Well, I guess that answers the question of whether Hanley will be seeing a majority of the 1B ABs. Interesting.
Ok...
Well, I guess that answers the question of whether Hanley will be seeing a majority of the 1B ABs. Interesting.
Ok...
On February 20th?Well, I guess that answers the question of whether Hanley will be seeing a majority of the 1B ABs. Interesting.
Unless he's playing a different position... It'd sure be hard to be the #3 hitter from the bench.On February 20th?
Saw the interview, and I think it was more of a tongue-in-cheek answer, as the JDM deal isn't official just yet. Reporter asked a followup about if that might change in the next day or two, and Cora smirked and said "maybe".
Ok...
I think his point is that since it's February 20th, it really doesn't matter who his #3 hitter is "right now". He didn't say he was his Opening Day #3 hitter.Unless he's playing a different position... It'd sure be hard to be the #3 hitter from the bench.
The information in Hank's post obviously renders this moot, if it was tongue in cheek and/or didn't account for JDM. But if the manager is saying Hanley is his #3 hitter, I think it's pretty obvious the plan right now is to have him be the primary starter. So, yes, even on Feb. 20. Just like saying Mookie is his leadoff hitter means we should be expecting him to be the starter at his position.I think his point is that since it's February 20th, it really doesn't matter who his #3 hitter is "right now". He didn't say he was his Opening Day #3 hitter.
Well, of course in a JDM-less lineup Hanley would be the primary DH, and #3 would be an eminently logical place for him to bat. So yes, Cora's statement tells us what the plan was as of yesterday morning, and no, it doesn't tell us anything at all about what's going to happen now.The information in Hank's post obviously renders this moot, if it was tongue in cheek and/or didn't account for JDM. But if the manager is saying Hanley is his #3 hitter, I think it's pretty obvious the plan right now is to have him be the primary starter. So, yes, even on Feb. 20. Just like saying Mookie is his leadoff hitter means we should be expecting him to be the starter at his position.
Spring training takes a while. Lets not put anything in pen yet.The information in Hank's post obviously renders this moot, if it was tongue in cheek and/or didn't account for JDM. But if the manager is saying Hanley is his #3 hitter, I think it's pretty obvious the plan right now is to have him be the primary starter. So, yes, even on Feb. 20. Just like saying Mookie is his leadoff hitter means we should be expecting him to be the starter at his position.
Right. Drellich's tweet was from today. I assumed this was a statement from Cora following the addition of JDM. That would illuminate the plan to have Hanley be the primary 1B, since JDM is the DH. That, apparently, wasn't the context of his comment.Well, of course in a JDM-less lineup Hanley would be the primary DH, and #3 would be an eminently logical place for him to bat. So yes, Cora's statement tells us what the plan was as of yesterday morning, and no, it doesn't tell us anything at all about what's going to happen now.
The Rockies already have a ready to step in kid with McMahon who raked in the high minors last year. Plus their 2017 starter who outhit Hanley still sitting out there unsigned and likely ready to beg for a simple guaranteed MLB contract. Not sure I'm seeing a desire to jump in on Hanley there, much less give anything up that may be useful to them in the process, from the Colorado POV.It's not a preference, but I think Hanley's traded to the Rockies with a surplus RHP reliever (Hembree/Workman). I don't know for who, maybe a somewhat expensive but still useful player like Mike Dunn or Gerardo Parra and a #10ish prospect.
Bench: Swihart, Marrero/Lin, Parra, Travis
Maybe Cora is dangling a carrot/throwing him a bone. Hanley is all
Ok...
I think the Rockies are more likely to sign Duda or Morrison or Reynolds than give that kid the full-time reins in April, but that's for a different thread.The Rockies already have a ready to step in kid with McMahon who raked in the high minors last year. Plus their 2017 starter who outhit Hanley still sitting out there unsigned and likely ready to beg for a simple guaranteed MLB contract. Not sure I'm seeing a desire to jump in on Hanley there, much less give anything up that may be useful to them in the process, from the Colorado POV.
I can't envision a reality scenario where Moreland actually starts the year as a full time bench player here, but I do think that this late in the offseason it's a somewhat safe assumption that DD/Cora are preparing to build a bench that includes Hanley spending a fair amount of time on it.
Wow. His offseason diet changes are clearly working. That's the most agile Hanley's been in years.Maybe Cora is dangling a carrot/throwing him a bone. Hanley is all
Oakland and Seattle have Khris Davis and Nelson Cruz in their DH spots. If the Rockies buy that Hanley can be a full-time first baseman, great. They're the only NL team that conceivably needs one. The only AL team that's playing for something is the Twins, while the Royals, Rays, and White Sox have DH openings if they wanna go there.I just don't know how you realistically make Hanley a starting 1B unless the plan is to actually injure the guy since that's the likely outcome.... and then he won't get to the plate appearance clause in his contract. Good idea. I don't see a good way to build up his trade value if he's platooning, and if he's starting and performing well then you don't want to trade him... but you still don't want to pick up his '19... and I don't think Moreland will be happy as a bench guy/pinch hitter/late inning defensive replacement. Someone who had an .800OPS, plus defense, 20+ HR's (and could have been better with better health) isn't playing that role.
But really, I think DD has to find a taker for him, and more than likely it'll need to be a team with a DH slot open. If I were DD I'd look to package him, as suggested above, with a quality surplus RH reliever for salary relief more than any prospect return. Some team would likely want him for $2M and would be okay picking up his '19 option if it meant $10M per. Seattle? Oakland? Said team would obviously have a vision of itself possibly competing.
I want Moreland as our 1B, and I think it's clear that DD does too- valueing his defense throughout an entire game, not just after the 8th inning. With JD as the DH, Hanley is redundant unless JBJ ends up on the trading block (thankfully, unlikely....). Bye Hanley.
This is pretty much my lineup as well, though with Brentz gone, I think it marginally increases the chances of Holt sticking around over Marrero since he can play OF.Mookie RF
10D LF
JDM DH
Devers 3B
Hanley 1B
Bogaerts SS
JBJ CF
Nunez 2B
Vasquez C
Moreland gets AB's at 1B vs. righties based on the numbers and past history against particular starters. Bench is Moreland, Swihart, Leon, Marrero. Holt is traded.
We need someone who can play SS, though. I'm not sure that's still Brock Holt.This is pretty much my lineup as well, though with Brentz gone, I think it marginally increases the chances of Holt sticking around over Marrero since he can play OF.
No, but Nunez has plenty of experience there. He's not particularly good there, but should be good enough to give X a bit of rest.We need someone who can play SS, though. I'm not sure that's still Brock Holt.
I think Brock can play shortstop to roughly the same extent that Marrero can hit, plus they have Nunez. Of course it's true that Marrero would be the pick if you want a utility IF with a great glove; you go with Brock if you value the OF flexibility and the hitting as well. Depending on health all around, of course. The coaches and scouts have to figure this one out.We need someone who can play SS, though. I'm not sure that's still Brock Holt.
Exactly, adding the medical staff. If Holt is actually healthy, he's a good player. Same with Swihart. Both guys have lingering issues that make evaluation difficult, especially from a distance.The coaches and scouts have to figure this one out.
I agree. People have been too quick to throw Holt away.Exactly, adding the medical staff. If Holt is actually healthy, he's a good player. Same with Swihart. Both guys have lingering issues that make evaluation difficult, especially from a distance.
That’s okay, X isn’t particularly good there either.No, but Nunez has plenty of experience there. He's not particularly good there, but should be good enough to give X a bit of rest.
As someone advocating for Holt to be DFA’d, let me make clear that it’s never been either his hitting ability, or his defensive versatility, that caused me to take my position. It’s his unreliability, and his salary.I agree. People have been too quick to throw Holt away.
Flashbacks to JimyAs presently constructed, I could see the Red Sox employing an almost Belichick-esque approach to the daily lineup wherein it changes day-to-day depending on pitcher, opposing pitcher, ballpark, etc. That being said, I don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing.
I am on board with this lineup and bench. I think the lineup is pretty deep and has the potential to be very productive.As for the lineup, I'd like to see this one rolled out to start the season:
1. R - Betts (RF)
2. L - Benintendi (LF)
3. R - Martinez (DH)
4. R - Ramirez (1B)
5. L - Devers (3B)
6. R - Bogaerts (SS)
7. R - Nunez (2B)
8. L/R - Vazquez (C)
9. L - Bradley (CF)
BENCH - Leon (C), Moreland (1B), Swihart (C/LF/RF), Marrero (2B/3B/SS)
Yet it would of made more sense to simply non-tender Holt altogether is you really want to get that min/max'y though, right? Plus he is still checking off the backup outfielder box better then anybody else in the mix now that they've traded Brentz (Abraham reported yesterday that the Sox were scraping the play Swihart outside of C/1B plan too, fwtw).To me - it's simple. They have little payroll flexibility so getting rid of Holt is one of the few ways they can save a few million. There are going to be fungible utility guys available in March too from other teams discards.
Not really. Nunez wasn't exactly a lock to return for the amount he returned for, so they probably kept the option open in case nothing else worked out.Yet it would of made more sense to simply non-tender Holt altogether is you really want to get that min/max'y though, right? Plus he is still checking off the backup outfielder box better then anybody else in the mix now that they've traded Brentz (Abraham reported yesterday that the Sox were scraping the play Swihart outside of C/1B plan too, fwtw).
The could also alternatively choose to focus a saving effort on the other side of the ball, and end up viewing the bullpen as being deep enough to ship upcoming FA Kelly and his $3.8m out.
Would be an odd move. Kelly always invites some puzzlement but his .222 wOBA vs. RHH last year was elite. With Grichuk and Stanton entering the division, there’s a good argument we’d need him even more.The could also alternatively choose to focus a saving effort on the other side of the ball, and end up viewing the bullpen as being deep enough to ship upcoming FA Kelly and his $3.8m out.
BROCKHOLT wreaking some havoc: http://www.weei.com/blogs/john-tomase/watch-red-sox-pitcher-joe-kelly-drilled-brock-holt-comebacker-during-drills-limpsYet it would of made more sense to simply non-tender Holt altogether is you really want to get that min/max'y though, right?
Conflicting report here on the Swihart plan:Plus he is still checking off the backup outfielder box better then anybody else in the mix now that they've traded Brentz (Abraham reported yesterday that the Sox were scraping the play Swihart outside of C/1B plan too, fwtw).
Right, but the underlining point in that is it implies that the Sox did/do view Holt as a potential option they'd go with, and if that's the case I'm not sure the desire to free up less then $2m is essentially trumping out there.Not really. Nunez wasn't exactly a lock to return for the amount he returned for, so they probably kept the option open in case nothing else worked out.
It would be interesting if he bunched the four of them together, lineup-wise, and had each of them running more. That would create a ton of pressure ahead of the big bats, especially if Swihart can hit his way into playing catcher part-time, as well. Loads of potential for double steals.Alex Cora was just on Sirius MLB radio and he thinks the Sox could have four 20/20 players (Betts, 10D, X, and Bradley.) Sounds like he will be a very aggressive manager.
Swihart started at 1st base today.BROCKHOLT wreaking some havoc: http://www.weei.com/blogs/john-tomase/watch-red-sox-pitcher-joe-kelly-drilled-brock-holt-comebacker-during-drills-limps
Conflicting report here on the Swihart plan:
Manager Alex Cora said prior to Thursday's doubleheader that Swihart will focus on catching, playing the outfield and serving as designated hitter over the next week or so. He didn't have a timetable for when Swihart would start seeing time in the infield.
http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2018/02/the_plan_for_blake_swiharts_pl.html#incart_river_index
The only one on that list that's an eyebrow-raiser for me is Bradley, since he's never stolen even 10 bases before. Betts and Beni are already 20/20 guys, and X has gone 21 and 15, though in separate years.Alex Cora was just on Sirius MLB radio and he thinks the Sox could have four 20/20 players (Betts, 10D, X, and Bradley.) Sounds like he will be a very aggressive manager.
30 at first baseI noticed he didn't include Hanley who said he would be a 30/30 guy this year.
Maybe if he attempts 75 he can get 30.I noticed he didn't include Hanley who said he would be a 30/30 guy this year.
In fact, when Cora extended to the think there may be a 5th 20/20 candidate on the squad, the name he came up with was Nunez.I noticed he didn't include Hanley who said he would be a 30/30 guy this year.
Batting order matters in the regular season; it's meaningless in spring training. It's only use in spring training is to ensure that the player gets enough at bats before being pulled to give the minor leaguer some playing time.I think batting orders matter. Nor do I agree with your 5th best hitter should bat 3rd. You shouldn't be tied to the "formula." each team is different with players strengths different. And primarily I agree with Rich Garces Belly lineup but I'd use most of it - the same lineup regardless of right/left (though I'd have small changes). Beni, for example, stays at 2. Late in the game I want Beni's bat too - at the top.
1-- Betts
2-- Beni
3-- JDM
4-- Devers
5-- Xander
6-- Hanley/Moreland
7- Nunez
For 8 and 9 I'm torn Vaz or JBJ.
And 4 through 7 can be juggelled depending on who is hot.
**I like Devers at 4. Beni was very good vs righties and JDM is a terror vs lefties. Unless the lefty is dominant you never want a lefty facing JDM in a big spot. It would set up Devers nicely if a righty were to face him.. The team would need a deep bullpen.
*****Not a fan at all of putting Hanley 3rd nor am I fan of having Moreland 4th unless they were both previously hot or others are terribly cold.
Do you have any evidence supporting your position on this, or is it just "this is counterintuitive, therefore it's wrong"?Nor do I agree with your 5th best hitter should bat 3rd.