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.
Will the Red Sox trade Hanley or Pablo?
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 10, 2015 8:49:22 GMT -5
I hope that with DD in place --- the new sheriff --- these guys will come around. Both can't be worse than this year.So clearly right now is the ideal time to eat their contracts and trade them for scraps.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 10, 2015 10:09:41 GMT -5
I hope that with DD in place --- the new sheriff --- these guys will come around. Both can't be worse than this year.So clearly right now is the ideal time to eat their contracts and trade them for scraps. You may have missed my point. I believe that every reasonable effort will be made to get these guys off the team, not because of their respective stats, poor as they were, but because of the perception that they do not fit what the Sox want in commitment, mindset and ethic. With new organizational people charged to re-direct the ship, it is more likely that some radical course change take place than if there was organizational status quo. It's easier to bump the other guy's acquisitions and underscore what is desired. Now Hanley and Panda may be what we have to live with next year if no better options can be found or the cost of eating our lunch is prohibitive....At some point the lines on the graph cross. If they return, they should be better statistically because they couldn't possibly be worse. But I expect both to be gone relatively near term UNLESS something magical happens in their response to the "new sheriff".
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 10, 2015 10:16:39 GMT -5
So clearly right now is the ideal time to eat their contracts and trade them for scraps. You may have missed my point. I believe that every reasonable effort will be made to get these guys off the team, not because of their respective stats, poor as they were, but because of the perception that they do not fit what the Sox want in commitment, mindset and ethic. With new organizational people charged to re-direct the ship, it is more likely that some radical course change take place than if there was organizational status quo. It's easier to bump the other guy's acquisitions and underscore what is desired. Now Hanley and Panda may be what we have to live with next year if no better options can be found or the cost of eating our lunch is prohibitive....At some point the lines on the graph cross. If they return, they should be better statistically because they couldn't possibly be worse. But I expect both to be gone relatively near term UNLESS something magical happens in their response to the "new sheriff". I get your point but it's still a terrible idea to trade them now.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 10, 2015 10:32:52 GMT -5
You may have missed my point. I believe that every reasonable effort will be made to get these guys off the team, not because of their respective stats, poor as they were, but because of the perception that they do not fit what the Sox want in commitment, mindset and ethic. With new organizational people charged to re-direct the ship, it is more likely that some radical course change take place than if there was organizational status quo. It's easier to bump the other guy's acquisitions and underscore what is desired. Now Hanley and Panda may be what we have to live with next year if no better options can be found or the cost of eating our lunch is prohibitive....At some point the lines on the graph cross. If they return, they should be better statistically because they couldn't possibly be worse. But I expect both to be gone relatively near term UNLESS something magical happens in their response to the "new sheriff". I get your point but it's still a terrible idea to trade them now. Certainly I agree with you on their current low value. But trades obviously depend on what you can get and how urgent the desire is to rid a square peg. True, if they each hit .275 with 25 hrs next year, they would have established a higher value likely. I am with that as long as doing so doesn't retard the team otherwise. I believe that management is correctly publicly presenting them as viable for next year to not unduly compromise its position.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 10, 2015 11:35:55 GMT -5
It can't be lost on them what the "new sheriff" is in town to do and, given their greatly diminished roles at the end of the season, how that might impact their futures. It may be a coincidence, but the best baseball the team played was during that stretch. I'm certain they've made note of that also.
They've been given marching orders and ballplayers, all of them, constantly live with the possibility of a new guy pushing them aside. Dombrowski has a track record. I believe they'll both get their chance to show they can be part of it. If they can't do that, they'll take their leave, on the bench or out the door.
As others have pointed out, there are other options.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 10, 2015 15:12:13 GMT -5
I don't think the Sox trade either. I disagree with those that don't think they can be worse next year though. Hanley hasn't had a healthy year in a long time. He's a spring training injury from dropping more in value. I remember reading for years that WMB couldn't drop any more in value , but he kept dropping. Hanley has also been benched and fined for lack of effort and or rule violations at every level by 3 organizations. I'm guessing there is more we don't know. He didn't feel the need to put in extra time in LF until August. What makes anyone think he will do the extra work needed to learn 1B is beyond me.For me there's also entertainment value. I don't enjoy watching him play.
I have more hope for Panda but mostly it's just hope.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Oct 12, 2015 10:03:47 GMT -5
This from the Harvard Business Review today: Body Fat Makes You a Target of Incivility at Work
"The more body fat an employee carries, the greater the chances he or she will experience discourteous workplace behaviors such as interrupting, failing to return greetings, and not refilling printer paper, according to a team led by Katherine A. Sliter of Bowling Green State University. For example, in one study, overweight people reported higher levels of such forms of incivility than their healthy-weight peers (2.48 versus 1.53 on a 1-to-5 scale). Obesity may be “one of the last legally and socially acceptable” targets of workplace discrimination, the researchers say.
|
|
|
Post by sarasoxer on Oct 12, 2015 10:43:29 GMT -5
This from the Harvard Business Review today: Body Fat Makes You a Target of Incivility at Work "The more body fat an employee carries, the greater the chances he or she will experience discourteous workplace behaviors such as interrupting, failing to return greetings, and not refilling printer paper, according to a team led by Katherine A. Sliter of Bowling Green State University. For example, in one study, overweight people reported higher levels of such forms of incivility than their healthy-weight peers (2.48 versus 1.53 on a 1-to-5 scale). Obesity may be “one of the last legally and socially acceptable” targets of workplace discrimination, the researchers say. Interesting.....and it comes with its own stat!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 12, 2015 11:06:22 GMT -5
This from the Harvard Business Review today: Body Fat Makes You a Target of Incivility at Work "The more body fat an employee carries, the greater the chances he or she will experience discourteous workplace behaviors such as interrupting, failing to return greetings, and not refilling printer paper, according to a team led by Katherine A. Sliter of Bowling Green State University. For example, in one study, overweight people reported higher levels of such forms of incivility than their healthy-weight peers (2.48 versus 1.53 on a 1-to-5 scale). Obesity may be “one of the last legally and socially acceptable” targets of workplace discrimination, the researchers say. Poor persecuted Pablo Sandoval. He can blow his nose into the $19 million he makes per season.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 12, 2015 12:10:37 GMT -5
This from the Harvard Business Review today: Body Fat Makes You a Target of Incivility at Work "The more body fat an employee carries, the greater the chances he or she will experience discourteous workplace behaviors such as interrupting, failing to return greetings, and not refilling printer paper, according to a team led by Katherine A. Sliter of Bowling Green State University. For example, in one study, overweight people reported higher levels of such forms of incivility than their healthy-weight peers (2.48 versus 1.53 on a 1-to-5 scale). Obesity may be “one of the last legally and socially acceptable” targets of workplace discrimination, the researchers say. Not surprising - this seems to be the case in all of life and not just work. People make assumptions based on appearance. I think it should be noted though that if your level of body fat directly correlates to work performance (athletes, models, etc.) then discriminating, to some level, should be accepted - especially if given a guaranteed contract. (although you could argue that the Red Sox decision to not to put a weight clause into Pablo's contract is their fault)
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 12, 2015 18:05:25 GMT -5
Actually I changed my mind, please just DFA Pablo today so we don't have to talk about bro science weight loss theory and/or the social politics of weight anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 20, 2015 10:56:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 24, 2015 14:18:20 GMT -5
I've been away from the board for awhile so sorry if this has been brought up. I can't help but notice Panda's contract is pretty similar to what SD owes Kemp after the Dodgers pay $3.5 million a year. Kemps been pretty damn bad in RF but would it be easier to hide that in LF at Fenway? I think we could get by with Shaw and Holt for a year and Jaun Uribe would be a good platoon guy.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Oct 24, 2015 14:42:55 GMT -5
Seems legit to me. I questioned him on learning LF. Can't blame coaches for having enough of him. Hanley has been around long enough, that he is what he is. He can hit, he's lost his speed, and he won't work hard. Live with it or dump him, but please don't defend him.
|
|
|