2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[SoxHop]

Isn't Cherington one of the people responsible for trading Hanley in the Beckett deal to begin with? So, he had some clue back then that Hanley would be a "malcontent", but magically lost that clue and became clueless about him this season?

 

The thing is I'd rather see the Sox stay away from any players that have "red flags" as far as motivation or personality. I'm not sure why we go there.

 

Like Perzinski......

 

I guess Aceves helped us out a bit. But in general........ why take the risk?

[sk7326]

The thing is I'd rather see the Sox stay away from any players that have "red flags" as far as motivation or personality. I'm not sure why we go there.

 

Like Perzinski......

 

I guess Aceves helped us out a bit. But in general........ why take the risk?

 

You have to monitor each case individually. Also, it helps to take a personal view, like your own job.

 

Are all companies the same? If we accept that some firms are better places to work, and others can bum you out, why should that not be the case for baseball as well? Now you are right, you might have an actual red flag guy. But if he is talented and you think that your firm is a better spot for him, it often is worth a whirl.

[sk7326]

How loud a voice do you really think Ben Cherington had at that time?

 

He and Hoyer were co-GMs. So if it is less than now, it's not by much.

[sk7326]

Hanley Ramirez was traded early in his career by people that had some clue as to what type of person he was and was going to become. He brought a good return but if he had had the mentality to go along with his talent it is quite possible that he never would have been traded. Whether you like Panda or not, he filled an obvious need. He=a third baseman. He was and is sadly an upgrade over what we had at third. Ramirez can hit some of the time. Big f***ing deal. He is a malcontent who needs to be asked to change positions to help his team. If a dh was needed, then maybe but we don't and didn't need one. Now before anyone jumps as to how I know that he is a malcontent let me say that I am as sure of it as some of you are that the Red Sox coaching staff screwed up Porcello. We will not gain ground until he either is dhing or until he is gone. He cannot play left field, third base, or first base.

 

He was traded for the best young starter in the league (along with the double-A version of Anibal Sanchez). And the Red Sox STILL had to take back Mike Lowell's (perception at the time) entrails.

 

I know at the time in Pawtucket there was a measure of senioritis which can come with a blocked guy ... that happens from time to time. You wish it didn't, but he was one of the league's best players once he got a regular gig. The worries are less character with him to me than simply physical. Has there been enough damage for him to not be able to play the field at all. That is on him to fix. LF is do-able, it's a matter of how much he wants to fix it.

[sk7326]

Do you honestly think that the Sox do not employ scouts at all?

 

If that's the case, how did they do such a good job of getting all of these high character, intangibles guys in 2013?

 

It is a bit of the 2011 analysis. Ortiz and Pedroia turned into low character goons suddenly. Or the players were such delicate flowers that a co-worker who came over from a team that won multiple titles made them all drooling vegetables.

[cp176]

It is a bit of the 2011 analysis. Ortiz and Pedroia turned into low character goons suddenly. Or the players were such delicate flowers that a co-worker who came over from a team that won multiple titles made them all drooling vegetables.

 

sk - i think I mis-remember Ortiz and Pedroia turning into goons. I am certainly not saying that the Ramirez trade wasn't a good one for the Sox . It was a good one. It doesn't change the fact that people questioned what Ramirez was all about. I don't remember people shedding any tears when he left town.

[SoxnCycles]

I understand what you are saying. I will say that when Hanley Ramirez was traded from Boston, his attitude and overall work ethic was a major topic of discussion for the fan base at that time. We saw him quite a bit in Portland. I would be surprised if the people running the front office didn't have discussions about his overall approach. It doesn't make any difference now how much Ben was or was not aware of. I get the fact that you support Kimmi with respect to much that she says. I like her too and even agree with her sometimes. I'm just not a big Hanley Ramirez fan and I think that it was a mistake to bring him back.

 

I don't equate what's written in the media with what an organization sees in a player.

Media-based speculation about a player is generally over-blown, particularly when that team is losing.

 

Lackey's attitude towards his teammates, concerning blown plays was a big deal when he was pitching badly and the Sox were losing, despite statements from players saying what a great clubhouse guy he was.

A lot fans couldn't wait to get rid of the bum.

In 2013, Lackey wasn't a problem.

 

I think Hanley's attitude problems are overblown too.

If the team were in contention, it wouldn't be an issue.

[Bellhorn04]

There are just so many inexplicable things about this year's team.

 

If left field is a relatively easy position, and if Hanley's attitude and work ethic have been fine, why has he butchered it out there?

 

Also, why is he unwilling to move to first base if that is the best fit for him?

[sk7326]

There are just so many inexplicable things about this year's team.

 

If left field is a relatively easy position, and if Hanley's attitude and work ethic have been fine, why has he butchered it out there?

 

Also, why is he unwilling to move to first base if that is the best fit for him?

 

Who knows what the reasons are. At the same time, the history of established guys who publicly want to stay at a position is vast. These are proud guys - it is an admission of defeat. I remember John Valentin bristling about not being the SS when the idea of Nomar came up. Perhaps it is something that can be done in the future, but in a more face saving manner.

 

I look at left field as a less demanding position because of 1) that teams put virtual DH sorts out there frequently, 2) neither range nor arm are huge issues, especially if the CF is good. I do think Fenway stands outside of these a bit since range is not the issue with playing LF. There are athletic sorts who have done it badly and less athletic guys who have been good. Obviously burden is on him to fix it if he wants to stay in LF. I also have no insight into whether there are physical things which he has not talked about, which might be true since his approach this season offensively has largely gone to seed.

[User Name]

There are just so many inexplicable things about this year's team.

 

 

Season in a nutshell. There's something wrong with this team that goes deeper than the 25-man roster.

[Kimmi]

I understand what you are saying. I will say that when Hanley Ramirez was traded from Boston, his attitude and overall work ethic was a major topic of discussion for the fan base at that time. We saw him quite a bit in Portland. I would be surprised if the people running the front office didn't have discussions about his overall approach. It doesn't make any difference now how much Ben was or was not aware of. I get the fact that you support Kimmi with respect to much that she says. I like her too and even agree with her sometimes. I'm just not a big Hanley Ramirez fan and I think that it was a mistake to bring him back.

 

I initially had concerns about Hanley's attitude when I heard about the signing, but those concerns were quickly allayed. It's fine that you think it was a mistake to bring him back, but there really has been no evidence that he has been a malcontent. Same with Pablo.

 

There was nothing suggesting that Hanley would not move to 1B if the team asked him to do so. All he said was that he wanted to stay in LF. Maybe with that he's saying that he is not going to quit or give up on that position and that he is confident he can do better. Would it make people feel any better if he said that he didn't want to be in LF next year? I think he would get a lot of criticism for making that statement.

 

I get the frustration with both of those players. They have been terrible this season. That doesn't mean that they are malcontents or that they are not trying their best.

[Kimmi]

The thing is I'd rather see the Sox stay away from any players that have "red flags" as far as motivation or personality. I'm not sure why we go there.

 

Like Perzinski......

 

I guess Aceves helped us out a bit. But in general........ why take the risk?

 

That's a fair enough statement SoxHop. I was not thrilled with the Pierzynski signing at all.

 

As I just posted, I had my concerns about Hanley's "baggage" as well. However, people do mature and change. Plus, it seems that Hanley REALLY wanted to come back to Boston. I also think the FO believed that Papi, Pedroia, and Victorino would be a great influence on him.

 

He has been a terrible fielder and his hitting has become pretty bad recently as well. However, I still really haven't seen any evidence of attitude issues.

[Kimmi]

It is a bit of the 2011 analysis. Ortiz and Pedroia turned into low character goons suddenly. Or the players were such delicate flowers that a co-worker who came over from a team that won multiple titles made them all drooling vegetables.

 

That's the thing. When the team is going bad, there are always rumors of clubhouse issues, and the rumors are usually false. Issues over which people wouldn't even bat an eye when the team is winning are portrayed by the media as huge problems when the team is losing.

[reYoukilis]

I initially had concerns about Hanley's attitude when I heard about the signing, but those concerns were quickly allayed. It's fine that you think it was a mistake to bring him back, but there really has been no evidence that he has been a malcontent. Same with Pablo.

 

There was nothing suggesting that Hanley would not move to 1B if the team asked him to do so. All he said was that he wanted to stay in LF. Maybe with that he's saying that he is not going to quit or give up on that position and that he is confident he can do better. Would it make people feel any better if he said that he didn't want to be in LF next year? I think he would get a lot of criticism for making that statement.

 

I get the frustration with both of those players. They have been terrible this season. That doesn't mean that they are malcontents or that they are not trying their best.

I'm all for not prejudging and forgiving and forgetting but Panda said some bad things about the Giants during spring training, he didn't have to. Thats a sign. There's also the texting incident in the clubhouse.

 

But you're right about Hanley, he could have changed his ways, and we shouldn't prejudge him.

[Kimmi]

sk - i think I mis-remember Ortiz and Pedroia turning into goons. I am certainly not saying that the Ramirez trade wasn't a good one for the Sox . It was a good one. It doesn't change the fact that people questioned what Ramirez was all about. I don't remember people shedding any tears when he left town.

 

I remember a lot of griping over trading Hanley, even after the Sox won the championship in 2007.

[sk7326]

So, you advocate bringing in a new manager and coaching staff?

 

Yes. I advocated the manager portion around the end of June. Now I don't know who I'd choose - aside from wanting somebody who has managed in some form or another - but everything this year has pointed to a flaw that stands outside of simple talent.

[Kimmi]

I don't equate what's written in the media with what an organization sees in a player.

Media-based speculation about a player is generally over-blown, particularly when that team is losing.

 

Lackey's attitude towards his teammates, concerning blown plays was a big deal when he was pitching badly and the Sox were losing, despite statements from players saying what a great clubhouse guy he was.

A lot fans couldn't wait to get rid of the bum.

In 2013, Lackey wasn't a problem.

 

I think Hanley's attitude problems are overblown too.

If the team were in contention, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

Exactly.

 

And even as badly as the Sox are playing this season, what have we really heard in the media concerning Hanley's attitude? We've heard about how awful his defense is, but I don't recall hearing anything about him being a malcontent.

[Kimmi]

I don't equate what's written in the media with what an organization sees in a player.

Media-based speculation about a player is generally over-blown, particularly when that team is losing.

 

Lackey's attitude towards his teammates, concerning blown plays was a big deal when he was pitching badly and the Sox were losing, despite statements from players saying what a great clubhouse guy he was.

A lot fans couldn't wait to get rid of the bum.

In 2013, Lackey wasn't a problem.

 

I think Hanley's attitude problems are overblown too.

If the team were in contention, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

Exactly.

 

And even as badly as the Sox are playing this season, what have we really heard in the media concerning Hanley's attitude? We've heard about how awful his defense is, but I don't recall hearing anything about him being a malcontent.

[Kimmi]

There are just so many inexplicable things about this year's team.

 

Ha. It's an enigma.

[Kimmi]

I'm all for not prejudging and forgiving and forgetting but Panda said some bad things about the Giants during spring training, he didn't have to. Thats a sign. There's also the texting incident in the clubhouse.

 

But you're right about Hanley, he could have changed his ways, and we shouldn't prejudge him.

 

I agree that Pablo was wrong in saying what he said about the Giants. He should have kept those thoughts to himself.

 

I think the texting thing is one of those non-issues that was blown out of proportion because of the way that he and the team are playing. I'm willing to bet that players grab their phones all the time during a game but nothing is ever said about it.

[cp176]

I remember a lot of griping over trading Hanley, even after the Sox won the championship in 2007.

 

i am sure that I was in a selectively small group. We saw him play. We heard the grumblings. We basically felt that he was lazy and we were happy to see him go. We never questioned his talent level. i believe that he creates more problems than he does solutions. Attitude aside, I don't see a place for him until Ortiz is gone. Sandoval is a third baseman. We needed a third baseman.

[cp176]

I initially had concerns about Hanley's attitude when I heard about the signing, but those concerns were quickly allayed. It's fine that you think it was a mistake to bring him back, but there really has been no evidence that he has been a malcontent. Same with Pablo.

 

There was nothing suggesting that Hanley would not move to 1B if the team asked him to do so. All he said was that he wanted to stay in LF. Maybe with that he's saying that he is not going to quit or give up on that position and that he is confident he can do better. Would it make people feel any better if he said that he didn't want to be in LF next year? I think he would get a lot of criticism for making that statement.

 

I get the frustration with both of those players. They have been terrible this season. That doesn't mean that they are malcontents or that they are not trying their best.

 

I really don't think that Ramirez is a malcontent. I am inclined to think that he is lazy and probably not too bright. He might be a genius. I just don't know that he is. What I do know is that if the choice is stupid or just uncoachable, I will take stupid any day. Stupid and coachable can at least be worked with. Now - once again, he might be brilliant. It just doesn't look that way. If he could make plays adequately at any position, I could see his value. If he can't field and he isn't the dh, he isn't helping us at all.

[cp176]

I don't equate what's written in the media with what an organization sees in a player.

Media-based speculation about a player is generally over-blown, particularly when that team is losing.

 

Lackey's attitude towards his teammates, concerning blown plays was a big deal when he was pitching badly and the Sox were losing, despite statements from players saying what a great clubhouse guy he was.

A lot fans couldn't wait to get rid of the bum.

In 2013, Lackey wasn't a problem.

 

I think Hanley's attitude problems are overblown too.

If the team were in contention, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

There is no question that we learn much more about ourselves and the people around us when we lose. Life is good when you win for sure. Without using the malcontent word or even suggesting that he might be a negative influence on anybody, basically because I don't that he might be or is, I will just say that he looked a little to layed back as a young player in Portland. I think lazy was the word many people used to describe him. Regardless about what anybody thinks about him and his personal characteristics, How is helping us and how do you see him helping us going forward? If Ortiz was retiring, I could see it. Since he isn't retiring, the fact that Ramirez has to field a position looks like it hurts our team.

[Kimmi]

I really don't think that Ramirez is a malcontent. I am inclined to think that he is lazy and probably not too bright. He might be a genius. I just don't know that he is. What I do know is that if the choice is stupid or just uncoachable, I will take stupid any day. Stupid and coachable can at least be worked with. Now - once again, he might be brilliant. It just doesn't look that way. If he could make plays adequately at any position, I could see his value. If he can't field and he isn't the dh, he isn't helping us at all.

 

I have no way of knowing for sure, but more than anything else, Hanley just strikes me as being a big airhead or flake. I don't think he's lazy or that he doesn't care. I don't even think he's stupid. Maybe he has ADD, who knows? He is just not always 100% in the game mentally, but I don't think its anything intentional. I had the same impression of Manny.

[cp176]

I have no way of knowing for sure, but more than anything else, Hanley just strikes me as being a big airhead or flake. I don't think he's lazy or that he doesn't care. I don't even think he's stupid. Maybe he has ADD, who knows? He is just not always 100% in the game mentally, but I don't think its anything intentional. I had the same impression of Manny.

 

I agree with you for the most part here(How about that!). I probably do think that he might be a bit slower than you do but that is all opinion. I did have similar feelings toward Manny but Hanley is no Manny.

[Kimmi]

I agree with you for the most part here(How about that!). I probably do think that he might be a bit slower than you do but that is all opinion. I did have similar feelings toward Manny but Hanley is no Manny.

 

No, Hanley is no Manny, but he isn't a negative WAR player either.

[sk7326]

No, Hanley is no Manny, but he isn't a negative WAR player either.

 

Really, as bad as his defense is - his empty OFFENSIVE numbers have bothered me more. You figure he can get better in the field - but if he is going to be essentially a poor man's Dave Kingman (how about that), that is very troubling.

[cp176]

Really, as bad as his defense is - his empty OFFENSIVE numbers have bothered me more. You figure he can get better in the field - but if he is going to be essentially a poor man's Dave Kingman (how about that), that is very troubling.

 

A clout or an out.

[RedSoxNC84]

Sox signed Rich Hill again today

[Kimmi]

Really, as bad as his defense is - his empty OFFENSIVE numbers have bothered me more. You figure he can get better in the field - but if he is going to be essentially a poor man's Dave Kingman (how about that), that is very troubling.

 

Hanley might have been lured by the closeness of the Green Monster. Farrell has said that he has changed his approach and that his swing has gotten too long. The seemingly nonexistent coaching is supposedly working on correcting this.