lol
lol
"Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.
"It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."
Oh la la!Originally Posted by a700hitter
It means that he looks good in a suit.
I was not implying that we don't have good hitters on the team. Far from that.
I was trying to point out that our depth took a hit with the release of Hanley, regardless of the number of runs we have scored since his release.
It's hard to say how much of a hit it took though. If Hanley is only a .700 OPS guy now that's not too difficult to replace. And the vesting option was a huge complicating factor IMO.
I was on board with Hanley at the start but he was so bad in May that he brought this situation on himself IMO.
To me, it was all about the vesting option. If he didn't have it, do you think he would have been released? I think most of us would have to answer that question with a 'no'. Therein lies the rub with me.
I realize he had a terrible May. JBJ has had a terrible season outside of maybe 2 weeks. Devers has had a terrible May. Leon and Swihart have had terrible seasons for the most part so far this year. They are all being given the chance to work their way out of their slumps, and rightly so.
I just don't agree with his release so early in the year. It does cut into our depth, especially with right handed bats.
It did hurt us depth wise and who knows Hanley might have started hitting again, but leaving that option getting any close to realisation would make the DFA all the harder to do later. He's definitely gone for no other reason than the clause. We had to take the shot now even if it does leave us a little light.
I get the logic behind it. I just don't agree with it.
And I think the whole 'story' behind how it went down has left a sour taste in my mouth.
Yeah I hear you. I agree with all that. That's the part of sports that will never allow me to fully love it. It's all about the business.
I truly believe that if Hanley had hit he would still be here. To say that the existence of the vesting option coupled with his inability to get the job done both were not factors in his release would be naive on my part I think. In all honesty, I don't spend much time thinking about these things. Teams do what they have to do. We may possibly wind up getting more production from the guys taking Hanley's place than he was going to give us. Now if this were the late 70's and we were talking about management allowing Fisk, Lynn, and Burleson to leave, I might have more to say.
If they had been perfectly truthful they would have said it was the vesting option, sure. But presumably that could have possibly caused issues with the union.
The real culprits here were the contract and Hanley's lousy numbers, neither of which DD or Cora had anything to do with.
If they had been perfectly truthful, they would have said the vesting option was a factor for sure. I bet they thought we could figure that one out though on our own.
Truth with a touch of sarcasm: 'Hanley, thanks for taking our 88 million in return for one good half-season. Sorry we couldn't make it 110 million.'
All due respect--and you have everyone's respect--but I just don't see the depth argument when this team is 8-4 without Mookie, who really is a difference-maker. Moreover, in the final analysis Mr. Ramirez was/is really a DH, and that doesn't help our depth much. As moonslav has pointed out, acquiring JD and keeping Moreland were strong evidence that the Sox were thinking Hanley was expendable before this season started. Granted, the vesting option was a key consideration for acquiring JD and keeping Moreland.
The only rationale for keeping Hanley and making that vesting option possible was not that he added depth, but that he brought great hitting--an OPS of .900 or better--and that was never going to happen.
Agreed.
The "stories" behind departures always get too ugly for this fan. Even in the Theo regime, there was too much childish media babble about someone who was released or traded away, like they needed to justify everything solely for PR purposes.
We do get as fans that sometimes players are not as good as they once were and moving them can lead to a better overall team. There is no need to bring up all their negative traits like it is necessary that fans forget what good or great players they once were.
It was weird to me too. That said, it does get him a chance to find a team early which is good. And the Sox have a lot of ways to replace that production - it's on the kids to figure it out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote