2016: Corner Infield and Corner OF

[NDame616]

Since the JBJ thread (and many others) have merged into super threads regarding JBJ, his trade value, and the Mookie/JBJ/Castillo possible OF I thought I'd start a new thread. As always, dopes do what you'd like if you don't think it's necessary.
 
With JBJ showing a possible ability to hit ML pitching and I think Betts/Castillo locked into OF spots, DD's first real decision will be what to do with Hanley/Pablo and the outfield. 
 
Possibilities:
-Trading anyone of the JBJ/Betts/Castillo group and go in an OF with 2 of them and Hanley
-Trade Hanley to make room for an OF of JBJ/Betts/Castillo
-Trade Pablo and put Hanley at 3B
-Go into 2016 with some combo of Hanley/Pablo/Ortiz at 1B/3B/DH
 
Since DD had a handful of job opportunities, I'm guessing he talked to ownership about his preference about what he'd like to do, to make sure they were on board (eg he isn't going into this offseason looking to dump Hanley for pennies on the dollar and ownership will say no) So I think internally they all have some idea what they'd like to see.
 
With Cherington still as GM I wasn't overly surprised to see a lack of major movement in the positions of Hanley and Pablo, but now with DD at the helm he may start to make these moves to see what to do in 2016.
 
So, what say you SoSH?

 

[shepard50]

Well he already has said:

"I think right here, the foundation to do it the right way is already in place. All you have to do is look in the lineup and watch [Xander] Bogaerts play short, [Blake] Swihart catch, and be in a position where you look at the outfield thats out there when the three young guys are out there with [Mookie] Betts and [Rusney] Castillo and [Jackie] Bradley."

He has also said he isn't a huge fan of a player trying to learn a new position. I'm guessing Hanley may not want to buy versus rent at the moment.

edit: quotes

 

[Ale Xander]

I would have the of dd outlined yesterday, either mookie cf with Bradley rf at home and left on road (rusney opp) or mookie rf Bradley cf rusney lf all games

Would rotate 4 players for 3 positions at corner if and dh (shaw, Hanley, Ortiz, Pablo) assuming I couldn't trade Pablo by st (move Hanley to 3b then)

 

[Harry Hooper]

3B wouldn't really be a new position for Hanley. No doubt Dombrowski will explore multiple possibilities, but trading Sandoval looks like the least painful way out of this problem.

 

[NoXInNixon]

With JBJ showing a possible ability to hit ML pitching and I think Betts/Castillo locked into OF spots

Why do you think Castillo has an OF spot locked up? 

 

[foulkehampshire]

3B wouldn't really be a new position for Hanley. No doubt Dombrowski will explore multiple possibilities, but trading Sandoval looks like the least painful way out of this problem.

 
If I were to choose between two subpar defenders at 3B, I'd probably rather go with the guy who has some upside left offensively and keeps himself conditioned. 

 

[Koufax]

I say trade Hanley for a bag of balls. Play Mookie at LF, Rusney in RF, Panda at 3B and Travis Shaw at 1B unless a big bat 1B becomes available on the market.    Brock Holt is a 4th outfielder.  That takes care of 2016.
 
In the future, Rafael Devers may be the 3B  or 1B the team needs, but that's not likely to happen until 2017.  Perhaps Brock Holt becomes the 3B for a year, or perhaps they pick up a free agent between now and then who can push Panda aside as DH when Devers makes the big club.. 

 

[jscola85]

Why do you think Castillo has an OF spot locked up? 

 
It's not locked up, but Rusney since being recalled, he has a 892 OPS and has been a plus defender.  It's been a bit lost in the JBJ/Shaw breakouts but Rusney has been equally impressive post-ASB, albeit only in a 74 PA sample size.  Needs to show it over a longer time period, but there's real reasons why the breakout may be coming - finally shaking the rust off after inconsistent playing time for multiple years, getting healthy, possibly some adjustments made down in AAA, and a willingness to start using all parts of the field vs. yanking stuff to the pull side too much.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Well he already has said:

"I think right here, the foundation to do it the right way is already in place. All you have to do is look in the lineup and watch [Xander] Bogaerts play short, [Blake] Swihart catch, and be in a position where you look at the outfield thats out there when the three young guys are out there with [Mookie] Betts and [Rusney] Castillo and [Jackie] Bradley."

He has also said he isn't a huge fan of a player trying to learn a new position. I'm guessing Hanley may not want to buy versus rent at the moment.

edit: quotes

Those weren't for us.  They were for the GMs he's going to be negotiating with.  Particularly if he's shopping for good pitching, one of those OF might well be on the way out of town.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

The writing is almost certainly on the wall for whichever of Hanley or Panda gives the Sox the most AAV salary relief. Because the more salary relief the Sox gain, the more options DDski gains to create the team he wants.
 
shepard50's comments show the writing's on the wall for Hanley as an OF, a move which IMO was almost certainly the brainchild of Allard Baird, only reading a little into the anonymous "Red Sox evaluator" source comment that directly compared Hanley to Alex Gordon (the 1st-round pick of Baird's last draft as Royals' GM). 
 
But whether it's Hanley or Sandoval manning 3B, the deciding factor will be money. Whichever guy first nets the team $15MM AAV in total savings, that player will be gone.
 
Because that $15MM in savings can then be used on pitching, which is abundant in this year's FA market and scarce on the Sox upper farm.

 

[Super Nomario]

Possibilities:
-Trading anyone of the JBJ/Betts/Castillo group and go in an OF with 2 of them and Hanley
-Trade Hanley to make room for an OF of JBJ/Betts/Castillo
-Trade Pablo and put Hanley at 3B
-Go into 2016 with some combo of Hanley/Pablo/Ortiz at 1B/3B/DH

Why is it not even a possibility to go in with a Hanley / Betts / Bradley / Castillo 4-man OF and actually have nice OF depth?

 

[RedOctober3829]

Why is it not even a possibility to go in with a Hanley / Betts / Bradley / Castillo 4-man OF and actually have nice OF depth?

Who is your 4th OF? Do you want JBJ sitting on the bench 4-5 days a week or the $72 million man?

 

[Koufax]

Hanley would be a disaster as a 4th outfielder.  I'm not sure he'd even be a passable 3B at this point.  Panda, while he has limitations, is younger and seemingly less prone to injury. 

 

[Super Nomario]

Who is your 4th OF? Do you want JBJ sitting on the bench 4-5 days a week or the $72 million man?

Look at history: 4th OF play 100+ games. Obviously that's been true the last two years with Victorino's health, but even in 2013 Gomes got in 116 games and had 366 PAs (with Nava, Ellsbury, and Victorino all more than that). If Hanley stays in LF, he's likely DHing when Ortiz is hurt / needs a blow, so the 4th OF is effectively backing up DH in addition to three outfield spots. That's plenty of ABs. As for who is the starter and who is the 4th OF, they can let performance dictate it. Maybe start with a platoon and take it from there.

 

[KillerBs]

Hanley would be a disaster as a 4th outfielder.  I'm not sure he'd even be a passable 3B at this point.  Panda, while he has limitations, is younger and seemingly less prone to injury. 

I dont think you need to eliminate the possibility that Hanley could play 100 games at 1b, 20-30 in LF and DH some. Being a 1b/LF is not really beyond the realm of possibility is it?
 

Who is your 4th OF? Do you want JBJ sitting on the bench 4-5 days a week or the $72 million man?

De Aza is the real 4th OFer, or someone else we obtain who needs to be pretty good to insure against Bradley or Castillo sucking hard. Not sure if you want a RHB to supplement Bradley or a LHB to protect Rusney. Holt is around too, of course.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

The Red Sox should have picked up Danny Valencia when Toronto dumped him. He is a low-cost thirdbaseman who mashes lefties (.858 career OPS in 607 PAs) and can also cover first.
 
He was hitting 296/331/506 in 173 PAs when Toronto cut him. Oakland picked him up and he's got an 883 OPS in 54 PAs with them. He is arb eligible and can't be a free agent till 2018. Fielding Bible has him around average with the glove at third over the past 3 years.
 
It would be worth trying to pick him up from Oakland, though now that they have him and he is hitting well they don't have any reason to dump him. Then again, he is arb eligible in the offseason, so they might rather have a minimum salary guy instead.
 
Valencia is not great but he is a useful player who could fit in well with the roster next year. If Sandoval stays, then Valencia could be a solid bench bat who starts sometimes at third against lefties or sometimes at first against lefties. If you can dump Sandoval, then Valencia would be a good half of a platoon who could split time there with either Shaw or Holt or anyone they bring in, letting you fill third base really cheaply.
 
They need some cheap, useful guys who fit the roster so they can spend more money on pitching. 

 

[Average Reds]

The writing is almost certainly on the wall for whichever of Hanley or Panda gives the Sox the most AAV salary relief. Because the more salary relief the Sox gain, the more options DDski gains to create the team he wants.
 
shepard50's comments show the writing's on the wall for Hanley as an OF, a move which IMO was almost certainly the brainchild of Allard Baird, only reading a little into the anonymous "Red Sox evaluator" source comment that directly compared Hanley to Alex Gordon (the 1st-round pick of Baird's last draft as Royals' GM). 
 
But whether it's Hanley or Sandoval manning 3B, the deciding factor will be money. Whichever guy first nets the team $15MM AAV in total savings, that player will be gone.
 
Because that $15MM in savings can then be used on pitching, which is abundant in this year's FA market and scarce on the Sox upper farm.

I cannot imagine that you'd be able to move either Hanley or Panda and net anything like $15 MM in AAV savings,. But if Dombrowski can do it, I will consider him to be a deity.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Why is it not even a possibility to go in with a Hanley / Betts / Bradley / Castillo 4-man OF and actually have nice OF depth?

 

Because Brock Holt already gives the Sox a 4-man OF with nice depth, and Hanley plays OF like he's wearing his glove on the wrong hand. And clown shoes.
 
And because an 4-man OF that costs the Sox under $12MM allows the Sox to sink money into pitching this offseason.
 
DDski's easiest decision for 2016 is removing Hanley out of the OF equation.

 

[ehaz]

Pablo, JBJ, and Owens for Shields and Wil Myers.  Padres don't have a real third baseman and their outfield defense may be the worst of all time.  Boston and San Diego swap shitty contracts, but James is actually pitching up to his thus far, so he costs a JBJ and Owens.  Myers and a minor leaguer balances it out and the Sox buy low on him, finally ending our Hanley-in-left nightmare.
 
 
Is it loony trade suggestion season yet?  I'm getting bored.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I cannot imagine that you'd be able to move either Hanley or Panda and net anything like $15 MM in AAV savings,. But if Dombrowski can do it, I will consider him to be a deity.

 
Does it have to be that direct in terms of savings, though? Something along the lines of the Sandoval-for-Shields idea that was mentioned before.

 

[Koufax]

I dont think you need to eliminate the possibility that Hanley could play 100 games at 1b, 20-30 in LF and DH some. Being a 1b/LF is not really beyond the realm of possibility is it?

 
I'm not in a position to judge Hanley as a 1B, but everything that I have seen on the field and read here screams at me that he'd be a worse problem at 1B than he is now in LF.  I'd also worry about his having an attitude problem regarding being used almost as a utility / backup guy,  I'd love to be wrong about his potential at 1B, but right now Travis Shaw looks like a better baseball player.

 

[ehaz]

.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

It is worth noting that the Tigers were all over Castillo before he signed with the Red Sox and so DD must like him:
http://www.mlive.com/tigers/index.ssf/2015/01/detroit_tigers_expressed_inter.html
 
I'll go with an OF of Castillo, Betts, Bradley.  3b: Sandoval.  I wouldn't give up on Sandoval, we know he has been an excellent defensive player in the past.  Trade Hanley and money to get rid of the Hanley problem.  I'm not sure about 1b.  Shaw showed some positive things in Portland in 2014, and looked OK in Pawtucket in 2014 as well.  But he was terrible in Pawtucket in 2015 and now he is raking at the major league level.  Weird.  Shaw should be the starting 1b for the rest of the season and then the Red Sox will need to evaluate Shaw in the off-season.
 
If the Red Sox go with Castillo, Betts, and Bradley in the OF next year, they should be in the market for a quality 4th OF, preferably a RHB, but they can find that easy enough.
 
edit: I would never trade Sandoval for Shields.  In making that trade, the Red Sox would create a hole at 3b while adding an aging pitcher who will probably be pretty terrible in 2016.  However, I would consider trading Hanley for Shields, but the Padres probably won't go there.  NL teams won't be interested in Hanley for obvious reasons.

 

[opes]

Holt should be given a chance to play full time somewhere.  I think trading him would be adding some good value to another team, and be a piece for a decent SP.  I agree with everyone that JBJ, Betts, and Castillo should be the OF going forward.  Hanley isnt a OBP machine, but he does have offensive value.  Theres no arguement that he is having his worst year so far, but I dont think he should be given such a short leash.
Pablo Sandoval was a terrible decision from day one, and he is the one that should be on the chopping block.
JBJ, Betts, and Castillo, hanley at 3rd, and shell out some money for a decent starting pitcher for christ sakes.
So obivously holt straight up for kershaw and Pablo for anyone that can breathe air.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Can anyone point out to me how you get defensive outfield statistics for Ramirez split home and away? I've tried every site I know of and can't seem to do it.
 
I'm curious whether or not LF in Fenway is actually a detriment to his fielding. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it may be possible that playing in a spot that's hemmed in on 2 sides by bone-crunching walls, both of which require experience with caroms, may actually be worse for him than playing in a large area where his relative speed is more in play - and he doesn't need to worry as much about tricky plays and shoulder-destroying walls.
 
Like I say...curious.

 

[WenZink]

Can anyone point out to me how you get defensive outfield statistics for Ramirez split home and away? I've tried every site I know of and can't seem to do it.
 
I'm curious whether or not LF in Fenway is actually a detriment to his fielding. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it may be possible that playing in a spot that's hemmed in on 2 sides by bone-crunching walls, both of which require experience with caroms, may actually be worse for him than playing in a large area where his relative speed is more in play - and he doesn't need to worry as much about tricky plays and shoulder-destroying walls.
 
Like I say...curious

 
File this one under "Consider the source."  But on MLB.TV the other night, Harold Reynolds actually made an interesting suggestion that in Fenway, the Red Sox should back Hanley Ramirez up to the wall.  He showed clips of Hanley in LF, as well as at 3B and SS, and in each instance, Hanley had the exact same initial reaction of coming in a step or two as the ball left the bat.  His point was that on balls hit to medium left (in Fenway) Hanley would have a good  chance to be in position, and in balls that were to the track, Hanley would already know where the wall was and not shy away.
 
Not the ideal situation, but it could turn a horrid Left Fielder into just a poor one.

 

[nvalvo]

Does it have to be that direct in terms of savings, though? Something along the lines of the Sandoval-for-Shields idea that was mentioned before.

 
How much does Shields really help? It seems like we already have Miley in that 3/4 starter-who-pitches-a-lot-of-innings role, and Miley is younger, has a better FIP and a *much* better contract. Also, I like Sandoval's chances to bounce back to form better than Shields', mostly for reasons of age. 34 year old pitchers with ballooning walk and HR rates and large contractual commitments going forward scare me. 
 
Don't look now, but Panda's been hitting pretty well of late and playing better defense. I think that deal would be a big win for San Diego. I've said before on this board that the decision to play Sandoval through injury in May was really, really stupid. He put up terrible numbers at the plate and imploded defensively. If he'd had a 15-day DL stint at that point, and nothing else changed (huge assumption), his season numbers would be .271/.323/.422, and he would have made fewer than half of his errors, and we likely wouldn't be talking about the signing as a disaster. 

 

[alwyn96]

Can anyone point out to me how you get defensive outfield statistics for Ramirez split home and away? I've tried every site I know of and can't seem to do it.
 
I'm curious whether or not LF in Fenway is actually a detriment to his fielding. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it may be possible that playing in a spot that's hemmed in on 2 sides by bone-crunching walls, both of which require experience with caroms, may actually be worse for him than playing in a large area where his relative speed is more in play - and he doesn't need to worry as much about tricky plays and shoulder-destroying walls.
 
Like I say...curious.

 
Huh, I can't seem to find that either. Fielding stats generally come with big SSS warnings already, though. Splitting them further is probably asking for trouble. I'd guess that trained eyeballs are probably more reliable than home/away fielding stats at this point. My eyeballs aren't super trained, but I think you're right that the walls are one of Hanley's biggest problems, though. His reads on flyballs off the bat don't seem great either, but I think his fear of slamming into a wall or hurting himself out there is almost palpable. 

 

[ALiveH]

It seems impossible that a starting MLB SS at 30 can't find a defensive position just 2 years later.  I think they figure out somewhere to play Hanley, whether it's 3B or 1B. or LF.  My suspicion is he bulked up too much in the gym and neglected the agility / speed / defensive drills (and the bulking up also negatively affected him with the bat & with nagging injuries).  Logically, he is likely to approach this offseason differently.
 
Pablo's offense worries me more (he's having his career-worst year at the bat).  He also has problems controlling his own weight which is much harder to cure.  If someone has to go, i vote him off the island.
 
But Moncada and/or Devers hit the bigs in a couple years and one or both of those guys should be future stars.  So, Pablo/HanRam can hold down the fort until then.
 
The big question marks are if JBJ / Rusney keep performing, then i think that forces them into the starting OF.  And, if Shaw keeps hitting them he forces himself into starting 1B.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I cannot imagine that you'd be able to move either Hanley or Panda and net anything like $15 MM in AAV savings,. But if Dombrowski can do it, I will consider him to be a deity.

 
Both guys still have goodwill value as middle-of-the-order veteran hitters, even if we here want them buried. Eating $4MM AAV on Panda or $7MM AAV on Hanley should make either attractive to a mid-market team, especially with a secondary "prospect" piece added on.
 
Consider Atlanta, which is starved for RH offense to hit behind Freeman yet still loaded with pitching.  Could DDski craft a package like Hanley + Prospect + $$ to nab Teheran through age 29?
 
The more well-regarded the prospect, the less money, but as long as he can go back to the IF, Hanley alone is the trade centerpiece, so top-ten guys aren't really at stake.  But offer a guy with HR-power upside like Chavis, and maybe the Sox don't need to chip in any money at all.
 
There will be deals out there, even if not this one. I am way more confident in DDski finding them and pulling the trigger, than I ever was about Cherington.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

It seems impossible that a starting MLB SS at 30 can't find a defensive position just 2 years later.  I think they figure out somewhere to play Hanley, whether it's 3B or 1B. or LF.  My suspicion is he bulked up too much in the gym and neglected the agility / speed / defensive drills (and the bulking up also negatively affected him with the bat & with nagging injuries).  Logically, he is likely to approach this offseason differently.
 
Pablo's offense worries me more (he's having his career-worst year at the bat).  He also has problems controlling his own weight which is much harder to cure.  If someone has to go, i vote him off the island.
 
But Moncada and/or Devers hit the bigs in a couple years and one or both of those guys should be future stars.  So, Pablo/HanRam can hold down the fort until then.
 
The big question marks are if JBJ / Rusney keep performing, then i think that forces them into the starting OF.  And, if Shaw keeps hitting them he forces himself into starting 1B.

Hanley was a starting MLB SS at 30 only because he can hit the baseball.  He's been a terrible defender wherever he's been placed out there.
 
Even having said that, I would think Sandoval would be much hard to move because even at his best he can't hit like Hanley can, and his reputation as some sort of slightly chubby Brooks Robinson is wildly undeserved.  
 
Shockingly, signing a bunch of pitchers who don't strike out a lot of guys and installing a statue garden on the left side of the diamond hasn't been a great idea.  I'd just as soon see both of them go, but that's probably not happening.

 

[moondog80]

Hanley was a starting MLB SS at 30 only because he can hit the baseball.  He's been a terrible defender wherever he's been placed out there.
 

 
 
He was bad but still passable enough where they kept putting him there.  If being able to hit made up for any and all defensive shortcomings, wouldn't the Sox have tried Manny or Youk or Pedroia at SS?

 

[grimshaw]

Instead of bumping the 1B thread, I'll post this here since it is a corner position.
 
I'm still more than ok with a bridge guy at 1B like Lind who I believe is the ideal fit.  Shaw is probably not the future at 1B, though I guess if he rakes, there's a spot for him as either at DH post Papi, or backing up Sandoval (assuming he isn't moved).
 
The future is probably Sam Travis (unless they go internationally) if he can hit for more power, and I happen to think he's got an outside shot at winning the job by June next year.  He has yet to have a cold streak in the minors and appears to be on the fast track since he's already shown he belongs in AA, OPS'ing .778 at age 21.
 
If they trade for Lind, who has the one remaining year, it could work out perfectly for the 1B situation.

 

[Average Reds]

 
Both guys still have goodwill value as middle-of-the-order veteran hitters, even if we here want them buried. Eating $4MM AAV on Panda or $7MM AAV on Hanley should make either attractive to a mid-market team, especially with a secondary "prospect" piece added on.
 
Consider Atlanta, which is starved for RH offense to hit behind Freeman yet still loaded with pitching.  Could DDski craft a package like Hanley + Prospect + $$ to nab Teheran through age 29?
 
The more well-regarded the prospect, the less money, but as long as he can go back to the IF, Hanley alone is the trade centerpiece, so top-ten guys aren't really at stake.  But offer a guy with HR-power upside like Chavis, and maybe the Sox don't need to chip in any money at all.
 
There will be deals out there, even if not this one. I am way more confident in DDski finding them and pulling the trigger, than I ever was about Cherington.

 
As I said, I'll revere him as a living God if he can do it.  Until then, I remain skeptical that we won't have to eat a majority of their contracts to move either one.
 

 
Does it have to be that direct in terms of savings, though? Something along the lines of the Sandoval-for-Shields idea that was mentioned before.

 
Again, I have a hard time believing that deal would be offered, but I would welcome it.
 
Maybe I'm just too cynical after watching 2/3 of a season of both Hanley and Panda.

 

[shepard50]

Can anyone point out to me how you get defensive outfield statistics for Ramirez split home and away? I've tried every site I know of and can't seem to do it.
 
I'm curious whether or not LF in Fenway is actually a detriment to his fielding. It sounds counter-intuitive, but it may be possible that playing in a spot that's hemmed in on 2 sides by bone-crunching walls, both of which require experience with caroms, may actually be worse for him than playing in a large area where his relative speed is more in play - and he doesn't need to worry as much about tricky plays and shoulder-destroying walls.
 
Like I say...curious.

Given that UZR is park adjusted, wouldn't home and away splits likely be even? Isn't that the basis of the adjustment?

 

[Drek717]

 
I'm not in a position to judge Hanley as a 1B, but everything that I have seen on the field and read here screams at me that he'd be a worse problem at 1B than he is now in LF.  I'd also worry about his having an attitude problem regarding being used almost as a utility / backup guy,  I'd love to be wrong about his potential at 1B, but right now Travis Shaw looks like a better baseball player.

What have we "seen on the field and read here" that suggests he'd be a bigger problem at 1B than LF?  The bottom end of defensive 1Bs is closer to the top than a similar comparison at any other defensive position.
 
He's a natural infielder, his biggest problem in LF is a clear inability to read and react to fly balls.  At his biggest problem as an infielder was a lack of range.  His reason for why he can't take routine fielding practice is getting worn out before games.
 
So at 1B he would 1. have very little fly ball responsibilities 2. have to cover far less ground than he did as a SS or 3B, and 3. would primarily just need to keep a foot on the bag as he catches baseballs for fielding drills, not all the running about shagging flies entails.  He also wouldn't have to be concerned with running into a wall really.
 
Hanley at 1B, Sandoval at 3B, Travis Shaw as the backup to both and you would think the Sox would have a good chance to see some bounce back and quality corner IF production.  Then in a year or two when Ortiz retires Hanley moves to DH and Travis Shaw (if he breaks through) or Sam Travis are two potential in-house 1B candidates, as would moving Sandoval to 1B (assuming it's two and we're talking 2018) and bringing up Devers, Chavis, or even Moncada to play 3B.
 
Would Dombrowski be happy with Betts/Bradley/Castillo as his OFs though, with two of them starting in the corners.  That is the real question.  I'm betting he makes a hard run at a power bat to fill in LF, likely with Owens, Johnson, Margot, and Holt as the key trade chips to make it happen.  That then frees up one of Bradley, Betts, and Castillo to be moved for starting pitching help, which one would depend on how he spent the remaining budget.

 

[alwyn96]

 

Given that UZR is park adjusted, wouldn't home and away splits likely be even? Isn't that the basis of the adjustment?

 
Park adjustments are based on population averages, not individual-level averages. For example, ERA- is park adjusted, but it's the pitcher's ERA with an average park and league correction factor applied to it. Those factors are based on the population-level averages. If Hanley's splits were even, that would mean that he plays in each park league average-ly the same. 
 
The idea of park adjustment assumes is that a player is plays the same in every park. If that is the case, then any differences in a player's fielding stats between parks would be due to the park, and not the player. However, this might not be the case. The park 'adjustment' just applies a general correction factor to playing in a particular zone. If Hanley is tremendously bad in that particular zone in one park and not another, then even his 'adjusted' numbers are going to be different. 
 
For example, if Hanley decided to just sit down, drink lemonade and take a nap on a folding chair every time he played LF in Fenway, but really bust it everywhere else, his fielding stats are not going to look the same in Fenway as everywhere else. He's going to get the same Fenway stat adjustment that everyone gets, but his numbers in Fenway will obviously be much worse. 
 
At any rate, looking at home/away UZR would probably be too complicated anyway. There are so many weird fudge factors in UZR that in small samples eyeballs are probably more reliable.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
 
He was bad but still passable enough where they kept putting him there.  If being able to hit made up for any and all defensive shortcomings, wouldn't the Sox have tried Manny or Youk or Pedroia at SS?

He's had one decent and one merely bad year since 2010, the others were dreadful.  I have no clue as to why his previous managers kept running him out to SS, but the point is that you don't look at his -15.1/150 UZR last year and come to the conclusion that he's a natural athlete who will be able to adapt to any other position that doesn't begin with a "D" and end with an "H."

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

He's a natural infielder, his biggest problem in LF is a clear inability to read and react to fly balls.  At his biggest problem as an infielder was a lack of range.  His reason for why he can't take routine fielding practice is getting worn out before games.

 
I think his other biggest problem in the outfield is he's terrified of running into something. 

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I say trade Hanley for a bag of balls. Play Mookie at LF, Rusney in RF, Panda at 3B and Travis Shaw at 1B unless a big bat 1B becomes available on the market.    Brock Holt is a 4th outfielder.  That takes care of 2016.
 
In the future, Rafael Devers may be the 3B  or 1B the team needs, but that's not likely to happen until 2017.  Perhaps Brock Holt becomes the 3B for a year, or perhaps they pick up a free agent between now and then who can push Panda aside as DH when Devers makes the big club.. 

Am I reading this right? Do you think there is even a small chance that this will happen before 2017, and that it's likely in 2017?
 
If by some miracle he sprints through the minors like Mookie, do you see him beating Mookie Betts to the majors by one full year and playing in Fenway 20 months from now as a 20 year old? This kid is incredibly young for his level with a hitch in his swing that bears watching as he progresses. He is not currently at Panda level defense. He needs to develop. Lets keep him out of the 2016 corners thread for a few years. 

 

[alwyn96]

Am I reading this right? Do you think there is even a small chance that this will happen before 2017, and that it's likely in 2017?
 
If by some miracle he sprints through the minors like Mookie, do you see him beating Mookie Betts to the majors by one full year and playing in Fenway 20 months from now as a 20 year old? This kid is incredibly young for his level with a hitch in his swing that bears watching as he progresses. He is not currently at Panda level defense. He needs to develop. Lets keep him out of the 2016 corners thread for a few years. 

 
What is this hitch you speak of? Devers' swing mechanics looked pretty sweet to me, although I guess I haven't seen video of him in awhile. Is this a new thing?
 
You're right that he is absurdly young, though. Assuming he even makes it to MLB as a 3B, in Sandoval's last year in 2019 Devers would still be only 22.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

 
What is this hitch you speak of? Devers' swing mechanics looked pretty sweet to me, although I guess I haven't seen video of him in awhile. Is this a new thing?
 
You're right that he is absurdly young, though. Assuming he even makes it to MLB as a 3B, in Sandoval's last year in 2019 Devers would still be only 22.

Head over to the Devers thread in Adopt a Prospect. There is a video and I'll show you what I'm seeing.

 

[chrisfont9]

Position-wise you'd think moving Hanley would be preferable -- a neat solution for the defense -- and more likely to actually happen, given that he'd be a fine DH when healthy. But I thought the reason we got him was driven in part by the need for more RHH power, and since then we've axed Napoli and Victorino, and employed Bradley and Shaw more. Not that those last two are established yet, but I'd think losing his RHH power bat might be something the Sox would want to avoid. The lineup is still pretty righthanded, but we're talking Pedroia, Bogaerts, Betts and Castillo, not a ton of slugging.
 
Which gets back to seeing if anyone will take Panda, and moving Hanley to 3B/DH until Papi finally retires.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

If the Sox eat a bunch of salary, Hanley can be moved to an AL team in need of a DH for a bag of balls.  That's probably the best option for him.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

If the Sox eat a bunch of salary, Hanley can be moved to an AL team in need of a DH for a bag of balls.  That's probably the best option for him.

 
Novelty purposes only, but for 2016, at least...
 
Astros - Carter or Gattis
Angels - Cron
Rangers - Hamilton (EDIT or Fielder, duh)
Mariners - Cruz
As - Butler
Tigers - Martinez
Royals - Morales
Twins - ???? Move Plouffe there maybe?
White Sox - LaRoche
Indians - ???? 
Yankees - Rodriguez or Teixeira or Beltran
Orioles - ????
Blue Jays - Encarnacion
Rays - Jaso
 
So the Orioles appear to be the best fit on paper to me, but who knows. 

 

[nothumb]

 
Because Brock Holt already gives the Sox a 4-man OF with nice depth, and Hanley plays OF like he's wearing his glove on the wrong hand. And clown shoes.
 
And because an 4-man OF that costs the Sox under $12MM allows the Sox to sink money into pitching this offseason.
 
DDski's easiest decision for 2016 is removing Hanley out of the OF equation.

 
I agree, and I think the most interesting question is, if he decides to move at least one of Hanley or Pablo, which one is it??
 
Obviously their value on the market is a huge part of it. But if market forces are roughly equal, do you dump Pablo, who at least seems to have a defensive position but can't stay in shape and doesn't have the hitting profile to move left? With the added factor that improving 3b in 2016 over Pablo's likely projection may be costly. Or do you dump Hanley, who may be a perfect fit at DH in a year, might be a no-marginal-cost upgrade at 1B now, or might be completely unplayable at any position in 2016? I tend to suspect that Hanley might have more perceived value if somebody thinks they can move him back to the IF or DH him, and I'm interested in the idea of packaging him with some dollars and/or prospects for pitching rather than just getting a bag of balls. Although I'd probably settle for the bag of balls.

 

[MikeM]

 
I agree, and I think the most interesting question is, if he decides to move at least one of Hanley or Pablo, which one is it??
 
Obviously their value on the market is a huge part of it. But if market forces are roughly equal, do you dump Pablo, who at least seems to have a defensive position but can't stay in shape and doesn't have the hitting profile to move left? With the added factor that improving 3b in 2016 over Pablo's likely projection may be costly. Or do you dump Hanley, who may be a perfect fit at DH in a year, might be a no-marginal-cost upgrade at 1B now, or might be completely unplayable at any position in 2016? I tend to suspect that Hanley might have more perceived value if somebody thinks they can move him back to the IF or DH him, and I'm interested in the idea of packaging him with some dollars and/or prospects for pitching rather than just getting a bag of balls. Although I'd probably settle for the bag of balls.

 
I see Hanley's potential upside possibility value at first (and eventually DH) ultimately trumping any immediate concern over opening up an organizational hole at third. The next contending Red Sox team is probably going to need to be putting up it's fair share of offense, and gun to my head i'm picking Hanley over Panda to still be a relevant type player 2 seasons from now. Which beyond my own belief that this team will look and play better in 2016, is probably the more realistic time frame on when would/should be making some serious playoff noise again. 
 
So yeah, my priority would be getting out as best we can now on year 3/4/5 of Panda's deal. Hanley to first, avoid last winter's panicky need to field the "flashy" solution, and concede the fact that you'll be looking to fill 3B on the cheap for the foreseeable future. Switching Moncada over on his next step up probably wouldn't be the worst idea in the world either. 
 
As far as the outfield goes, if i was skeptical before that BC would ever fully commit to a Betts/Bradley/Castillo OF due to it's lack of real offensive potential, i'm even more skeptical DD buys in there. If Castillo hits enough ROS to generate an interesting full contract going the other way trade possibility this winter he's gone, and that combined with the Panda dump is viewed as paying a large initial chunk of our new ace's FA contract. Either way though a more power oriented OF option is brought in through trade who can then be slotted in the middle of the lineup. 

 

[opes]

 
Novelty purposes only, but for 2016, at least...
 
Astros - Carter or Gattis
Angels - Cron
Rangers - Hamilton (EDIT or Fielder, duh)
Mariners - Cruz
As - Butler
Tigers - Martinez
Royals - Morales
Twins - ???? Move Plouffe there maybe?
White Sox - LaRoche
Indians - ???? 
Yankees - Rodriguez or Teixeira or Beltran
Orioles - ????
Blue Jays - Encarnacion
Rays - Jaso
 
So the Orioles appear to be the best fit on paper to me, but who knows. 

 
Miguel Sano is currently the twins DH, and Plouffe is starting at 3b mainly. Sano will be a easy 35 -40 hr per yr DH. Neither are going anywhere.  

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
Miguel Sano is currently the twins DH, and Plouffe is starting at 3b mainly. Sano will be a easy 35 -40 hr per yr DH. Neither are going anywhere.  

 
 I guess I was assuming they'd put Sano in the field at third. But either way, I don't think anyone thinks the Twins are any sort of fit for Hanley, which was the point of the exercise.

 

[opes]

I agree.  Its interesting that Plouffe is having a slightly better year than Hanley is even.