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.
Hanley Designated for Assignment
|
Post by soxfando on May 25, 2018 18:26:27 GMT -5
Fair enough, but is he cool with a platoon playing in about 25-30% of the games, or will he start throwing tantrums and demanding trades, ala Hanley and Swihart? Adam Duvall was an 11th round draft pick who was the #13 prospect on the #26 best farm system. Unless he's somewhat delusional, at no point in his professional career did he ever expect to start in MLB, and he only earned a starting job at age 27 because he played for a terrible team. Becoming the backup 1B and 4th OFer on one of the two best teams in MLB would be like going from being Rosanne Arnold's significant other to Marisa Tomei's friend with benefits. Not starting or playing full seasons hurts his earning potential however. And the last two years he's put in full seasons, and is on pace to do so again this year as a 2-3 WAR player.
Albert Pujols was a 13th round pick.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 25, 2018 18:32:52 GMT -5
There are two really viable bench bat additions on the 7 tanking teams.
The Reds' Adam Duvall is a terrific defensive LF who's a borderline MLB starter because he can't hit RHP. But he has some pop vs. LHP. And he has 228 MLB inning at 1B and has been very good (DRS) or average (UZR) defensively. He's 29 but isn't even arb-eligible until next year, which means he has 4 years of control.
The O's Danny Valencia is on a 1/$1.2M, has always raked vs. LHP, and has 1203 innings at 1B in MLB with a +4 DRS. He could spell Moreland, back up Devers (although he's a marginal defender at 3B), and can play OF in a pinch. Either of these would be hugely more useful than Nunez, unless he suddenly turns into his pre-knee-injury self (not impossible if he's not playing every day). If I'm DDo, I call both teams, say "don't deal this guy without talking to us," and then see how Nunez plays coming off the bench for the next few weeks.
The Sox said today that they're not going to give Nunez a look at first base, so Duvall and Valencia are probably more useful regardless. Like the Duvall idea a lot, as someone to have in the lineup vs lefties at the expense of Moreland, Bradley, or JDM. It'd leave us with only LHH's at third base (unless they suddenly start letting Swihart play there), but that's not a huge deal. Really like the Duvall idea. They could use a good defensive LF especially with the option of putting Beni in CF and Duvall in LF vs LH if JBJ continues to struggle. Years and options help, too...he’d be a valuable role-player pending the solution of the 1b hole, presuming Moreland is ideally suited to RHP only.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 25, 2018 18:33:48 GMT -5
Re: Brentz
He agreed to go to Vegas when outrighted by Mets. would have refused AAA for Sox remember that He was previously outrighted
EDIT. Out til mid June. disabled list after fouling a ball off his foot the day before.
DeFrancesco said he suffered a fracture between his big toe and his second toe.
Brentz is currently on crutches and in a walking boot and DeFrancesco said the injury generally takes 4-6 weeks to heal.
Contact Betsy Helfand at bhelfand@reviewjournal.com. r.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on May 25, 2018 18:48:23 GMT -5
No because as Chris pointed out, the Sox had a way out early. The closer you get to the end of those plate appearances, the more leverage that Hanley Ramirez had to file a grievance to get his money for that vesting option. You also have a potential disgruntled Hanley not playing a lot because of his plate appearance situation. It's the right move to do this now, especially since he's not hitting. Pedro, I think you’re dead-on here. It’s “forced” by the Pedroia-Swihart situation, but that could’ve been finagled. I think they’re eliminating a potential mess/distraction Distraction like DFA'ing your #3 hitter in May when you're in first place?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 25, 2018 18:53:51 GMT -5
Pedro, I think you’re dead-on here. It’s “forced” by the Pedroia-Swihart situation, but that could’ve been finagled. I think they’re eliminating a potential mess/distraction Distraction like DFA'ing your #3 hitter in May when you're in first place? Why do you think DFAing a player is a distraction?
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on May 25, 2018 19:00:13 GMT -5
Distraction like DFA'ing your #3 hitter in May when you're in first place? Why do you think DFAing a player is a distraction? Why do you think it's not a distraction?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on May 25, 2018 19:02:41 GMT -5
Why do you think DFAing a player is a distraction? Why do you think it's not a distraction? Because it's a player transaction. It's the business in baseball. It stinks for players, but it's accepted in baseball amongst the players. It's not a distraction. I can't make you think any different though.
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on May 25, 2018 19:18:57 GMT -5
Why do you think it's not a distraction? Because it's a player transaction. It's the business in baseball. It stinks for players, but it's accepted in baseball amongst the players. It's not a distraction. I can't make you think any different though. The irony in all this is that Swihart was the only one complaining about playing time.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 25, 2018 20:26:31 GMT -5
Because it's a player transaction. It's the business in baseball. It stinks for players, but it's accepted in baseball amongst the players. It's not a distraction. I can't make you think any different though. The irony in all this is that Swihart was the only one complaining about playing time. I disagree with that general sentiment, his agent not Swihart and he wasn't complaining about playing time he was asking that his client be traded.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on May 25, 2018 20:29:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 25, 2018 20:35:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by doctorduck21 on May 25, 2018 20:36:38 GMT -5
The irony in all this is that Swihart was the only one complaining about playing time. I disagree with that general sentiment, his agent not Swihart and he wasn't complaining about playing time he was asking that his client be traded. The agent works for Swihart. Everything he said was okayed by Swihart or he'd be fired. And wouldn't playing time be the primary reason to ask for a trade in his situation?
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 25, 2018 22:04:46 GMT -5
Pedro, I think you’re dead-on here. It’s “forced” by the Pedroia-Swihart situation, but that could’ve been finagled. I think they’re eliminating a potential mess/distraction Distraction like DFA'ing your #3 hitter in May when you're in first place? I think they preferred a definitive move that people will move on from rather than an ongoing roster issue. There was always going to be *some* issue. They made a financial/player development/roster flexibility move, that has a limited timeframe for fallout. Players will get over it. Somebody was going to be unhappy. They chose not to drag it out into a summer-long contract problem over Hanley (and his 40 points under #3-quality wRC+) vesting his option. They knew they weren’t going to let it vest. Im not sure what the mystery about that being an ongoing distraction is.
|
|
|
Post by juanpena on May 25, 2018 23:57:20 GMT -5
Since the Mets claimed him when the Pirates waived him at the end of spring training, what makes you think they wouldn't claimed him if the Sox had waived him at the end of spring training.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on May 26, 2018 0:38:34 GMT -5
Since the Mets claimed him when the Pirates waived him at the end of spring training, what makes you think they wouldn't claimed him if the Sox had waived him at the end of spring training. The Pirates waived him near the end of ST, the Mets claimed him and waived him at the end of ST and he cleared because everyone had set their rosters already.
The Sox claimed Bronson Arroyo on waivers early in the off-season, and passed him through waivers at the end of ST. It's the standard way to try to keep a player in the organization who's out of options.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,936
|
Post by ericmvan on May 26, 2018 0:43:47 GMT -5
The team that could actually use Hanley is the Astros. He's been better than Gattis and projects to be better than him.
He's also been better than and projects to be better than Ian Desmond, but Desmond is the Rockie's own version of Hanley, except that he was able to play the OF OK for a brief while. I'm less sure they'd be willing to hand over the PT to Hanley than the Astros would be (and I'm not 100% confident of that).
If both teams actually want him, you might be able to get them to take on a million or two of salary. That seems highly unlikely.
I couldn't find a third fit from among the 21 teams that are definitely contenders.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 26, 2018 6:06:48 GMT -5
After a full day to digest this and read the posts and media articles one thing is a little fascinating to me. If we believe that the plan was to let Swihart go and keep Hanley, the late change to DFA Hanley runs counter to Cora's "plan / process" management style and appears to be more of a short term reactionary decision (based on a number of factors).
They have been discussing this pending roster decision for awhile. It almost makes me feel like the explanation could be rehearsed. I know that is likely too conspiratorial for a roster decision, but really, they made this decision a day or so before it happened after having alternate plans for a month or so?
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on May 26, 2018 7:05:41 GMT -5
I'm pretty shocked at this, but I expect that they'll be able to eat enough money to trade him and possibly save a few bucks that could be used in other ways, such as bringing up Castillo. I don't really understand the elation from anyone. Hanley is an awesome dude and does work hard. I'm kind of sad about this. I guess this is one way of getting him out of the #3 spot. Yeah, I have very strong mixed feelings. I think Hanley’s been, despite the reputation, a good personality to have on the team. He’s able to laugh at himself, and have fun with the game. Despite history, i think he’s been nothing but a positive in the clubhouse, at least from what I’ve seen/heard. I really like him. He’s done whatever they’ve asked of him, and they’ve asked a lot. That said, his performance has really dropped off. His salary this year is a sunk cost, and they couldn’t let his option vest as even a 100 wRC+ player. I get that he’s historically hit good pitching, but I’m not confident in his ability to consistently do so going forward. And, I think DFAing Swihart would be a huge mistake. He’s extremely talented and I think they really ought to have a long look at him. He could bust, but obviously Cora went to bat for him and I think that means something. Further, as some have noted, Nunez has more positional flexibility than Hanley, and a heap option. Given similar offensive output, and the possibility of increasing playing time for Moreland (who’s having a career year), Holt, Swihart, and working in Pedey with some backup if he has a setback...idk. It’s a bold move, and I like it as a baseball/roster decision, even if part of me is really sad to see Hanley the person gone. If Cora was considering the move as possibly saving the Sox 22 mil, he would be thinking like a GM. So my gut tells me rather that he felt Hanley could be a festering clubhouse problem if he were benched for periods. Despite reports that Hanley had displayed a positive attitude, his reputation hung in the air like the rain cloud over Joe Btfsplk. I recall when Hanley was asked to play the outfield and had, to me, a certain disdainful, disinterested, even sullen attitide.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on May 26, 2018 8:57:16 GMT -5
Yeah, I have very strong mixed feelings. I think Hanley’s been, despite the reputation, a good personality to have on the team. He’s able to laugh at himself, and have fun with the game. Despite history, i think he’s been nothing but a positive in the clubhouse, at least from what I’ve seen/heard. I really like him. He’s done whatever they’ve asked of him, and they’ve asked a lot. That said, his performance has really dropped off. His salary this year is a sunk cost, and they couldn’t let his option vest as even a 100 wRC+ player. I get that he’s historically hit good pitching, but I’m not confident in his ability to consistently do so going forward. And, I think DFAing Swihart would be a huge mistake. He’s extremely talented and I think they really ought to have a long look at him. He could bust, but obviously Cora went to bat for him and I think that means something. Further, as some have noted, Nunez has more positional flexibility than Hanley, and a heap option. Given similar offensive output, and the possibility of increasing playing time for Moreland (who’s having a career year), Holt, Swihart, and working in Pedey with some backup if he has a setback...idk. It’s a bold move, and I like it as a baseball/roster decision, even if part of me is really sad to see Hanley the person gone. If Cora was considering the move as possibly saving the Sox 22 mil, he would be thinking like a GM. So my gut tells me rather that he felt Hanley could be a festering clubhouse problem if he were benched for periods. Despite reports that Hanley had displayed a positive attitude, his reputation hung in the air like the rain cloud over Joe Btfsplk. I recall when Hanley was asked to play the outfield and had, to me, a certain disdainful, disinterested, even sullen attitide. I believe Cora explicitly said he thought Hanley would be a problem if benched. Which makes sense, I would be upset too if my team decided to not play me and by doing so it cost me $22,000,000.
|
|
|
Post by 07redsox on May 26, 2018 9:22:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I have very strong mixed feelings. I think Hanley’s been, despite the reputation, a good personality to have on the team. He’s able to laugh at himself, and have fun with the game. Despite history, i think he’s been nothing but a positive in the clubhouse, at least from what I’ve seen/heard. I really like him. He’s done whatever they’ve asked of him, and they’ve asked a lot. That said, his performance has really dropped off. His salary this year is a sunk cost, and they couldn’t let his option vest as even a 100 wRC+ player. I get that he’s historically hit good pitching, but I’m not confident in his ability to consistently do so going forward. And, I think DFAing Swihart would be a huge mistake. He’s extremely talented and I think they really ought to have a long look at him. He could bust, but obviously Cora went to bat for him and I think that means something. Further, as some have noted, Nunez has more positional flexibility than Hanley, and a heap option. Given similar offensive output, and the possibility of increasing playing time for Moreland (who’s having a career year), Holt, Swihart, and working in Pedey with some backup if he has a setback...idk. It’s a bold move, and I like it as a baseball/roster decision, even if part of me is really sad to see Hanley the person gone. If Cora was considering the move as possibly saving the Sox 22 mil, he would be thinking like a GM. So my gut tells me rather that he felt Hanley could be a festering clubhouse problem if he were benched for periods. Despite reports that Hanley had displayed a positive attitude, his reputation hung in the air like the rain cloud over Joe Btfsplk. I recall when Hanley was asked to play the outfield and had, to me, a certain disdainful, disinterested, even sullen attitide. I may be remembering this completely wrong, but (without looking it up right now) I seem to remember reports that it was Hanley himself/his agent that came to the Red Sox wanting to join the team during that offseason knowing full well that they already a full infield and a DH. If I remember correctly he knew ahead of time that he was going to be the outfielder, or even suggested doing my that to be on the team. I may be remembering some of that completely wrong, but I'm pretty sure most of that is decently accurate. You also have to remember that he slammed hard into the LF wall during that first game or two (believe it was in Philly) and hurt himself , which could have played into how you remember seeing him with a sullen attitude (I sure would feel/act that way if I hurt myself at the start of my season).
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 26, 2018 11:38:59 GMT -5
Looks like the jam-up is clearing. I'm a bit surprised that it was Ramirez, but others have made the case why. After the blistering start, I did find myself wondering how they'd work the vesting of the option. He really tailed off, but that didn't eliminate the problem. It's easy to imagine the team in a tight race come late August and his streaky bat heating up again. He can carry a team when that happens. How could you sit the guy if it did? What would that big personality do for the clubhouse in that situation? Those are tough questions. It looks as if Cora has some chess-player in him, that he's thinking ahead a few moves.
It does leave a hole in the lineup against left-handed pitchers. I have a feeling the scenario we laid out a few years back, with Swihart acting as a rotating utility DH/infield/outfield/catcher is becoming clearer. It will be interesting to see what this all looks like going forward.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on May 26, 2018 11:42:13 GMT -5
I have to say I'm surprised how many people dislike this move. No Ramirez, means we keep Swihart and can actually get him playing time. That is huge when looking at this from a long-term point of view, even if its a slight downgrade this year. Swihart is a lot better bench player than Ramirez anyway.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on May 26, 2018 12:43:17 GMT -5
I agree you have to make decisions based on the future also in mind. Basically that’s a wrap on Cherrington’s moves.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on May 26, 2018 19:00:22 GMT -5
I agree you have to make decisions based on the future also in mind. Basically that’s a wrap on Cherrington’s moves. I will miss Hanley's dreds🤔...but I think you are on to something...a purgative housecleaning by the new sheriff(s) DD and Cora, was a factor. Again Hanley's earned rep...and maybe perceived attitude toward benching/reduced playing time likely factored. Color Cora courageous if it played out as reported. But I am sure the Sox would be better positioned vs the union to portray it as such. Unlike others, I am surprised that the "outrage" for Hanley's dismissal was not at higher decible.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 26, 2018 22:24:47 GMT -5
I have to say I'm surprised how many people dislike this move. No Ramirez, means we keep Swihart and can actually get him playing time. That is huge when looking at this from a long-term point of view, even if its a slight downgrade this year. Swihart is a lot better bench player than Ramirez anyway. I’m not sure that Swihart playing more 1B gets them anywhere, even from a long term point of view. He’s not really a good enough hitter to be more than a backup (frankly, an emergency) option at that position. Yes, it also gives Swihart a little more rope to see if he can make it at catcher, but if they basically weren’t willing to play him at catcher at all even with Vazquez/Leon playing as poorly as they have to start this season, I’m not sure Swihart is going to get much more of a shot at that position. It puts them in the same spot of needing a trade or injury to get him playing time at catcher (which is the position he needs to play to be a long-term starter). ADD: in theory, Swihart’s defensive flexibility makes him a more useful bench player, but the Red Sox have shown no inclination to actually play him at multiple positions. He’s had three appearances in LF this season and two at catcher, but has otherwise has two appearances at 1B and eight at DH. At those latter two positions, he’s frankly just worse than Ramirez.
|
|
|