Yeah, if it makes us better in 2018. I'm not sure that move does but Hanley's 22 mil is a non factor if he is our best option available.So you're ignoring the 22 million dollars at stake?
Yeah, if it makes us better in 2018. I'm not sure that move does but Hanley's 22 mil is a non factor if he is our best option available.So you're ignoring the 22 million dollars at stake?
Why would 22 million dollars be a non-factor?Yeah, if it makes us better in 2018. I'm not sure that move does but Hanley's 22 mil is a non factor if he is our best option available.
Why would 22 million dollars be a non-factor?
Would you sign Hanley Ramirez for 22 million dollars? If you say no, then there's no reason on earth Hanley should be playing, no matter if he makes us better in 2018 or not
This is absurd. Next year’s team is no less important and has no worse a shot than the 2018 team, and would depend mightily on that $22 million to pay for arb increases and replacing Kimbrel, Pom, and Kelly instead of a replacement-level player. Triggering Hanley’s option makes next year’s team worse.You are willing to make the 2018 team worse in favor of saving 22 million in 2019. I think this 2018 team has a good chance at a WS title and should field the best possible team available.
First: This year's team is more important than next years because we know what this team looks like, and it is a very good team. You can argue otherwise all you want but I'll continue to disagree. Why do you think teams trade prospects at the deadline for established vets?This is absurd. Next year’s team is no less important and has no worse a shot than the 2018 team, and would depend mightily on that $22 million to pay for arb increases and replacing Kimbrel, Pom, and Kelly instead of a replacement-level player. Triggering Hanley’s option makes next year’s team worse.
Second, it should not be difficult to find a guy this summer who can play first and put up an .800 OPS against LHP.
There are obviously team chemistry issues we can’t see that could be a disturbance, and who knows what’ll happen. That’s why something like a Hanley for Cargo+ trade — with the eye toward taking on enough salary to get us a good young Rockies player — would seem to work, because it has the whiff of an exchange of former superstars, which is better than a DFA.
Next year's team is much less important than this year's team in May 2018. This year's team is currently in first place and hasn't had any huge injury issues. Next year's team could stumble out of the gate because Sale blew out his elbow in Spring Training, or Mookie came back to Earth, or JD fouls one off his foot. If anything like that happens, you've made 2018's team worse for a lost cause in 2019.This is absurd. Next year’s team is no less important and has no worse a shot than the 2018 team, and would depend mightily on that $22 million to pay for arb increases and replacing Kimbrel, Pom, and Kelly instead of a replacement-level player. Triggering Hanley’s option makes next year’s team worse.
Agreed.Next year's team is much less important than this year's team in May 2018. This year's team is currently in first place and hasn't had any huge injury issues. Next year's team could stumble out of the gate because Sale blew out his elbow in Spring Training, or Mookie came back to Earth, or JD fouls one off his foot. If anything like that happens, you've made 2018's team worse for a lost cause in 2019.
I could see how one might think DFAing Hanley is preferable to benching him, if the perception is that a benched Hanley is an unhappy Hanley, and an unhappy Hanley is a disruptive Hanley.Agreed.
However, straight up planting Hanley to the bench majority of the time for Moreland solves both issues. Makes the 2018 team better, and if the option doesn't vest, helps next year too.
Why all this talk about trades, DFAs, or sitting JBJ when the obvious solution is right there?
That's been the million dollar question since the start of the past off-season. I haven't really found or seen anything concrete to confirm it one way or the other.What happens to Hanley's option if he is DFA's, passes waivers, and then his new team plays him enough for him to accumulate the 497 plate appearances? Does 2019 still count against the Red Sox?
Why is the assumption that Hanley would be disruptive? The guy has changed positions twice for the team without whisper of complaint. If putting him on the bench 4-5 times a week instead of 1 is beneficial to the team, I expect Cora and company would thoroughly explain that to him and he'd probably do so willingly. He'd probably also work his ass off trying to get himself back in the lineup more often too.I could see how one might think DFAing Hanley is preferable to benching him, if the perception is that a benched Hanley is an unhappy Hanley, and an unhappy Hanley is a disruptive Hanley.
I thought this had been answered a couple of times, to the effect that the 497 PA have to accumulate under his current contract to trigger the option. So if he's traded, the destination team is potentially liable for the vesting option, but if he's DFA'd and re-signed, then neither team is liable for it, because the PA meter on this contract stops running when he signs a contract with the new team.What happens to Hanley's option if he is DFA's, passes waivers, and then his new team plays him enough for him to accumulate the 497 plate appearances? Does 2019 still count against the Red Sox?
It's against a lefty.Hanley is batting in the two hole today. This has to be stubbornness on Cora's part. It certainly is boneheaded. That being said this is the first move Cora has done that I think is indefensible.
If only there was a way to verify these things rather than wonder.....IMHO I think Hanley needs a couple of days off......isn't he close to 0 for this week?
Lhp. Mookie on base. More Hitters behind him. Maybe a last ditch attempt to give him a shot in the arm.Hanley is batting in the two hole today. This has to be stubbornness on Cora's part. It certainly is boneheaded. That being said this is the first move Cora has done that I think is indefensible.
It's hard to say HR brings 'zero positives' when we're not in the clubhouse - it's entirely possible that Cora has good reason to see Hanley as a positive influence on the younger members of the team and in the clubhouse as a whole. If that is the case, it does explain why Hanley is getting so many opportunities to turn things around. Alex Cora is a smart guy and I don't see him continuing to let this play out through the summer if Ramirez is not helping the team on the field - he does need to win games and not blow this season.It's absolutely shocking how badly they have botched this...
Not only have they basically guaranteed this option vest, but they have put the team in a worst spot by playing a player who has absolutely zero positives to the team over a player with superior fielding and hitting.
Why are you so convinced he adds "zero positives to the team"? He's had a bad stretch -- everyone lost their freaking minds in the game thread when he hit into two DPs and K'd the other night like it was the worst night in the history of professional sports.It's absolutely shocking how badly they have botched this...
Not only have they basically guaranteed this option vest, but they have put the team in a worst spot by playing a player who has absolutely zero positives to the team over a player with superior fielding and hitting.
Moreland needs a platoon partner? He's not that helpless against LHP. But presumably, yes, Swihart is the defacto back up at first. Maybe Holt too.So... Swihart is gonna platoon with Moreland then?
This isn't true. He can play a passable 1B. Though those aren't the offensive numbers that can carry "passable" defense at 1B.245/318/421 in his last 748 PA, and he can't play the field.
Why couldn't they just make the obvious move of dumping Swihart (genuine question)?This seems like the only move they can make backed into the corner they're in, but it's extremely sad.
No knock on Moreland. More like a "Swihart asked to be traded but we don't wanna so this is how he gets ABs" platoon.Moreland needs a platoon partner? He's not that helpless against LHP. But presumably, yes, Swihart is the defacto back up at first. Maybe Holt too.
Because he's the only catcher on the 40-man roster besides Vazquez and Leon. He'd be in Pawtucket and on the shuttle if he had options. He doesn't, so he's the rarely used #3 catcher on the big league roster.Why couldn't they just make the obvious move of dumping Swihart (genuine question)?
I would as well. They don't want Hanley's 20 plus million next year and I don't blame them.They like Swihart over Hanley and his vesting?
An 800 AB long slump? He's got a .700 OPS with a .283 BABIP and is hitting the ball on the ground more than he ever has. Dude's toast.I....don't understand this at all. He's in a slump, but still.
It does save them because its tied to either plate appearances or at-bats and he won't get these in Boston.Is there any confirmation this saves them from the vesting option?
If so, I applaud it.
I'm stunned. It's probably the best option all things considered, but I really did not think that would happen.That's an absolute shock.