SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Poll: How Do You Solve a Problem Like Hanley?
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 20, 2015 0:22:59 GMT -5
Smartest thing written in this thread. Find out what Hanley wants to do. He may tell you that he is going to work all off-season to get better in LF (or he isn't). He may tell you that he would rather play 3B (or 1B) next year. For all the buttkissing being done publicly, the organization is going to have to tell Hanley what they really think about his defense, and Hanley is going to have to communicate what he thinks about his defense (and what he plans to do about it). I truly believe that his defensive struggles have impacted him offensively, so the best way to maximize his offense is to get him and the team on the same page with respect to his defense. I think the two best options are to keep him in LF or move him to 3B (in which case the team ought to trade Sandoval for pitching). I think 1B is even more of a disaster waiting to happen. I assume next year's game plan is for Hanley to play 30-40 games at DH (I assume 2016 will be Ortiz's final year before he retires) and 100-110 games in LF/3B, and it will become standard to sub him out after he bats in the final third of the game. In 2017, he becomes the full-time DH. Exactly. In no way can he be the full time LF and not a chance in hell I want him at 1B. 3B is really the only full time option as far as I see it. The list of people who played 3B better than 1B is really, really, really, really small. No one who couldn't play 1B has ever been moved to 3B. The list of guys who weren't very good at 3B and who were moved to 1B is legion, and there's also a list of guys who were absolutely solid at 3B and great at 1B, led by George Scott and Albert Pujols (and including Kevin Youkilis). Although 1B and 3B are considered paired positions (like CF and an OF corner, or 2B and SS), the offensive and defensive gap between them is actually quite large. 3B is much tougher to play, and 1B are much better hitters. The difference between them offensively is a bit larger than the difference between 3B and SS, 1.5 times as big as that between CF and a corner, and three times the size of that between 2B and SS. This entire "he'll be worse at 3B than 1B" is, I think, based on an irrational fear that he won't be able to scoop balls in the dirt, combined with the idea that he'll somehow be better at fielding one-hoppers at third, even though they have random spin and the hitter is not trying to hit them directly at the fielder.
|
|
TearsIn04
Veteran
Everybody knows Nelson de la Rosa, but who is Karim Garcia?
Posts: 2,810
|
Post by TearsIn04 on Aug 20, 2015 23:19:05 GMT -5
It looks like Hanley played 3B in only one season and the results weren't good. B-ref has his Rtot/year as -9 in 98 games at 3B in 2012. That was his age 28 season. He'll be 32 in 2016, so I would expect less range, not more.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Aug 21, 2015 0:17:52 GMT -5
Was about to post some thoughts on Hanley's bat in the gameday thread, but here seems more appropriate- I'll note first that I think Hanley at third base is a complete nonstarter. He was terrible there when he was sprite, and now he's bulked up to the point where any non-1B infield position seems out of the question. Either he works his ass off to improve to "kind of bad" in left, or he begins learning first base, where his previous infield experience will at least allow him to be functional there. The lost range due to the physique changes is minimized at first base, and it didn't shouldn't negate his ability to field what he can get to. Handling ground balls is nothing new to him, unlike reading and tracking fly balls this season. And catching throws is a whole lot easier than fielding balls off a bat. Sure, it's a bit different and takes some getting used to, but it's a lot easier to practice that and grow comfortable in ST/pre-game than it is to become competent in the outfield (shagging fly balls can't really prepare you for what's going to be hit at you in a game).
Anyway, his left field defense has been so disastrous that I’m not sure we’ve talked enough about how concerning his offensive performance has been. Since the All-Star Break, he’s sporting a .209/.233/.256/.489 line with 4 XBH’s (all doubles) and a 3/15 BB/K. By all accounts, he’s looked horrible — overly aggressive on everything, no scorchers, and just getting himself out early on in his plate appearances. The shoulder injury was over three months ago now, and he’s had some encouraging small hot streaks since then, but you have to wonder how much it’s still nagging him. Kind of hope it is, in a way, right?
Another possibility, and I know Adam and some others on here subscribe to this belief, is that his miserable experience in left field is affecting him at the plate. Just about everyone would be a whole lot more tolerant of worst-in-MLB status defense in left if he were putting up something like his .293/.341/.659 line from April (or just OPS’ing in the realm of a legitimate slugging). He knows this, and is probably up there pressing, hoping his bat will help inspire patience with his defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 0:34:24 GMT -5
Smartest thing written in this thread. Find out what Hanley wants to do. He may tell you that he is going to work all off-season to get better in LF (or he isn't). He may tell you that he would rather play 3B (or 1B) next year. For all the buttkissing being done publicly, the organization is going to have to tell Hanley what they really think about his defense, and Hanley is going to have to communicate what he thinks about his defense (and what he plans to do about it). I truly believe that his defensive struggles have impacted him offensively, so the best way to maximize his offense is to get him and the team on the same page with respect to his defense. I think the two best options are to keep him in LF or move him to 3B (in which case the team ought to trade Sandoval for pitching). I think 1B is even more of a disaster waiting to happen. I assume next year's game plan is for Hanley to play 30-40 games at DH (I assume 2016 will be Ortiz's final year before he retires) and 100-110 games in LF/3B, and it will become standard to sub him out after he bats in the final third of the game. In 2017, he becomes the full-time DH. Exactly. In no way can he be the full time LF and not a chance in hell I want him at 1B. 3B is really the only full time option as far as I see it. So now the tail is wagging the dog? This is exactly the type of mentality that breaks teams. You want guys who'll do whatever it takes to win - Not simply do whatever they want to do. Dustin Pedroia would play catcher if he thought it would help the team.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 21, 2015 2:24:37 GMT -5
So, who might want to trade for Hanley?
The Orioles. For most of the year they used Jimmy Paredes, a backup 2B / 3B / OF type with a wRC+ of 100, as their DH. They're so desperate that they're currently using backup catcher Steve Clevenger (career 64 wRC+, but 171 this year in his massive sample of 32 PA) there.
The Angels. They have C.J. Cron at DH, and he's never projected to be any better than his 110 wRC+, which is subpar for the position. He has hit hugely worse as a DH than as a 1B, however, and it's an open question as to whether that's for real and whether the Angels have noticed. I think they'd gladly take Hanley off our hands, but they wouldn't want to pay more than a very small portion of his salary. And if they've been misled by Cron's ml career in hitter's havens, then they're waiting for him to break out and aren't interested at all.
The White Sox. Adam LaRoche has been a huge disappointment, but he's a better defensive 1B than Abreu, and has a 707 OPS at 1B versus 585 at DH, while Abreu has no such split (in fact, he's been marginally better in his career as a DH). They haven't been smart enough to switch the two, so maybe they're dumb enough to eat the remaining 1/$12.5M on LaRoche's contract ... but same caveat as the Angels re what they'd be willing to pay.
One realistic potential trade partner is not really all that promising. The Orioles can figure out that they're the only likely interested team, and they'll offer you next to nothing, too.
So, is giving Hanley away and obtaining a new 1B anything like cost effective? There's going to be very little recovered of the sunk Hanley cost that you'll be able to subtract from the new 1B contract (and prospect price if you go the trade route). So instead of the new guy having to be worth his cost, the marginal difference between the new guy and Hanley at 1B has to be worth the entire new guy's cost. Hanley would have to be horrendous defensively at 1B to make that happen, far worse than any sane projection for a former SS.
I think you have to plan on a Rusney / JBJ / Mookie OF, with Hanley at 1B, and if you get to ST and he can't play there, him in LF and Shaw at 1B hopefully won't kill you.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Aug 21, 2015 20:46:11 GMT -5
How far would you go to get rid of Hanley and put his money towards another upgrade? Would you package him with a prospectt if a team took his money and gave a little back? This was from Gammons article a few weeks back and I can't help but think that AL west team talking about Vazquez is LAA. Who could use Hanley. www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-depth-and-defensive-upgrades-fuel-surging-blue-jays/Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington has singled out defense as his primary focus on improving his team, which is why they will give full shots at Jackie Bradley, Jr., Mookie Betts and Rusney Castillo in the outfield, await the return of Christian Vazquez (whom one AL West team considers the best defensive catcher in the league) behind the plate and figure how Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval (“Pablo, meet Mark Verstegen …”) and David Ortiz fit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 21:03:53 GMT -5
How far would you go to get rid of Hanley and put his money towards another upgrade? Would you package him with a prospectt if a team took his money and gave a little back? This was from Gammons article a few weeks back and I can't help but think that AL west team talking about Vazquez is LAA. Who could use Hanley. www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-depth-and-defensive-upgrades-fuel-surging-blue-jays/Red Sox general manager Ben Cherington has singled out defense as his primary focus on improving his team, which is why they will give full shots at Jackie Bradley, Jr., Mookie Betts and Rusney Castillo in the outfield, await the return of Christian Vazquez (whom one AL West team considers the best defensive catcher in the league) behind the plate and figure how Hanley Ramirez, Pablo Sandoval (“Pablo, meet Mark Verstegen …”) and David Ortiz fit. If I have to give up Vazquez in trade simply to get Hanley off the books, then I'm pushing for the other team to also take either Pablo or Porcello. In the case of the Angels, yeah I think they'd be stupid enough to do it. L.A. to the rescue yet again?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,436
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Aug 21, 2015 21:04:35 GMT -5
I would absolutely never package Vazquez with Hanley just for a salary dump.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 21, 2015 21:10:11 GMT -5
I would absolutely never package Vazquez with Hanley just for a salary dump. Yeah, at some point you just pay his salary to stay at home.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,436
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Aug 21, 2015 21:29:53 GMT -5
If you eat 5M per year, I think the Astros would be interested.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 21, 2015 22:25:27 GMT -5
I would absolutely never package Vazquez with Hanley just for a salary dump. Yeah, at some point you just pay his salary to stay at home. You owe Hanley $66M, which is less than 9 WAR's worth.
Christian Vazquez will top that in two years even if his bat is just replacement level. (Last year he was +5.4 WAR per 125 games defensively, including pitch-framing.) People here are rightly raving about JBJ's defense in the OF, but Christian Vazquez last year, in the games I watched (which was most of them) is in another class. He's probably the best defender I've ever seen in a Sox uni and may well be the best defensive player in all of baseball, and he plays the position where defense is far and away the most important.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 21, 2015 23:38:29 GMT -5
I was thinking that maybe one of Dombrowski's moves in the winter time is to deal either Hanley or Sandoval. I think that perhaps if the Sox covered $44 million of the remaining $76 million over the next four years of Sandoval's deal, they could trade him. There might be a team willing to pay $8 million/year over the next four years on Sandoval.
That would open up payroll and probably put Hanley at 3b, which is just as big a gamble as putting him at 1b. If Hanley can play any defensive position I would think it would be 3b.
Of course Hanley is somebody DD might trade, although it would be to an AL team as a DH, and the Sox would probably have to pay $15/year to make that happen.
I just think if all things are equal and I had to keep one or the other, I'd hang onto Hanley Ramirez, hope he can play 3b, and be reasonably healthy. I still think he can hit better next year than he's hit next year. While I know his best offensive years are behind him, I'm not convinced that he can't be an asset with the bat again.
Sandoval, I'm convinced, has been on his descent for years. He's a mediocre to bad offensive player who has become a major liability on defense.
I guess Hanley would do less damage at 3b (and Holt or Shaw would be there if Hanley was a disaster) than he would do at 1b. And if Hanley can't handle either position, then I guess the Sox give him away to a deal needing a DH who can hit homers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 0:30:44 GMT -5
I was thinking that maybe one of Dombrowski's moves in the winter time is to deal either Hanley or Sandoval. I think that perhaps if the Sox covered $44 million of the remaining $76 million over the next four years of Sandoval's deal, they could trade him. There might be a team willing to pay $8 million/year over the next four years on Sandoval. That would open up payroll and probably put Hanley at 3b, which is just as big a gamble as putting him at 1b. If Hanley can play any defensive position I would think it would be 3b. Of course Hanley is somebody DD might trade, although it would be to an AL team as a DH, and the Sox would probably have to pay $15/year to make that happen. I love how these numbers can just be tossed out there like they're chump change. Cherington almost had to leave, considering that half of what has to be done over the next year involves undoing what he did over the last year. And, it's not going to come cheap, in retrospect making the deal with the Dodgers appear all the more spectacular. What did we eat there - $10 million? And, we managed to get some decent young talent back? The team can only hope to be so lucky once again.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,881
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 22, 2015 2:50:50 GMT -5
That would open up payroll and probably put Hanley at 3b, which is just as big a gamble as putting him at 1b. If Hanley can play any defensive position I would think it would be 3b. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I just pointed this out two days ago ... There has more or less never been a human being who played 3B better than 1B, given equal experience. It's like saying you think a guy will be better in CF than in LF ... only more extreme. Hanley at 3B is a much bigger gamble than Hanley at 1B, because he is guaranteed to be worse there.The proof of this is very simple ... make a list of guys who tried to play 1B and really just couldn't, like Dick Stuart and Sam Horn. Can you imagine any of them playing 3B? Were any of them ever tried there, after they demonstrated they couldn't handle 1B? If it turns out that Hanley can't play 1B, then you know he can't play 3B IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 22, 2015 7:38:43 GMT -5
That would open up payroll and probably put Hanley at 3b, which is just as big a gamble as putting him at 1b. If Hanley can play any defensive position I would think it would be 3b. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. I just pointed this out two days ago ... There has more or less never been a human being who played 3B better than 1B, given equal experience. It's like saying you think a guy will be better in CF than in LF ... only more extreme. Hanley at 3B is a much bigger gamble than Hanley at 1B, because he is guaranteed to be worse there.The proof of this is very simple ... make a list of guys who tried to play 1B and really just couldn't, like Dick Stuart and Sam Horn. Can you imagine any of them playing 3B? Were any of them ever tried there, after they demonstrated they couldn't handle 1B? If it turns out that Hanley can't play 1B, then you know he can't play 3B IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Theoretically if Hanley should be able to play any position, having been a SS for the longest time, 3b should be it. A lot of players when they can't handle SS shift over to 3b. Petrocelli and Valentin quickly come to mind. But honestly, I'm afraid he'd be horrible at both 3b or 1b, but I'd be worried that he'd impact things worse at 1b. 1b are involved in a lot of plays and are supposed to be able to save a good number of errors from the other infielders with their defense. I would worry that Hanley at 1b could mess up the 2b, mess up the SS, and mess up the 3b. Remember back to 1984 when Mike Easler was given the 1b mitt. Ironically I think there was a feeling of big relief when the Sox brought Buckner in and Easler shifted back to DH. I worry more about the damage Hanley would do at 1b than 3b, and if given a choice which one had to go first, Hanley or Sandoval, I'd send Panda packing first because he can't field, can't hit, and I'm not somebody who believes he can bounce back offensively. I do think Hanley can bounce back offensively somewhat. It's not a great choice either way. If Hanley couldn't hack 1b or 3b, the Sox would have to give him away to a team in need of a DH. The Sox might be able to extract a small percentage of salary relief but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 22, 2015 7:43:50 GMT -5
I was thinking that maybe one of Dombrowski's moves in the winter time is to deal either Hanley or Sandoval. I think that perhaps if the Sox covered $44 million of the remaining $76 million over the next four years of Sandoval's deal, they could trade him. There might be a team willing to pay $8 million/year over the next four years on Sandoval. That would open up payroll and probably put Hanley at 3b, which is just as big a gamble as putting him at 1b. If Hanley can play any defensive position I would think it would be 3b. Of course Hanley is somebody DD might trade, although it would be to an AL team as a DH, and the Sox would probably have to pay $15/year to make that happen. I love how these numbers can just be tossed out there like they're chump change. Cherington almost had to leave, considering that half of what has to be done over the next year involves undoing what he did over the last year. And, it's not going to come cheap, in retrospect making the deal with the Dodgers appear all the more spectacular. What did we eat there - $10 million? And, we managed to get some decent young talent back? The team can only hope to be so lucky once again. I don't think I said anything too outrageous. If Sandoval was on the market it wouldn't shock me to see a team give him a 4 year $32 million deal. $8 million/year isn't far off from what some backup OF are making these days or #4 starters. Even if it were 4 years $24 million another team had to pay, that would free up $6 million/year for the Red Sox, which would help them. In Hanley's case, I think the Sox would have to eat a higher percentage, given his other issues. Either way I suspect Dombrowski will give one of them away for salary relief of about 20 - 25% of their contract. Sandoval at 4 years and a remaining $76 million deal is a gamble nobody would take. At 4 years and somewhere around $30 million, I don't think it's that outrageous another team like the Padres might take a chance on him.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Aug 22, 2015 7:47:25 GMT -5
Who would be better at 1b? Ortiz or hanley?
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 22, 2015 9:06:41 GMT -5
Who would be better at 1b? Ortiz or hanley? I trust Ortiz over Hanley, but it wouldn't matter. Ortiz can't handle the strain of playing 1b, so it's a non-issue. Other than making cameo appearances, or occasional interleague starts, Ortiz won't be at 1b.
|
|
|
Post by awall on Aug 22, 2015 9:12:49 GMT -5
Yeah, at some point you just pay his salary to stay at home. You owe Hanley $66M, which is less than 9 WAR's worth.
Christian Vazquez will top that in two years even if his bat is just replacement level. (Last year he was +5.4 WAR per 125 games defensively, including pitch-framing.) People here are rightly raving about JBJ's defense in the OF, but Christian Vazquez last year, in the games I watched (which was most of them) is in another class. He's probably the best defender I've ever seen in a Sox uni and may well be the best defensive player in all of baseball, and he plays the position where defense is far and away the most important.
Yea, I absolutely loved watching Vazquez behind the plate. I think you'll see Swihart spend time at 1B over the winter/spring, because his bat looks like it could justify trying him there I'd you aren't willing to give Shaw a shot at it next year. If Vazquez comes back to full speed next year, Swihart at 1B and secondary catcher would be nice flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 22, 2015 12:46:20 GMT -5
From 108 Stiches yesterday:
Little late, huh? Can't believe it took 2/3rds of one of the worst defensive performances at any position in the history of baseball to go practice a little extra.
Not sure who gets the blame there, but there's a lot of it to spread around.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,947
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 22, 2015 12:53:03 GMT -5
Move him to 1B.
Any former shortstop with sufficient height should be able to learn 1b in about a week. Shaw is either a bench backup or an I-95 backup.
After a year, DH.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 22, 2015 13:09:22 GMT -5
Alex Speier @alexspeier 17m17 minutes ago Cherington on Hanley's defense: 'We didn't know what he would be defensively...we made a bet based on the history of what players ...
Alex Speier @alexspeier 17m17 minutes ago ...look like going from middle infield to outfield... It hasn't gone well.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2015 14:39:27 GMT -5
Alex Speier @alexspeier 17m17 minutes ago Cherington on Hanley's defense: 'We didn't know what he would be defensively... we made a bet based on the history of what players ... Alex Speier @alexspeier 17m17 minutes ago ...look like going from middle infield to outfield... It hasn't gone well.' Nice application of "analytics" right there. As if what one player does has ever had any bearing on what another player does. Hey Ben, why not toss in a sweeping generalization as to the strike zone judgment of all Dominican players while you're at it?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Aug 22, 2015 14:58:19 GMT -5
Alex Speier @alexspeier 17m17 minutes ago Cherington on Hanley's defense: 'We didn't know what he would be defensively... we made a bet based on the history of what players ... Alex Speier @alexspeier 17m17 minutes ago ...look like going from middle infield to outfield... It hasn't gone well.' Nice application of "analytics" right there. As if what one player does has ever had any bearing on what another player does. Hey Ben, why not toss in a sweeping generalization as to the strike zone judgment of all Dominican players while you're at it? Stop being a jerk. How the hell do you know what they did or didn't do? Sent from my SM-G920P using proboards
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,651
|
Post by gerry on Aug 22, 2015 15:39:34 GMT -5
Have to agree with Norm, jango. The belief that a veteran SS and 3B could handle LF, especially at Fenway where Manny did ok, was widely shared. That he not only couldn't figure it out, but doubled down (after litrrally hitting the wall) couldn't by failing to even hit at replacement level surprised all but a few.
Ben took a gamble most thought he would easily win. And most of us took that bet with him. Mozt of us also bet on JBJ, Mookie, Owens, EdRod, Swihart, Castillo, Hanigan. Some of us bet on Koji, deAza, T. Shaw, Brockstar, Johnson, Vasquez.
Congratulations on betting against Hanley at long odds. Enjoy.
|
|
|