32.  I think DD has to have a hear-to-heart with HanRam about a major modification to his offseason preparedness - less time in the weight room, more time doing agility drills and practicing with the 1B glove, arm & bat.  Ideally HanRam would be the 1B, rather than Panda, just because it's less risky to move one guy to a new position instead of two.  If HanRam ends up being a disaster at 1B, can try some other stop-gaps like switch him with Pablo, have Shaw / Holt share time there, or whatever.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Brian MacPherson ‏@brianmacp  4m4 minutes ago
Hanley Ramirez is wearing a first baseman's mitt and talking fundamentals at first base with Brian Butterfield.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
Brian MacPherson ‏@brianmacp  4m4 minutes ago
Hanley Ramirez is wearing a first baseman's mitt and talking fundamentals at first base with Brian Butterfield.
 

 
Finally!

 

[BestGameEvah]

Oh my.   Butter is looking at him like, what?
Not a fan of Hanley @ first.

 

[Rasputin]

Brian MacPherson ‏@brianmacp  4m4 minutes ago
Hanley Ramirez is wearing a first baseman's mitt and talking fundamentals at first base with Brian Butterfield.

Talking? I want them to be working at first pregame so there's no pressure on Ramirez and they can get an idea of whether it's even plausible.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

As long as he's ok with it, this is obviously the easiest solution to the roster issues heading into next season.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Brian MacPherson ‏@brianmacp  1m1 minute ago
David Ortiz is alongside Brian Butterfield, going over first base with Hanley Ramirez.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

Hanley at first base. Professor Ortiz instructing with Brian Butterfield. pic.twitter.com/M05CiKnJYL
— Pete Abraham (@PeteAbe) August 25, 2015

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Haha, only on SOSH would a guy on a last place team holding a first baseman's mitt during infield practice get the BREAKING NEWS/live blog treatment. 

 

[BestGameEvah]

Blake Swihart over there now, too.
Jenn McCaffrey has it on her twitter.  If someone would be so kind.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

Hanley 1B this weekend @Mets?

 

[amfox1]

Hanley 1B this weekend @Mets?

 
Have to think they'll want to get Ortiz in at 1B for at least one game.

 

[AB in DC]

Left unsaid in all this Hanley Ramirez debate...surely he can see the writing on the wall for himself, can't he?  Supposedly he wanted to come back to Boston so badly that he reached out to Ben and not the other way around.  Perhaps, maybe, he's trying to be proactive about finding a way to stay with the team for the long haul?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Left unsaid in all this Hanley Ramirez debate...surely he can see the writing on the wall for himself, can't he?  Supposedly he wanted to come back to Boston so badly that he reached out to Ben and not the other way around.  Perhaps, maybe, he's trying to be proactive about finding a way to stay with the team for the long haul?

 
It is certainly encouraging that he's gone from reportedly not wanting anything to do with 1B earlier in the season to now being open enough to the idea to put on the mitt and at least check things out during a pre-game workout.  Still a long way to go from where he is now to actually playing a game at first base, but it certainly should put to rest the talk of his being a malcontent or lazy.

 

[mikeford]

 
It is certainly encouraging that he's gone from reportedly not wanting anything to do with 1B earlier in the season to now being open enough to the idea to put on the mitt and at least check things out during a pre-game workout.  Still a long way to go from where he is now to actually playing a game at first base, but it certainly should put to rest the talk of his being a malcontent or lazy.

He may have Green Monster PTSD at this point and welcome getting away from it.

 

[benhogan]

Smart move, its an absolute no-brainer...starting to like the DD regime already

 

[E5 Yaz]

Pete Abraham ‏@PeteAbe  2m2 minutes ago
Hanley in good spirits about first base. In favor of it. Smiling and laughing. "I just want the ring."

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Michael Silverman @MikeSilvermanBB
Hanley IS moving to first base by next year, he said. Maybe some this year. He's on board. "I'm looking forward to it."

 


Ian Browne @IanMBrowne
Hanley doesn't rule out playing first in a game this season, enthusiastic about the eventual position switch.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
It is certainly encouraging that he's gone from reportedly not wanting anything to do with 1B earlier in the season to now being open enough to the idea to put on the mitt and at least check things out during a pre-game workout.  Still a long way to go from where he is now to actually playing a game at first base, but it certainly should put to rest the talk of his being a malcontent or lazy.

 
I had no idea you were such an optimist.  

 

[Doctor G]

Hanley needs to concentrate on flexibility this offseason. The bulking up isnt good for baseball.

 

[Rasputin]

Michael Silverman @MikeSilvermanBB
Hanley IS moving to first base by next year, he said. Maybe some this year. He's on board. "I'm looking forward to it."

 


Ian Browne @IanMBrowne
Hanley doesn't rule out playing first in a game this season, enthusiastic about the eventual position switch.

 
God I hope this works. Hanley Ramirez at first base makes everything easier. Just...everything. It pretty much means the position players are set. There's literally nothing to be concerned about but the backup OF and that's just because de Aza is likely to get a full time gig. Betts, Bradley, Castillo in the OF. Sandoval, Bogaerts, Pedroia, Ramirez, Ortiz. You have to figure out which of the catchers plays, but that's pretty trivial. Shaw and Holtt can cover the whole IF plus some OF backup. You don't really need a backup CF since you're starting three of them. A backup OFer who can pinch hit would be tremendous. Or, if Swihart is getting some experience at first, maybe he could get some at third, and they could ditch Shaw and keep all three catchers.
 
Some questions, but they can all be resolved in house, leaving the front office to concentrate on arms from the get go.
 

Hanley needs to concentrate on flexibility this offseason. The bulking up isnt good for baseball.

 
Yes, this. Very much this.

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

Hanley's reaction is encouraging. The guy wanted to come here. Despite his shortcomings in left this year, we're likely stuck with him for the duration of his contract. I want him to get healthy and get some work in at first to see if playing there is even a possibility.

EDIT: Clarity.

 

[Sandy Leon Trotsky]

I'm also hoping this puts to bed any more terrifying speculation of dealing Betts or JBJ next offseason.  The current outfield (Hanley excluded) has been a rare treat and will be the best defensive group in the league (knock a run off each starters ERA????) and offensively as a collective they might outperform  any other group.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

Brian MacPherson @brianmacp


Lovullo said trying Ramirez out at first base hadn't been discussed before Dombrowski came on board last week.
 
 
Now I'm 0% sad that Ben was run off.

 

[KillerBs]

Brian MacPhersonhttps://twitter.com/brianmacp @brianmacp

Lovullo said trying Ramirez out at first base hadn't been discussed before Dombrowski came on board last week.
 
 
Now I'm 0% sad that Ben was run off.

So let the record show that the reason this didn't happen to date was management's failure to even consider it, not some curious failing of Hanley Ramirez.

 

[OCD SS]

So let the record show that the reason this didn't happen to date was management's failure to even consider it, not some curious failing of Hanley Ramirez.

Can't we just conveniently blame whomever we happened to not particularly like?

 

[Rasputin]

Can't we just conveniently blame whomever we happened to not particularly like?

 
Lucen?
A-Rod?

 

[foulkehampshire]

So let the record show that the reason this didn't happen to date was management's failure to even consider it, not some curious failing of Hanley Ramirez.

Is it really a curious failing for a career infielder to struggle playing a very unique position (Fenway LF)? I mean we've seen supposedly great LFs look entirely mediocre here.