Who plays 1B next year?

Red(s)HawksFan · Aug 11, 2015

Does FA signing really have to be qualified with the word "big"? Because I think that's where I'd lean if I'm voting right now, but I'm not convinced it needs to be a "big" signing or even sure what "big" constitutes. Even Davis or Park don't necessarily have to come with "big" contracts/commitments.

Philip Jeff Frye · Aug 11, 2015

It's awfully hard to make predictions like this. Would anybody have answered "Hanley Ramirez" to the question "Who plays LF next year?" this time last season? If it's not one of the internal options, it's probably somebody none of us are thinking about right now.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 11, 2015

I voted "trade" by a process of elimination because:

1) I really don't think Shaw/Craig is a viable strategy, though if we're treating 2016 as a rebuilding year--and we probably should--maybe that doesn't matter;
2) I think Hanley's next position should be DH, and we should suffer through his LF play until that spot is open;
3) Moving Pablo just creates a new problem;
4) I think Davis will cost too much, and I'm very leery of Park's age and K rate.

But I'm not that solid on any of the above. This seems to be a situation where there are no slam-dunk options and lots of possibly OK ones.

I'd love to get Belt, and I would consider giving up pretty serious prospect talent for him, but somebody like Lind might be more realistic and have a more acceptable price tag. I wonder if Carlos Santana would also be a viable trade target as a short-term stopgap?

grimshaw · Aug 11, 2015

Belt is a great choice followed by Lind IMO and I think they will go that route if Park isn't acquired.
I'm gonna go a bit outside the box for the sake of discussion only and go with Carlos Gonzalez.
He has been rumored as a trade candidate - and he's a bit expensive. Running isn't a big part of his game anymore because of lower body issues and he's just ok as a right fielder (which they don't need) and he will be 32 when his contract expires.

His year has been similar to Ortiz' in that he started very slowly and has come on like a gang buster in the 2nd half. The mostly righty lineup thing kind of backfired so maybe they'll be more open to a balanced one. He can also go oppo with power.

TheYellowDart5 · Aug 11, 2015

The fact that Craig hasn't been called up to take Napoli's spot suggests that he's not in the team's plans for the present or future. He'll be here in September once the minor-league season ends, but I wouldn't be surprised if he rides the pine for most of the month and gets moved in a salary dump this winter. He's shown nothing at Pawtucket to give any hope that he'd even be a major league regular. Likewise, the fact that Ramirez hasn't been given a start at first makes me think the team is going to try as hard as it can to make him work as the leftfielder. How wise that is and whether they (or whoever replaces Cherington et al) will stick with it after a winter of consultation remains to be seen, but I wouldn't hold out hope for a change. And I can't imagine Shaw would be considered as anything other than a platoon partner: a Triple A line of .256/.319/.395 in 668 plate appearances doesn't inspire much, and he wasn't young for the level, either.

So that leaves FA or trade, but as PJF said, who knows with this FO? All that seems likely is that the replacement won't come internally.

ehaz · Aug 11, 2015

grimshaw said:
Belt is a great choice followed by Lind IMO and I think they will go that route if Park isn't acquired.
I'm gonna go a bit outside the box for the sake of discussion only and go with Carlos Gonzalez.
He has been rumored as a trade candidate - and he's a bit expensive. Running isn't a big part of his game anymore because of lower body issues and he's just ok as a right fielder (which they don't need) and he will be 32 when his contract expires.

His year has been similar to Ortiz' in that he started very slowly and has come on like a gang buster in the 2nd half. The mostly righty lineup thing kind of backfired so maybe they'll be more open to a balanced one. He can also go oppo with power.

Not a bad idea since the Rockies were trying very hard to trade him before the deadline. If you traded for CarGo, why not put the natural outfielder in LF and move the natural infielder (Hanley) to 1B?

ehaz · Aug 11, 2015

In house isn't sexy, but there aren't a ton of options and they may want to see Travis/Devers in the minors for another season before giving out another huge contract. That being said, a Shaw/Craig platoon is scary. Craig's SLG% is .328 in 78 Pawtucket games. I'd be open to trying a platoon if they signed someone to a one year contract - Maybe Aramis? Or Nolan Reimold (6'4, below average LF with a career .250/.324/.434)?

Al Zarilla · Aug 11, 2015

The Red Sox aren't getting Brandon Belt. He's part of SFs excellent all home grown infield, they love him there, fans and management, and SF rarely trades starters anyway. You might as well try to trade Sandoval back to them for Matt Duffy. Lusting after Belt might be akin to another team doing the same over Bogaerts or Betts. Ain't not happenin'.

Bosoxen · Aug 11, 2015

Al Zarilla said:
The Red Sox aren't getting Brandon Belt. He's part of SFs excellent all home grown infield, they love him there, fans and management, and SF rarely trades starters anyway. You might as well try to trade Sandoval back to them for Matt Duffy. Lusting after Belt might be akin to another team doing the same over Bogaerts or Betts. Ain't not happenin'.

So you're saying there's a chance.

glennhoffmania · Aug 11, 2015

I voted in-house. Moving Hanley makes zero sense to me. There's no reason to believe he'd be even a passable 1B. If there was a reason to move Pablo (ie., a 3B prospect was ready to take over) then that would make more sense, but still not much. Any FA budget they have should go towards pitching.

Al Zarilla · Aug 11, 2015

Bosoxen said:
So you're saying there's a chance.

Bad English is more emphatic sometimes.

Saints Rest · Aug 11, 2015

I voted 2. At some point, be it during this season, the off-season, or ST (or a combo of all three), we need to find out which combo is best for the Sox as a whole:

HR at 3B and Panda at 1B
Panda at 3B and HR at 1B

I hope that the fact that Youkilis could be a passable/above average 3B, yet a TERRIBLE LF, while still being able to be an excellent GG_level 1B, means that there is hope for Hanley to make an easier transition to 1B.

The advantage of the first option is that 1B is covered when HR moves to DH in 2017 (presumably).

In either case, I would hope that the improvement of having three high-quality players in the OF in Betts/Rusney/JBJ, will go a long way toward offsetting some reduced defensive skills at 1B and 3B.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 11, 2015

Al Zarilla said:
The Red Sox aren't getting Brandon Belt. He's part of SFs excellent all home grown infield, they love him there, fans and management, and SF rarely trades starters anyway. You might as well try to trade Sandoval back to them for Matt Duffy. Lusting after Belt might be akin to another team doing the same over Bogaerts or Betts. Ain't not happenin'.

Right, that's why I said Lind would probably be more realistic. What about the point brimac raises, though, about the need to accommodate a Posey transition to 1B? Is that a non-issue?

Rovin Romine · Aug 11, 2015

I went with "other."

None of the internal options are great. I'd love Shaw to stay hot, Craig to regain his swing/power, or HR to be able to transition to 1B. But these don't seem likely enough to count on for 2016.

(I'd prefer Panda to stay where he is and get better (he'd be grossly overpaid at 1b, and we'd have to find a 3B).

Even though it's a slim chance, HR transitioning seems the cleanest fix - since we potentially have a Betts/Castillo/JBJ/FA OF, and we can probably find an OF FA easier than a HR level bat 1B FA.

Another option is to find one or more platoon type 1B FAs - maybe someone in AAA who is blocked at the ML level. You could spell that person with a Shaw/Craig type. Or go for another Giambi/Ortiz/Millar type audition.

semsox · Aug 11, 2015

I also voted #2, but I'd add the caveat that I feel the front office is in a VERY unenviable position in terms of what the 'right' answer is to this question (albeit, it is a position of their own making). From a roster and lineup management perspective, moving Hanley to 1B makes so much sense on a number of levels that it leads me to believe there's been pushback from Hanley himself. Otherwise, why continue to put out a player who is disastrous in LF, create a logjam of young talented OFers who should be playing everyday, and play low-upside players (Shaw and Holt) who don't appear to be long-term solutions at 1B.

LeoCarrillo · Aug 11, 2015

So much of pushing 1B on Hanley seems linked to whether Papi plays in 2017. His numbers are down this season at 39, but he's far from cooked.

I'm dying to know what the FO thinks of Papi 2017. You can't push the Living Legend out the door if he throws up another .800 OPS next year. So are you really gonna play Hanley for three years in LF and one or two at DH? Or push 1B on Hanley even though he said he's not so inclined.

No easy answer.

Add: Maybe the shrewd move is to sit tight till next year's ASB. See where Papi is. See if Hanley is playing a passable LF or raking. Possibly explore trade of Hanley if he's blocked at DH.

WenZink · Aug 11, 2015

Sam Travis, Come on Down!

Seriously, they should invite him to Spring Training and give him a good, long look to determine how long away he is from being a major league first baseman. Then, at the end of camp, they should make their decision accordingly. If Travis seems less than a year away, then try to get by with Shaw until that time.

Pilgrim · Aug 11, 2015

I think it will be Park. There are just so many holes on this team, they can't really address everything with trades/signings of established players. The top KBO guys can clearly play at this level but I think it will still take a while for the contracts to catch up.

They need a whole bunch of things to go right anyway, so might as well take a chance.

Rasputin · Aug 11, 2015

I think you get some semi random schlub who can hit lefties a bit and platoon with Shaw. Who has Danny Valencia these days? He'd be a decent option.

Of course, this assumes v Shaw is halfway decent the rest of this year.

nvalvo · Aug 11, 2015

I think it will be a Park deal for low dollars. It's risky.

rembrat · Aug 11, 2015

Am I crazy for wanting to give Travis Shaw at least 300PA just to see what he can do at this level? He's gotten 40 so far and the returns have been incredible. I know SSS and all but his ABs have looked solid and he is hitting ropes.

Red(s)HawksFan · Aug 11, 2015

TheYellowDart5 said:
The fact that Craig hasn't been called up to take Napoli's spot suggests that he's not in the team's plans for the present or future. He'll be here in September once the minor-league season ends, but I wouldn't be surprised if he rides the pine for most of the month and gets moved in a salary dump this winter. He's shown nothing at Pawtucket to give any hope that he'd even be a major league regular. Likewise, the fact that Ramirez hasn't been given a start at first makes me think the team is going to try as hard as it can to make him work as the leftfielder. How wise that is and whether they (or whoever replaces Cherington et al) will stick with it after a winter of consultation remains to be seen, but I wouldn't hold out hope for a change. And I can't imagine Shaw would be considered as anything other than a platoon partner: a Triple A line of .256/.319/.395 in 668 plate appearances doesn't inspire much, and he wasn't young for the level, either.

So that leaves FA or trade, but as PJF said, who knows with this FO? All that seems likely is that the replacement won't come internally.

If the intent is to dump his salary, their best bet is to not bring him up in September since that would require adding him back to the 40-man roster. As long as he remains off the 40-man roster at the end of the year, Craig has the option of leaving and becoming a free agent which would relieve the Sox of any future salary obligations. It's a long shot that he opts out, but it's one they should take before they bother trading him (and likely paying most of his salary anyway).

WenZink · Aug 11, 2015

Rasputin said:
I think you get some semi random schlub who can hit lefties a bit and platoon with Shaw. Who has Danny Valencia these days? He'd be a decent option.

Of course, this assumes v Shaw is halfway decent the rest of this year.

The problem with a platoon at 1st base is that you run out of space on the 25 man roster to have two players alternating at a relatively low-skill defensive position. Sox will need 12 pitchers, their 9 starters, a backup catcher, Holt, JBJ as their 3A/4th outfielder, and that's already 24.

Yelling At Clouds · Aug 11, 2015

In the interest of throwing out some trade names, what about Jay Bruce or, less appealingly, Joey Votto?

grimshaw · Aug 11, 2015

Danny_Darwin said:
In the interest of throwing out some trade names, what about Jay Bruce or, less appealingly, Joey Votto?

8 more years and he's 32 next month. Sure. . . if they take Sandoval and Hanley.

Rasputin · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
The problem with a platoon at 1st base is that you run out of space on the 25 man roster to have two players alternating at a relatively low-skill defensive position. Sox will need 12 pitchers, their 9 starters, a backup catcher, Holt, JBJ as their 3A/4th outfielder, and that's already 24.

Yep, but Shaw and Valencia can both play third as well and Valencia at least has played some OF. If the bench is Swihart/Vazquez, Holt, de Aza, and Valencia/Shaw, I think the bench would be fine.

I'd be more concerned that the overall production from first would be good enough, but there's something to be said for having an obvious position to upgrade.

I wonder if de Aza could play first.

ehaz · Aug 11, 2015

WenZink said:
The problem with a platoon at 1st base is that you run out of space on the 25 man roster to have two players alternating at a relatively low-skill defensive position. Sox will need 12 pitchers, their 9 starters, a backup catcher, Holt, JBJ as their 3A/4th outfielder, and that's already 24.

So ideally you'd want want the RHH part of a platoon that can also backup the corner outfield (or third, since Holt can play OF). Reimold, Freese, Rios (loosely) fit that description and should be available on short money 1 year commitments.

Here's an idea that's perhaps a little out of left field - Ben Zobrist. He can still hit very well and will probably play a more than serviceable 1B (which might reduce some of the wear and tear as he ages). Imagine the lineup possibilities when having both Holt and Zobrist on the roster...

Hee Sox Choi · Aug 11, 2015

From ex-MLB scout Kiley McDaniels' chat over at Fangraphs:

12:36

Comment From MCG
Is Sam Travis worth getting excited about as a Red Sox fan? His MiLB numbers aren’t horribly exciting, especially for power, but he’s in AA as a 21 year old.

12:37

Kiley McDaniel: Decent shot for 50 bat and 60 power, which is .260 and 25 homers, so you can decide if that’s worth getting excited about.

WenZink · Aug 11, 2015

ehaz said:
So ideally you'd want want the RHH part of a platoon that can also backup the corner outfield (or third, since Holt can play OF). Reimold, Freese, Rios (loosely) fit that description and should be available on short money 1 year commitments.

Here's an idea that's perhaps a little out of left field - Ben Zobrist. He can still hit very well and will probably play a more than serviceable 1B (which might reduce some of the wear and tear as he ages). Imagine the lineup possibilities when having both Holt and Zobrist on the roster...

I'm just wary of the Sox tying up long-term money in aging players with old-player skills. At least until Ortiz retires or Hanley is moved. Papi and Hanley already tie up more than $35 million, and I'd hate to see it rise back to $50 million, now that Napoli has been moved. Zobrist is an interesting suggestion, but I wonder what he'll command on the FA market this winter, even at 34 years old.

Drek717 · Aug 11, 2015

Rasputin said:
I think you get some semi random schlub who can hit lefties a bit and platoon with Shaw. Who has Danny Valencia these days? He'd be a decent option.

Of course, this assumes v Shaw is halfway decent the rest of this year.

How about Kyle Blanks, who should be a free agent after this season and coming off a lost year due to injury. Former all world prospect, has never gotten it going at the ML level and been oft injured the last two, but at 29 is entering the age where many a player has suddenly found himself and broke out. In his biggest ML sample in 2013 he was horrible against RHP but hit LHP to a respectable .829 OPS while spending his home games in San Diego. Can also play some LF in a pinch.

What I would like to see is moving Hanley to 1B. He was a better SS than he is a LF. He was a better 3B in limited samples than he is a LF. That says to me he's got issues reading balls at the altitude outfielders have to deal with, but he was always passable at getting reads off the bat, he just had crappy range and an erratic throwing arm. The later is entirely mitigated at 1B while even half his previous range (given his bulked up body mass) would be more than adequate for 1B. Receiving isn't a big deal, Daniel Nava, Mike Napoli, Brock Holt, and Wil Middlebrooks have all figured it out with only limited preparation. At 6'2" he even has good length for the position.

I would do this because he sucks in LF and the last thing this club should be committing to now nearing the end of 2015 is to lock another person into the DH spot as soon as Ortiz calls it quits. If Hanley can be an average or better 1B there is huge value gained by keeping him there for the duration of his contract instead of tying up DH.

To further this little plan (though being redundant as I believe I've previously mentioned it on this forum before) I'd like to see the club pursue Ben Zobrist on a one or two year deal that may include overpaying on AAV to reduce total years. Zobrist then could play LF with Betts and Castillo in CF and RF respectively, Bradley, assuming he shows anything this spring, is the 4th OF with Betts sliding to LF when needed. Zobrist would give some additional positional flexibility that when mix and matched with Brock Holt could backup pretty much the entire field. Then the 13th position player is someone like Kyle Blanks, Travis Shaw, etc. who can be a pinch hitter/backup bat for 1B/DH/LF (in Shaw's case 3B instead of LF). A pinch hitter would be useful to a team going with Jackie Bradley as a 4th OF, just in case he doesn't mature as an offensive player.

nvalvo · Aug 11, 2015

12:37

Kiley McDaniel: Decent shot for 50 bat and 60 power, which is .260 and 25 homers, so you can decide if that’s worth getting excited about.

At pre-arb dollars it probably is pretty exciting, if he can maintain something like the walk rate he's shown in the minors and if he's acceptable defensively.

.260/.330/.440ish. In wOBA terms, that would slot him in the middle of the starting 1Bman pack, between the Brandon Belt/Albert Pujols types and the Carlos Santana/Yangervis Solartes.

MikeM · Aug 11, 2015

For all the random trade talk surrounding Lind this year, the fact that he didn't get dealt at the deadline pretty much checks him off my list as far as reasonable probability candidates go.

Without a pressing need to trade him (is there one i'm missing?) I see him staying put. Unless somebody is overpaying, the Brewers look to need his offense in 2016 more then some salary relief or lotto ticket return.

TheYellowDart5 · Aug 11, 2015

rembrat said:
Am I crazy for wanting to give Travis Shaw at least 300PA just to see what he can do at this level? He's gotten 40 so far and the returns have been incredible. I know SSS and all but his ABs have looked solid and he is hitting ropes.

There are nearly 700 plate appearances at Triple A to show that Shaw is nothing at all to be excited about, and that's a level that he repeated, too. It's nice that he's hit well so far, but he's a very long shot to keep that up.

Red(s)HawksFan said:
If the intent is to dump his salary, their best bet is to not bring him up in September since that would require adding him back to the 40-man roster. As long as he remains off the 40-man roster at the end of the year, Craig has the option of leaving and becoming a free agent which would relieve the Sox of any future salary obligations. It's a long shot that he opts out, but it's one they should take before they bother trading him (and likely paying most of his salary anyway).

Ah, didn't know that on Craig. Agreed that the chance is tiny, but hey, maybe leaving him off the roster gets the message across that he's better off anywhere else anyway.

Pilgrim · Aug 11, 2015

Something else from Kiley's chat:

Comment From Bill S. Preston Esq.
Have you been watching Schwarber’s progress (or lack thereof) behind the plate? Are you more or less confident in his ability to stick at C long-term?

12:50
Kiley McDaniel: Said from a year before he was drafted that he’s good enough to catch once or twice a week. He’s improved, but I don’t think he’s ever gonna be much more than that, due to the bat upside from keeping him fresh and the thick frame.

I wonder what the Cubs will do with him if he cant hack it full time behind that plate. He's been playing some LF too, but he'd be a huge trade chip for them if they decide to go that route.

grimshaw · Aug 11, 2015

MikeM said:
For all the random trade talk surrounding Lind this year, the fact that he didn't get dealt at the deadline pretty much checks him off my list as far as reasonable probability candidates go.

Without a pressing need to trade him (is there one i'm missing?) I see him staying put. Unless somebody is overpaying, the Brewers look to need his offense in 2016 more then some salary relief or lotto ticket return.

I'm surprised they didn't move him TBH, but that's probably on Melvin since he has stunk up that organization for a while now. The Brewers have a pretty mediocre farm and really should have been moving guys like Lind. It's not pretty for that team right now.

geoduck no quahog · Aug 12, 2015

Edes thinks it should be Hanley:

...let’s take at least one more look at what an outfield of Jackie Bradley Jr., Mookie Betts and Rusney Castillo can do before Ramirez forces either Bradley or Castillo to the bench...

...If Betts was athletic enough to make the transition from second base to center field, then he can certainly learn to play left field.

Of course, there’s the rub: If you keep this outfield together, what do you do with Hanley? ...

...maybe it’s time for the Sox to buck up and ask Ramirez to start taking ground balls at first base, where a shortstop’s hands remain useful and a shortstop’s range is not required.

If he’s afraid he might embarrass himself, don’t put him in a game until he’s ready. If he wants to play badly enough, he may catch on to the new position much faster than anyone is anticipating.

If Bradley fizzles, nothing has been lost...

Personally, I think Sandoval's talents translate better to 1st base, but that just creates hole at 3rd.

MikeM · Aug 12, 2015

Even as somebody who started beating the "think about moving Napoli and play Hanley at first" drum back in ST, i've pretty much given up any hope on that happening mid season at this point.

If the Sox do indeed move Hanley to first, it's not going to be in the name of making room for JBJ as a starter though. Harsh reality math has one coming in as this FO's pricey $100m investment, and the other as a late bloomer hopeful who's center fielder of the future status/window looks to have closed out 3 options ago (well, giving Ben and co some benefit of the doubt that they initially signed a player of Castillo's skill set based on a projection that it would play well enough there).

Barring the rather remote possibility of Bradley going Mike Trout on the league the rest of the way, one hand isn't going to force the issue on the other there.

Sandy Leon Trotsky · Aug 12, 2015

I think it'll be Hanley starting day one at 1B. Panda at 3rd with Travis Shaw and Brock Holt on the bench. It gives a lot of flexibility- Hanley still CAN move to LF in Fenway once in a while if the lineup has to get shuffled to accomodate injuries and other unplanned for... events.
But yeah. Hanley will be starting at 1B next year. It just makes way too much sense and for Edes reasons above- it seems his SS "skills" would translate better to 1B than to a corner OF position.

moondog80 · Aug 12, 2015

ivanvamp said:
If this is actually the case, I don't see why he couldn't be a roughly average fielding first baseman. His bat plays just fine at 1b. It would be a major upgrade in the OF defensively, by removing him and putting JBJ or Castillo there. Sandoval stays at third.

Does it? His OPS+ on the season is 103. He's only 253/291/385 since his hot April, 218/235/256 since the All Star break. The Sox likely would have won more games with JBJ starting all those games, struggles and all. Maybe it's just a lot of nagging injuries, but that doesn't make me confident going forward for a guy who already had a history of being injury prone. I'm not giving up on him, but I think we have to at least consider that maybe fielding isn't the only issue with 32 year old Hanley next year.

ivanvamp · Aug 12, 2015

moondog80 said:
Does it? His OPS+ on the season is 103. He's only 253/291/385 since his hot April, 218/235/256 since the All Star break. The Sox likely would have won more games with JBJ starting all those games, struggles and all. Maybe it's just a lot of nagging injuries, but that doesn't make me confident going forward for a guy who already had a history of being injury prone. I'm not giving up on him, but I think we have to at least consider that maybe fielding isn't the only issue with 32 year old Hanley next year.

Hanley's .748 ops (injuries and all) would put him 15th in the league in ops among qualified 1b. Not elite, but fine.

Unless you're going to get rid of him (by eating a ton of salary), he's gotta play SOMEWHERE. It won't be DH, since Ortiz has that spot. And so you're left with LF, 1b, or 3b.

LF: We've seen how that works. Not well. Plus, as you pointed out, there are better OF options anyway.
3b: Only works by moving Pablo to 1b, where his bat plays pretty poorly. Plus, Hanley at 3b is not a good idea.
1b: There's an opening. It's the best spot for Hanley.

moondog80 · Aug 12, 2015

ivanvamp said:
Hanley's .748 ops (injuries and all) would put him 15th in the league in ops among qualified 1b. Not elite, but fine.

Unless you're going to get rid of him (by eating a ton of salary), he's gotta play SOMEWHERE. It won't be DH, since Ortiz has that spot. And so you're left with LF, 1b, or 3b.

LF: We've seen how that works. Not well. Plus, as you pointed out, there are better OF options anyway.
3b: Only works by moving Pablo to 1b, where his bat plays pretty poorly. Plus, Hanley at 3b is not a good idea.
1b: There's an opening. It's the best spot for Hanley.

Fangraphs lists 23 1B as qualified. If we take out Napoli and sub in Hanley, his WRC+ of 101 would be 18th, just ahead of Ryan Howard. Behind Yangervis Solarte. For a guy who has never played the position with a history of being awful in every other position he's played, that's not fine. They'd be better off eating the money and spending a marginal amount on a FA. Now, based on past production, he might hit better next year. But he might hit worse too, or stay the same. He will be a year older, after all. But if this is the player we get next year, he won't be worth being in the lineup at all, at any position.

benhogan · Aug 12, 2015

Rasputin said:
Yep, but Shaw and Valencia can both play third as well and Valencia at least has played some OF. If the bench is Swihart/Vazquez, Holt, de Aza, and Valencia/Shaw, I think the bench would be fine.

I'd be more concerned that the overall production from first would be good enough, but there's something to be said for having an obvious position to upgrade.

I wonder if de Aza could play first.

Agree with this and would add this is exactly why Hanley should be be taking grounders at first and getting some game experience there this year. Toronto has done a nice job this year platooning at first, its a position (like corner OF) that works in the platoon world.

We also will have Travis at AA/AAA next season. Plus a plethora of bats coming from low A over the next 2-3 seasons.
No need to block first with some big signing.

Blow the budget on two top end pitchers.

ivanvamp · Aug 12, 2015

moondog80 said:
Fangraphs lists 23 1B as qualified. If we take out Napoli and sub in Hanley, his WRC+ of 101 would be 18th, just ahead of Ryan Howard. Behind Yangervis Solarte. For a guy who has never played the position with a history of being awful in every other position he's played, that's not fine. They'd be better off eating the money and spending a marginal amount on a FA. Now, based on past production, he might hit better next year. But he might hit worse too, or stay the same. He will be a year older, after all. But if this is the player we get next year, he won't be worth being in the lineup at all, at any position.

Well I did say they could eat the money and trade him. But I don't think that's happening. And so you're not gonna pay him that kind of money and not play him. So the real question is, given that they're going to play him somewhere, where is it best for the team that he plays? And given their roster construction, I think 1b is it.

The X Man Cometh · Aug 12, 2015

Pilgrim said:
Something else from Kiley's chat:

I wonder what the Cubs will do with him if he cant hack it full time behind that plate. He's been playing some LF too, but he'd be a huge trade chip for them if they decide to go that route.

I might be wrong, but I read this not as "he can't hack it behind the plate", but as "he's such a good hitter that they'd rather limit his catching duties and keep him fresh". That doesn't seem like a problem to be solved for Chicago.

Harry Hooper · Aug 12, 2015

Granted Hanley was an infielder for years, but it's worth tossing in the mix how Dwight Evans couldn't deal with playing 1B.

Savin Hillbilly · Aug 12, 2015

Harry Hooper said:
Granted Hanley was an infielder for years, but it's worth tossing in the mix how Dwight Evans couldn't deal with playing 1B.

Can you elaborate? Do you mean he hated it, or he sucked at it, or both? I have little memory of how he looked there, but one thing's for sure: playing 1B didn't hurt his offense any.

Red(s)HawksFan · Aug 12, 2015

Savin Hillbilly said:
Can you elaborate? Do you mean he hated it, or he sucked at it, or both? I have little memory of how he looked there, but one thing's for sure: playing 1B didn't hurt his offense any.

He wasn't very good, at least according to available metrics of his admittedly small sample sizes. In 143 games (1197 innings), he rated -15 in Total Zone and committed 19 errors (.984 FP). Maybe he would have improved with more experience or maybe Total Zone needs more data to be reliable, but it's also worth noting that after 1988, he never went back to 1B. There wasn't necessarily a need for him to play 1B either (Esasky in '89, Quintana in '90), so who knows if it was a choice or just happenstance.

GaryPeters71 · Aug 12, 2015

Harry Hooper said:
Granted Hanley was an infielder for years, but it's worth tossing in the mix how Dwight Evans couldn't deal with playing 1B.

This is why I would like to see Hanley play some 1B before this season ends, so they can make some informed decisions in the offseason.

Who plays 1B next year?

What do you think we should do?

In-house: Travis Shaw / Allen Craig

In-house but new position: Hanley Ramirez / Pablo Sandoval

FA signing: Byung-Ho Park / Chris Davis

Convert a FA: Matt Wieters / Howie Kendrick

Trade: Adam Lind / Brandon Belt

Something Else

Member

Member

Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

Hustle and bustle

Member

Member

Member

Bounced back

meat puppet

Member

Well-Known Member

loves the secret sauce

Johnny Rico

Member

Do his bits at your peril

New Member

Member

Will outlive SeanBerry

Member

Member

Member

New Member

Post-darwinian

Member

Will outlive SeanBerry

Member

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Hustle and bustle

Member

Member

not particularly consistent

Member

Member

heart is two sizes two small

captain obvious

heart is two sizes two small

Granite Truther

captain obvious

New Member

Well-Known Member

loves the secret sauce

Member

New Member