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.
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 19, 2017 8:24:01 GMT -5
I don't like this move. Don't hate it-- but don't like it. There is still a lot of moves they can make so it isn't awful. They could basically stand still and it might still be okay. The thing is-- Moreland is mediocrity. He is not in his prime -- his age tells us he is on the decline. IMO he is not the type of player that you can "pencil in" for over 20 home runs and over 30 doubles.
With that said-- he is capable of potentially doing that-- or at least capable of hitting decent enough vs rh pitching. Therefore if Hanley fails yet again - you have a guy that is capable hitting but at worst he can defend. That's not they type of guy I'd seek out though if I'm going to invest near the $237m threshold unless the Sox are also going to pick up a prime reliever. Bottom-line is that if you are going to invest near $237m (it still appears they will do that as they seek "the major bat), there is no way you should be relying on Hanley. This move doesn't make it "highly likely" that Hanley will get beat out vs rh pitching. Hanley hasn't produced and each year his age/decline also has to play a factor.
And I'm not extremely against the move. It least it makes it less likely we'll sign Duda or Logan. And with the Red Sox intent of getting a big bat-- they are still in play to move in a variety of ways (including getting Hosmer). And it is possible to have a guy in MM that can "outplay" Hanley at the plate vs righties.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Dec 19, 2017 8:28:13 GMT -5
Moreland is not a high-ceiling player, but he's a relatively high-floor one. Considering that the Red Sox already have a low-floor, high-ceiling 1B/DH on the roster (Hanley Ramirez), signing someone with Moreland's profile makes some sense.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 19, 2017 8:32:12 GMT -5
Maybe some crazy outside the box thinking but what if the Sox still sign Hosmer at the price they are comfortable with and then trade MM? Is that feasible? If they have created a situation where there is no market for him and they get a good deal what prevents them? By the way I hate Boras right at this moment. I get trying to maximize your players values but he is all about setting the market regardless of what is reasonable, Self absorbed jerk! Free agents can't be traded before June 15. Even if they couldn't that would create a terrible precedent when wooing free agents in the future. ------ Unrelated to the above post, I can't imagine that Mitch Moreland was signed to create a true platoon with Hanley Ramirez taking the short side of it. You don't maximize Hanley's value by only playing him against LHP. Again - a healthy, productive Hanley is worth his vesting option, and if he's unhealthy and/or unproductive, the option won't vest because he won't play. I can dig the signing (if be a shade underwhelmed by it) if Moreland understands he's the Hanley insurance plan (and, of course, JDM signs to be the 4th OF/DH).
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Dec 19, 2017 8:36:10 GMT -5
Moreland is not a high-ceiling player, but he's a relatively high-floor one. Considering that the Red Sox already have a low-floor, high-ceiling 1B/DH on the roster (Hanley Ramirez), signing someone with Moreland's profile makes some sense. I would have preferred a better player. On the positive side he's not that expensive.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 19, 2017 11:23:11 GMT -5
I wonder if the Sox would utilize Moreland in a Doug Mientkiewicz role. I just don't see the benefit of using Hanley as the RH hitting platoonmate.
And Moreland is mediocre. He's a decent ballplayer but the offense at 1b must be upgraded. They need much better production out of that spot than they had last year. A healthy Hanley can provide it. If he doesn't the Red Sox won't be at replacement level obviously as Moreland is a good hedge, and he is a bat you can definitely bring off the bench in a key spot, but if the answer is to use him as the LH bat in a platoon then I'm pretty disappointed that the Red Sox didn't improve upon their 2017 lineup when it was obvious that 1b could be much better than it was last year.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Dec 19, 2017 11:29:13 GMT -5
Moreland is not a high-ceiling player, but he's a relatively high-floor one. Considering that the Red Sox already have a low-floor, high-ceiling 1B/DH on the roster (Hanley Ramirez), signing someone with Moreland's profile makes some sense. I would have preferred a better player. On the positive side he's not that expensive. So, what we have is a lesser player for cheap. DD is reassembling the old gang. The only difference is he has a new skipper to replace the won who helped us to two consecutive Division championships. Better nab JDM!
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 22, 2017 10:42:47 GMT -5
Maybe some crazy outside the box thinking but what if the Sox still sign Hosmer at the price they are comfortable with and then trade MM? Is that feasible? If they have created a situation where there is no market for him and they get a good deal what prevents them? By the way I hate Boras right at this moment. I get trying to maximize your players values but he is all about setting the market regardless of what is reasonable, Self absorbed jerk! Free agents can't be traded before June 15. Even if they couldn't that would create a terrible precedent when wooing free agents in the future. ------ Unrelated to the above post, I can't imagine that Mitch Moreland was signed to create a true platoon with Hanley Ramirez taking the short side of it. You don't maximize Hanley's value by only playing him against LHP. Again - a healthy, productive Hanley is worth his vesting option, and if he's unhealthy and/or unproductive, the option won't vest because he won't play. I can dig the signing (if be a shade underwhelmed by it) if Moreland understands he's the Hanley insurance plan (and, of course, JDM signs to be the 4th OF/DH). When I've talked about Hanley and Moreland platooning at 1B, I've never thought of it as a strict platoon. Moreland barely hit at all last year on the road, and his home / road splits are consistent with what are eyeballs tell us to expect based on his swing. You have to remember that Moreland is still the significantly better defender, so you don't just start the better bat. I'd have Moreland start vs RHP at home, except for guys with small or reverse splits, and start vs RHP with large or extreme splits on the road. It'd be about a 50/50 split vs RHP, so that's about 100 to 115 starts for Hanley, if he stays healthy. But I also don't want him in the lineup at all if he's hurt and struggling.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 22, 2017 10:51:30 GMT -5
Free agents can't be traded before June 15. Even if they couldn't that would create a terrible precedent when wooing free agents in the future. ------ Unrelated to the above post, I can't imagine that Mitch Moreland was signed to create a true platoon with Hanley Ramirez taking the short side of it. You don't maximize Hanley's value by only playing him against LHP. Again - a healthy, productive Hanley is worth his vesting option, and if he's unhealthy and/or unproductive, the option won't vest because he won't play. I can dig the signing (if be a shade underwhelmed by it) if Moreland understands he's the Hanley insurance plan (and, of course, JDM signs to be the 4th OF/DH). When I've talked about Hanley and Moreland platooning at 1B, I've never thought of it as a strict platoon. Moreland barely hit at all last year on the road, and his home / road splits are consistent with what are eyeballs tell us to expect based on his swing. You have to remember that Moreland is still the significantly better defender, so you don't just start the better bat. I'd have Moreland start vs RHP at home, except for guys with small or reverse splits, and start vs RHP with large or extreme splits on the road. It'd be about a 50/50 split vs RHP, so that's about 100 to 115 starts for Hanley, if he stays healthy. But I also don't want him in the lineup at all if he's hurt and struggling. That makes some sense. But at the same time, healthy, productive Hanley is the guy I want in there against the tough right-handers, unless we're talking someone like a Justin Masterson, and I'm not sure there are many of those starting (maybe there are?). I don't think they signed Moreland for 2/13 to be a "he starts when there's a spot for him" either (or at least I freaking hope not), so I guess I'm just really confused by this move unless they're going to move Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 22, 2017 12:08:11 GMT -5
When I've talked about Hanley and Moreland platooning at 1B, I've never thought of it as a strict platoon. Moreland barely hit at all last year on the road, and his home / road splits are consistent with what are eyeballs tell us to expect based on his swing. You have to remember that Moreland is still the significantly better defender, so you don't just start the better bat. I'd have Moreland start vs RHP at home, except for guys with small or reverse splits, and start vs RHP with large or extreme splits on the road. It'd be about a 50/50 split vs RHP, so that's about 100 to 115 starts for Hanley, if he stays healthy. But I also don't want him in the lineup at all if he's hurt and struggling. That makes some sense. But at the same time, healthy, productive Hanley is the guy I want in there against the tough right-handers, unless we're talking someone like a Justin Masterson, and I'm not sure there are many of those starting (maybe there are?). I don't think they signed Moreland for 2/13 to be a "he starts when there's a spot for him" either (or at least I freaking hope not), so I guess I'm just really confused by this move unless they're going to move Hanley. He's barely making more than Chris Young was. I view the signing as insurance for another disaster season for Hanley and a way to prevent him from qualifying for his vesting option. Plus you have the bonus of him being pretty damn good in Fenway and a good defensive replacement. They also know who he is as a player and person so they might know that he won't complain if his playing time is reduced when Hanley is raking. The fact that he didn't even ask about playing time before he signed is telling.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Dec 22, 2017 13:00:25 GMT -5
If not spending $$$$$ on Hosmer, then Moreland is at least the devil you know. None of the 1B options were that compelling (unless you think JD Martinez can and will convert to 1B, at least part time), so you know what you're getting with Moreland anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Addam603 on Jan 17, 2018 11:29:47 GMT -5
Looks like Chavis is getting more reps at first with Ockimey.
|
|
|
Post by huskies15 on Jan 17, 2018 12:39:58 GMT -5
Looks like he's wearing his reg. infielder glove. Gotta believe it's just standard fielding GBs.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 18, 2018 13:47:56 GMT -5
^ this. It's not like there's a base there that they're covering. There's 4 infielders at the program, two of which happen to play the corners, so it makes sense to group them.
That said, you did just make me realize that the presence of Chavis is another reason why Ockimey didn't get an NRI - he'll be a fourth guy (Moreland, Hanley, Travis) getting reps at 1B in MLB camp.
|
|
|