Dombrowski in Cherington Out

[cp176]

The money was not invested on Hanley being a great defensive left fielder. He could stink as much as he does and still be a positive contributor to the team if his offense were at the same level it was at last year. This point has been made many times. He has always been a poor defender, but his bat has always been good enough to overcome that. That is what the FO invested in.

 

there is a big difference in poor and POOR - He should not be used in the outfield. I'm not sure that I would like to see him gonzo but using him as position player is going to be tough.

[jd98]

from rotoworld

Hanley Ramirez acknowledged to reporters Tuesday that he is moving to first base next year.

The first directive from new Red Sox president Dave Dombrowski, perhaps? Hanley was spotted taking grounders and making throws on Tuesday afternoon in Chicago and said after the workout that he could begin seeing starts at first base down the stretch this season. "I'm looking forward to it," said Hanley, who has been a disaster in left field. Mookie Betts, Jackie Bradley Jr., and Rusney Castillo make up the outfield of the future in Boston.

[Behindenemylines]

from rotoworld

 

DD seeing if Ramirez can play first base. If he looks lost there then he will be moved to some team that needs a DH for 2016. The Sox will have to eat a lot of $$$$$ though.

[User Name]

Pablo and Hanley have been the two WORST defensive players per WAR, I think. Disaster. He should never step foot in LF again.

 

Hanley's first and Pablo's fourth (Matt Kemp and Pedro Alvarez are second and third respectively) but your point stands. Gross.

[Behindenemylines]

Man where they wrong that Ramirez could transition to LF. Any ball hit out there is an out waiting to turn into a run scoring hit. He is taking reps at 1B before tonights game, but I think he is a DH at this point and will be moved with the Sox eating big $$$$$$4.

[mvp 78]

Apparently, DUMBrowski urged Sox to test Hanley at 1st. Was his performance not entertaining enough for you Dave??? Dum dum. Hanley in LF = ratings. Bloopers clip reels for days!

[gojohn99]

Apparently, DUMBrowski urged Sox to test Hanley at 1st. Was his performance not entertaining enough for you Dave??? Dum dum. Hanley in LF = ratings. Bloopers clip reels for days!

 

Let's hope this works out.

 

From ProJo

Butterfield suggested that while Ramirez has experience on the infield, his transition could be more difficult than that of Napoli because Napoli, as a lifelong catcher, had experience receiving thrown balls that Ramirez does not have.

 

"A guy like Mike Napoli who has caught and has been in a low position and has learned to take his eyes to the ball from the catcher's position, shifting to balls, a lot of that helped him in his transition to first base," Butterfield said. "Hanley has been a major-league shortstop. He's played the outfield for a short period of time. There are a lot of things you can take from infield and outfield that'll translate over there to first base."

[Kimmi]

He is not just a poor fielder. He is atrocious-- the worst fielder in the game at any position.

 

That is not the point. The point is that there is some good rationale behind why the Sox signed him. Here is a good read on the subject by Lindbergh, if you're so inclined.

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-hanley-ramirez-left-field-defense-boston-red-sox/

[Kimmi]

there is a big difference in poor and POOR - He should not be used in the outfield. I'm not sure that I would like to see him gonzo but using him as position player is going to be tough.

 

I understand how bad he's been. Believe me, I much prefer an OF of Betts, JBJ, and Castillo. That wasn't the point of my post.

 

It looks like Dombrowski is leaning towards Hanley playing 1B next season. Personally, I think it's a mistake, but Dombrowski knows baseball far better than I do, so I'll defer to his judgment. If by some miracle Hanley can play the position competently, that sure would solve a lot of our issues.

[reYoukilis]

I understand how bad he's been. Believe me, I much prefer an OF of Betts, JBJ, and Castillo. That wasn't the point of my post.

 

It looks like Dombrowski is leaning towards Hanley playing 1B next season. Personally, I think it's a mistake, but Dombrowski knows baseball far better than I do, so I'll defer to his judgment. If by some miracle Hanley can play the position competently, that sure would solve a lot of our issues.

They might be doing it so he can play it this year to allow Betts, Castillo and JBJ play everyday. I hope so because if they plan on playing Hanley at first next season, that probably means they plan on keeping Sandoval too seeing that they wouldn't be teaching him a new position if one that he already had experience in was going to open up.

 

Hanley at third would be a good move. Not ideal but would be the best with what we've got. He's obviously good

[a700hitter]

That is not the point. The point is that there is some good rationale behind why the Sox signed him. Here is a good read on the subject by Lindbergh, if you're so inclined.

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-hanley-ramirez-left-field-defense-boston-red-sox/

 

Terrible move. Any rationale for signing him was woefully wrong.

[cp176]

there is a big difference in poor and POOR - He should not be used in the outfield. I'm not sure that I would like to see him gonzo but using him as position player is going to be tough.

 

If Hanley's production was averaged out over the last 4 years, i do not think that it would be good enough to offset how he plays in left field. It is refreshing to hear about his willingness to give first base a try. If he can just catch the ball at first consistently, he very well might be able to help us. I'm hoping that it works out for him. It is too bad that it took this long for the move to even be mentioned.

[a700hitter]

If Hanley's production was averaged out over the last 4 years, i do not think that it would be good enough to offset how he plays in left field. It is refreshing to hear about his willingness to give first base a try. If he can just catch the ball at first consistently, he very well might be able to help us. I'm hoping that it works out for him. It is too bad that it took this long for the move to even be mentioned.

It would be very helpful to the team if he can play first base proficiently. He can't stay in this OF. He singlehandedly wrecks our defense. Shaw has shown a lot with the stick so far. Hopefully, they can find a way to keep him in the lineup between playing first base and spelling Panda at third for snack breaks.

[a700hitter]

That is not the point. The point is that there is some good rationale behind why the Sox signed him. Here is a good read on the subject by Lindbergh, if you're so inclined.

 

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-mlb-hanley-ramirez-left-field-defense-boston-red-sox/

The article was chock full of good reasons not to have Hanley transition to left field. One that even surprised me was:

Admittedly, there isn’t much precedent for the direct short-to-left transition. In th e UZR era, no player has switched from full-time shortstop to full-time left fielder in consecutive seasons.

Edited August 26, 2015 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

Well, this has been said many times already but I think it's true. In 2013 the Sox signed good character guys. Then they went completely against that by signing guys like Pierzynski and Hanley.

[mvp 78]

The article was chock full of good reasons not to have Hanley transition to left field. One that even surprised me was:

 

I agree with you. When Kimmi posted that, I was surprised because I had a completely different take when I had read the article earlier. To me, the big part of the story was that teams need to stop solely focusing on "Large N" and consider the individual.

[sk7326]

Really the move is Hanley to 3B and try to deal Sandoval ... I just don't see Sandoval's ceiling after 1 year. I did not love the sigining when it happened, but I could see some of the logic - his spray charts were very Fenway-friendly, and there seemed to be a good amount of raw power if he focused on it. (of course this raises questions about the hitting instruction, which has been there all season)

 

But Hanley at 1B could work too. Clearly the LF travails have seeped into the offense, which has created a vicious cycle. Regardless of the position, he was brought in because he could hit and he had a good approach. The latter has gone completely to seed this season.

[User Name]

Really the move is Hanley to 3B and try to deal Sandoval ... I just don't see Sandoval's ceiling after 1 year. I did not love the sigining when it happened, but I could see some of the logic - his spray charts were very Fenway-friendly, and there seemed to be a good amount of raw power if he focused on it. (of course this raises questions about the hitting instruction, which has been there all season)

 

But Hanley at 1B could work too. Clearly the LF travails have seeped into the offense, which has created a vicious cycle. Regardless of the position, he was brought in because he could hit and he had a good approach. The latter has gone completely to seed this season.

 

The approach of the team as a whole was problematic. As you mentioned, there're some coaching issues that need to be addressed. This team's problems go way deeper than the roster.

[sk7326]

The approach of the team as a whole was problematic. As you mentioned, there're some coaching issues that need to be addressed. This team's problems go way deeper than the roster.

 

It's one of the questions I have about Bogaerts too. This year has been a leap - he has learned how to handle pitches they were getting him out with. But now the next step is to learn how to lay off those pitches and get something he can drive. Long run, the walk rate is a problem - and clearly he is an advanced enough hitter to know that.

[cp176]

It would be very helpful to the team if he can play first base proficiently. He can't stay in this OF. He singlehandedly wrecks our defense. Shaw has shown a lot with the stick so far. Hopefully, they can find a way to keep him in the lineup between playing first base and spelling Panda at third for snack breaks.

 

 

If I had to make a prediction it would be that it doesn't work out and at some point in time people in charge will realize that it was a mistake to bring Ramirez in. It hasn't worked out. I hope that he does get some opportunity to play first so that it can be a problem dealt with sooner as opposed to later. I'm not sure that Shaw is going to be the answer but it is for sure that he has played well enough to deserve a chance at the job. If Ramirez goes one way or another, it won't even be noticed.

[Kimmi]

The article was chock full of good reasons not to have Hanley transition to left field. One that even surprised me was:

 

The article was also chock full of good reasons and rationale behind why the Sox signed him. No one is saying that there weren't any risks, but no one expected Hanley to be this bad, neither defensively, or more surprisingly, offensively.

 

And to your specific point that no player has switched from full-time SS to full-time LF in consecutive seasons, there is even good rationale behind that:

 

If Hanley was asked to be a trailblazer, though, it was only because most shortstops don’t have the bat or the bulk to play left, and because most shortstops’ gloves are too good to hide at a relatively unimportant position. Shortstops who age off the position or are pushed aside by better players tend to slide over to second or third, or even to become successful center fielders, like Billy Hamilton or, before that, Melvin Upton (when he still went by B.J.). Physically, Ramirez belonged at third base, the position he played in 2012. And the third-to-left gambit has worked out well before.

[mvp 78]

"Ramirez belonged at third."

[Kimmi]

Well, this has been said many times already but I think it's true. In 2013 the Sox signed good character guys. Then they went completely against that by signing guys like Pierzynski and Hanley.

 

Based on attitude, I did not like the Pierzynski signing at all. My initial reaction to the Hanley signing was similar to that of Pierzynski's, but I soon became hopeful that Hanley had matured and turned over a new leaf. Unfortunately, that new leaf seems to have been short lived.

[Kimmi]

I agree with you. When Kimmi posted that, I was surprised because I had a completely different take when I had read the article earlier. To me, the big part of the story was that teams need to stop solely focusing on "Large N" and consider the individual.

 

Of course you have to consider the individual because no matter how overwhelming the evidence is, there will always be exceptions. This idea is easier said than done though.

 

A good example of that would be in trying to determine how well a player will age before giving him a contract. You can look at the individual's injury history, conditioning habits, athleticism, body type, the way he plays the games, etc. all you want, but in the end, you really can't know how that player will age until he actually ages. All you have to go on is how the group with similar characteristics have aged, and make your best educated guess.

 

GMs used the "Large N" idea all the time, because there is absolutely no way of predicting with any certainty what an individual will do.

 

Lindbergh pointed out that, despite what some want to believe, the FO did not just look at their stats and call it a day. They did consider the individual. They had conversations with Hanley to gauge his attitude and confidence, and they consulted scouts and other sources to gauge his psyche. Without having a crystal ball, that is really all any FO could do.

[Kimmi]

"Ramirez belonged at third."

 

When he was younger, versus being at SS. As they age, 3B have moved to LF with success.

 

That said, if Hanley is going to be moved to an infield position, my preference would be to 3B over 1B. That leaves the problem of what to do with Sandoval, however. To Sandoval's credit, his defense looks much better the 2nd half, despited what Spud thinks. According to reports, his conditioning has improved as well.

[a700hitter]

The article was also chock full of good reasons and rationale behind why the Sox signed him. No one is saying that there weren't any risks, but no one expected Hanley to be this bad, neither defensively, or more surprisingly, offensively.

 

And to your specific point that no player has switched from full-time SS to full-time LF in consecutive seasons, there is even good rationale behind that:

There were too many unknowns for me to invest $88 million. They crossed their fingers and hoped the unknowns would work out and they got burned big time.

[a700hitter]

GMs used the "Large N" idea all the time, because there is absolutely no way of predicting with any certainty what an individual will do.

i understand that there are instances when a GM has to make an educated guess, but making a guess on a position change when signing a player to a long term contract is foolish business. It really wasn't an educated guess. It was just a guess. I would have found it more acceptable if his explanation was that coaches in the organization had taken note of his ability when he would shag flys when he was in our system or with other teams. That would be something. You can judge instincts, route to the ball, etc. Mariano Rivera was great at shagging flies. Many in the Yankee organization felt that he was the best outfielder in the organization. Another pitcher that could have played OF early in his career surprisingly was Bartolo Colon. I had heard about his surprising athleticism, but then I witnessed it for myself at Fenway before a game the day after he pitched. They guy could run down the ball. I find it astonishing that our organization spent $88 million on a complete guess. No scouting reports or observation by anyone throughout his career. I remember that when he was in our organization and stuck behind Nomar there was talk about moving him to CF. That didn't work out. Did anyone in the organization remember why? That seems like a logical starting point, but rather they relied on cases of other infielders moving to the outfield. I am sorry, but there whole process in evaluating and signing Hanley was marked by foolishness in my opinion.

[Spudboy]

What the f*** is "Large N"?

[Kimmi]

i understand that there are instances when a GM has to make an educated guess, but making a guess on a position change when signing a player to a long term contract is foolish business. It really wasn't an educated guess. It was just a guess. I would have found it more acceptable if his explanation was that coaches in the organization had taken note of his ability when he would shag flys when he was in our system or with other teams. That would be something. You can judge instincts, route to the ball, etc. Mariano Rivera was great at shagging flies. Many in the Yankee organization felt that he was the best outfielder in the organization. Another pitcher that could have played OF early in his career surprisingly was Bartolo Colon. I had heard about his surprising athleticism, but then I witnessed it for myself at Fenway before a game the day after he pitched. They guy could run down the ball. I find it astonishing that our organization spent $88 million on a complete guess. No scouting reports or observation by anyone throughout his career. I remember that when he was in our organization and stuck behind Nomar there was talk about moving him to CF. That didn't work out. Did anyone in the organization remember why? That seems like a logical starting point, but rather they relied on cases of other infielders moving to the outfield. I am sorry, but there whole process in evaluating and signing Hanley was marked by foolishness in my opinion.

 

I disagree with it not being an educated guess. In addtion to the reasons why it's not unreasonable to think that Hanley would at least not get any worse in LF, you have to consider the offense he was supposed to provide. You have to consider that offense was a team weakness last year. You have to consider that our LF offensive production was 23rd in baseball last season at -11.1.

 

As I said before, the FO did not blindly say that signing Ramirez sounds like a good idea. They did their homework and made an educated guess. You may not agree with the reasoning, but that doesn't make it invalid or uneducated.

[a700hitter]

If I had to make a prediction it would be that it doesn't work out and at some point in time people in charge will realize that it was a mistake to bring Ramirez in. It hasn't worked out. I hope that he does get some opportunity to play first so that it can be a problem dealt with sooner as opposed to later. I'm not sure that Shaw is going to be the answer but it is for sure that he has played well enough to deserve a chance at the job. If Ramirez goes one way or another, it won't even be noticed.

I think they have ample time before the season ends to get a very good idea whether Hanley can handle first base, even if he gets no game experience. Hopefully, it works out.