Sox hitting??

[Kimmi]

I had hoped we signed him to play 3B, but then I heard about Pablito.

 

I didn't really like the signing, but I felt it was a good attempt at filling a very high need without trading away top prospects.

 

HRam is still young enough to have a long stretch of high productivity. I'm hopeful, but I would not project greatness going forward.

 

I am hopeful about Hanley as well. I am probably in the minority, but I'm a big Hanley fan.

[moonslav59]

They learn, until the next enticing superstar player comes along, unfortunately.

 

How many people here are wanting to trade for Stanton? How many people here want to give Betts a 10 year deal?

 

There's a stark difference between signing HRam and extending Betts/ trading for Stanton:

 

age and/or recent production

[Fan_since_Boggs]

It's difficult for a middle-of-the-order slugger to be so invisible. Lately, though, Ramirez has hid in plain sight even when he plays. In his past eight games, he's 5-for-31 (.161) with three extra-base hits and nine strikeouts. He's 13-for-63 (.206) with seven extra-base hits and 19 strikeouts this month. And since the All-Star break, he's 28-for-131 (.213) with 12 extra-base hits and 34 whiffs. Somehow, the Red Sox have won, despite Ramirez's play. They might have to continue doing so too. Ramirez typically warms up with the weather, but considering it's nearly Labor Day and he still hasn't gotten on a roll, it's fair to wonder if he ever will this season.

 

Ramirez's disappearing act has left the Red Sox somewhat mystified. Last season, he hit 30 home runs, slugged .505 and drove in 111 runs by using the entire field. This year, all but 13 of his hits have been pulled to left field or hit up the middle. And while he took fluid, easy right-handed swings last season, his cuts have gotten so big and violent that his helmet often comes flying off his head.

http://www.espn.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/53256/hanley-ramirezs-role-endangered-by-slack-second-half-bat

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see Pedroia take over as the full time DH when he returns. Hanley platoons with Moreland. Nunez remains the starter at 2b.

[Kimmi]

There's a stark difference between signing HRam and extending Betts/ trading for Stanton:

 

age and/or recent production

 

Well obviously. You certainly wouldn't consider signing Hanley to a 10 year deal. My point is, long term deals almost always come back to bite you, no matter how much of a 'sure bet' it seems like. You know this better than most. We have experienced it over and over, but yet when the opportunity presents itself for next long term deal, most fans want to jump in head first.

[OH FOY]

Main thing with Hanley now is make sure he doesn't get his Option year. He's here now, but cannot have him for that extra year. Just too inconsistent at that price. Edited August 26, 2017 by OH FOY!

[moonslav59]

Well obviously. You certainly wouldn't consider signing Hanley to a 10 year deal. My point is, long term deals almost always come back to bite you, no matter how much of a 'sure bet' it seems like. You know this better than most. We have experienced it over and over, but yet when the opportunity presents itself for next long term deal, most fans want to jump in head first.

 

I'm one of the biggest supporters of avoiding large and long contracts. I've posted countless threads shwoing how most of each year's biggest contracts not only failed to meet expectations, but they often fail right out of the gate.

 

That being said, I loved the Porcello extension, because all the years fell within prime. Extending Betts for 10 years would place most of the years in prime and the rest near prime. Stanton is different. He's 27 and has 10 years left. The luxury hit is only $25M though, and he'll be be 33 during the 6th year of the deal. That's about 5-6 years in prime, 2-3 years close to prime, and the final 3 years at ages 35-37. That's not great, but it's not 38-40 either. The injuries are worrisome, but to me, Stanton is like Sale. These opportunities only come along once a decade or so, and I feel we should at least kick the tires.

[Kimmi]

I'm one of the biggest supporters of avoiding large and long contracts. I've posted countless threads shwoing how most of each year's biggest contracts not only failed to meet expectations, but they often fail right out of the gate.

 

That being said, I loved the Porcello extension, because all the years fell within prime. Extending Betts for 10 years would place most of the years in prime and the rest near prime. Stanton is different. He's 27 and has 10 years left. The luxury hit is only $25M though, and he'll be be 33 during the 6th year of the deal. That's about 5-6 years in prime, 2-3 years close to prime, and the final 3 years at ages 35-37. That's not great, but it's not 38-40 either. The injuries are worrisome, but to me, Stanton is like Sale. These opportunities only come along once a decade or so, and I feel we should at least kick the tires.

 

I know that you are a supporter of avoiding large contracts. That's why I said that you should know better than most that they are, by and large, not a good idea.

 

For the most part, I don't consider a 4 year deal to be a large contract. I loved the Porcello extension and I liked the Hanley signing. I also realize that a team is going to have to sign some players to 5+ year deals. It's a necessary evil. However, the 7-8 year range would be my limit.

[moonslav59]

I know that you are a supporter of avoiding large contracts. That's why I said that you should know better than most that they are, by and large, not a good idea.

 

For the most part, I don't consider a 4 year deal to be a large contract. I loved the Porcello extension and I liked the Hanley signing. I also realize that a team is going to have to sign some players to 5+ year deals. It's a necessary evil. However, the 7-8 year range would be my limit.

 

I agree, the Porcello signing was not "long term", but my point was about how much of the contract is within prime or just barely post prime.

 

I was "not for" the Price signing, but I realized that FA gambles have to be made in order to save the farm. Signing mid level free agents to 2-4 year deals is less risky, but the impact has less of a chance at helping as well. The 2013 championship showed that theory can work, but it's still hard to justify the Vic and Dempster signings.

 

Stanton is a once in a generation type player. He is signed from ages 28-37. To me, that is only maybe 2 seasons past prime, 2 seasons barely post prime, and 6 in prime. At $25M a year against the luxury tax, I could envision him giving us 4-6 $30M+ value seasons and maybe even a couple $40M+ value seasons. That would more than make up for his post prime seasons. My biggest concern is his injury history, not a flop. The other downside to Stanton is that not only are we risking a decline from Stanton, and taking up $25M on the luxury tax for 10 years, but we'd lose the rest of our current farm top prospects. I am not "for" trading for Stanton at any cost, but I think we need to look into it.

 

Betts will be 25 next season. If we extended him this winter to 10 years, we'd have him from ages 25 to 34. Virtually every season would be in prime or 8 in prime and two is barely post-prime years. This is way different than any 8-10 year FA deal ever signed. Way different.

 

I'm not saying both of these deals don't have a high risk, but I'd look into both, especially Betts. In my opinion, Betts will not sign this winter after a "bad year", although maybe he will be thinking "what if,..." and go for the security.

 

Who knows. I'd kick the tires on both.

 

[Bellhorn04]

I am hopeful about Hanley as well. I am probably in the minority, but I'm a big Hanley fan.

 

I like Hanley, and I root for him to do well. But I think it was a bad signing value-wise for several reasons:

 

1) Very erratic offensive numbers over previous 5 years.

2) Injury history.

3) Didn't really have a position for him.

[OH FOY]

When Pedey comes back I think Hanley will lose more playing time. 22.750 Million, for mainly a DH way too much money. You have to be able to put up huge numbers for this to even come close. He's not doing it, and what's most important not doing it in crucial situations. RISP.

45 million if he vests, holy cow.

Edited August 27, 2017 by OH FOY!

[Bellhorn04]

When Pedey comes back I think Hanley will lose more playing time. 22.750 Million, for mainly a DH way too much money. You have to be able to put up huge numbers for this to even come close. He's not doing it, and what's most important not doing it in crucial situations. RISP.

45 million if he vests, holy cow.

 

It certainly looks like they have to 'unvest' him next year. Stupid, stupid vesting option. I understand that it was put in there as a further incentive for him to sign. But we can see how it's already kind of hanging over the team as something else they have to deal with.

[OH FOY]

I like anybody on the Sox, but even if Ortiz was hitting .193 with RISP, and .207 in 2nd half, as a DH I'd be pissed.

Don't want to sound like I'm hating on him, but he's the weak link on this team this year. If he doesn't turn it around in last 30+ games, it could be the difference in us winning the division, I'm serious about this.

Edited August 27, 2017 by OH FOY!

[OH FOY]

Hanley got to be injured, Farrell should know this. Hanley's career Avg. with RISP is .286, something else is wrong.

[bowman]

Agree, the good Manny, and then the bad Manny is getting old. I still can't believe we don't have one player with over 20 homers right now. A serious flaw in the make up of the 2017 sox. Could still be fun if we catch fire in the playoffs, but watching this right now sucks..

[Bellhorn04]

Hanley got to be injured, Farrell should know this. Hanley's career Avg. with RISP is .286, something else is wrong.

 

It's pure conjecture that he's injured. He might just be losing bat speed due to age.

[Kimmi]

I agree, the Porcello signing was not "long term", but my point was about how much of the contract is within prime or just barely post prime.

 

I was "not for" the Price signing, but I realized that FA gambles have to be made in order to save the farm. Signing mid level free agents to 2-4 year deals is less risky, but the impact has less of a chance at helping as well. The 2013 championship showed that theory can work, but it's still hard to justify the Vic and Dempster signings.

 

Stanton is a once in a generation type player. He is signed from ages 28-37. To me, that is only maybe 2 seasons past prime, 2 seasons barely post prime, and 6 in prime. At $25M a year against the luxury tax, I could envision him giving us 4-6 $30M+ value seasons and maybe even a couple $40M+ value seasons. That would more than make up for his post prime seasons. My biggest concern is his injury history, not a flop. The other downside to Stanton is that not only are we risking a decline from Stanton, and taking up $25M on the luxury tax for 10 years, but we'd lose the rest of our current farm top prospects. I am not "for" trading for Stanton at any cost, but I think we need to look into it.

 

Betts will be 25 next season. If we extended him this winter to 10 years, we'd have him from ages 25 to 34. Virtually every season would be in prime or 8 in prime and two is barely post-prime years. This is way different than any 8-10 year FA deal ever signed. Way different.

 

I'm not saying both of these deals don't have a high risk, but I'd look into both, especially Betts. In my opinion, Betts will not sign this winter after a "bad year", although maybe he will be thinking "what if,..." and go for the security.

 

Who knows. I'd kick the tires on both.

 

 

I agree that if you're going to sign a player to a long term deal, you certainly want to sign a player who will be mostly in prime years for the contract, and that some players are surer bets than others.

 

I remember the discussion about signing Price. Many said that they didn't care if he was an albatross in the last 2-3 years of the contract, because we would have an ace for the first part of the deal. The problem is, things don't always work like that. Even if they do, having that albatross limits the financial flexibility of the team in those latter years.

 

I realize that Price was older when he was signed. But he did seem like a pretty safe bet for at least a few years.

[Kimmi]

I like Hanley, and I root for him to do well. But I think it was a bad signing value-wise for several reasons:

 

1) Very erratic offensive numbers over previous 5 years.

2) Injury history.

3) Didn't really have a position for him.

 

The injury history is a fair point. His numbers might have been erratic, but overall, they were still very good.

 

As far as not having a position for him, I am very surprised that he was so bad in left field. I was not expecting a Gold Glover, or perhaps not even average, but I thought he would be serviceable.

[moonslav59]

When Pedey comes back I think Hanley will lose more playing time. 22.750 Million, for mainly a DH way too much money. You have to be able to put up huge numbers for this to even come close. He's not doing it, and what's most important not doing it in crucial situations. RISP.

45 million if he vests, holy cow.

 

Technically, if he vests, it's adding $22M over him not vesting.

 

If Pedey DH's a lot going forward, I think we will not sign a 1Bman, and we will play HRam at 1B FT. Maybe we'll keep Nunez to play 2B,

when Pedey cannot.

 

I doubt DD's plan is to rob HRam of PAs, but HRam could play himself into a benching. He's moving towards that way now, but I do not think he's quite there yet. Let's see how he finishes the season. Just one big heroic HR in the playoffs could change everything.

[moonslav59]

Hanley got to be injured, Farrell should know this. Hanley's career Avg. with RISP is .286, something else is wrong.

 

Maybe you guys are missing an easy out of the vesting option (see bolded below):

 

19:$22M vesting option, guaranteed if Ramirez has 1,050 plate appearances in 2017-18 and passes club physical after 2018 season

[moonslav59]

It's pure conjecture that he's injured. He might just be losing bat speed due to age.

 

It's not conjecture. Earlier this season, the team said he would be playing DH all season. Since then, he has played some 1B, but I think it's pretty safe to say, he is playing injured.

[notin]

Hanley's outfield defense was surprisingly bad. But getting a hitter into an AL lineup isn't some arduous task.

[Bellhorn04]

It's not conjecture. Earlier this season, the team said he would be playing DH all season. Since then, he has played some 1B, but I think it's pretty safe to say, he is playing injured.

 

I don't think it's safe to say that at all. It's safe to say they wanted to limit his exposure to further injuries based on his history.

[Bellhorn04]

Hanley's outfield defense was surprisingly bad. But getting a hitter into an AL lineup isn't some arduous task.

 

An AL lineup with David Ortiz already penciled in at everyday DH for a couple more years though.

[moonslav59]

I agree that if you're going to sign a player to a long term deal, you certainly want to sign a player who will be mostly in prime years for the contract, and that some players are surer bets than others.

 

I remember the discussion about signing Price. Many said that they didn't care if he was an albatross in the last 2-3 years of the contract, because we would have an ace for the first part of the deal. The problem is, things don't always work like that. Even if they do, having that albatross limits the financial flexibility of the team in those latter years.

 

I realize that Price was older when he was signed. But he did seem like a pretty safe bet for at least a few years.

 

I totally get that argument. I've made it myself often.

 

Certainly Stanton and/or Betts could flop, get injured or give us just 1-3 years of prodution and then be an albatross for 7-8 years, but my point here is that the risk is significantly less for Stanton and Betts.

 

Stanton:

 

$25M a year is less than the $31M Price got.

 

Most of the biggest FA signings were 30-33 year olds. Price was 30-31 for his first season. He'll be 36-37 his last season. Stanton is 27. That's 3 years more in prime than Price, and his final year would be the same age as Price's final year (36). That is a dramatic shift in in-prime percentage of his deal.

 

I know the risk is there for Stanton to decline, and that is a contributing factor in making a final decision, but to me,m the biggest downside of Stanton is not the risk of him falling short of lofty expectations, but the fact that he'd eat up $25M on the budget AND cost us the rest of our already depleted farm.

 

Betts:

 

Comparing a Betts extension to a 30-33 year old FA signing is apples to oranges. A better comp would be to extensions given by Tampa Bay to their young stars + 3 years.

 

Betts is 24. Extending him 10 years would be from ages 25 to 34. To me, age 34 is NOT much post-prime.

 

Sure, the risk of unmet expectations is real, but I've never seen a player like Betts in my life. The kid moved to the OF and became an instant GG defender in CF then RF. He's having a "down year", but he's still right up their in WAR.

 

Kick the tires. Don't go way overboard, but both of these two are very very special players...much more "special" than Price was at the time- someone I said was "about the best FA SP'er to come on the open market in a decade".

Edited August 27, 2017 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

I don't think it's safe to say that at all. It's safe to say they wanted to limit his exposure to further injuries based on his history.

 

There's no way Sox management wanted to play Moreland vs LHPs. When they decided to do that, I feel it was about HRam being injured- not a fear that he might get injured.

 

Maybe saying "safe to say" was not the right choice of words, but I do feel he is playing hurt.

 

 

[Bellhorn04]

There's no way Sox management wanted to play Moreland vs LHPs. When they decided to do that, I feel it was about HRam being injured- not a fear that he might get injured.

 

Maybe saying "safe to say" was not the right choice of words, but I do feel he is playing hurt.

 

 

Hanley had a great second half last year. If he got injured, when did it happen?

 

It's all conjecture, you must admit.

[OH FOY]

Its amazing Hanley only has a .263 career avg. against Power Pitchers, and a .318 avg. against Finesse Pitchers, maybe teams are starting to realize how to Pitch to him, even with the Count in his favor.

Sorry more like with Count in the Pitchers favor. Counts like 1-2, 2-2, they are throwing hard instead of Off-Speed stuff.

Edited August 27, 2017 by OH FOY!

[OH FOY]

Telling thing for me that even if he's struggled against Power Pitchers, (who doesn't), is his splits for his career against Lefties and this year. He's a .300 hitter against Lefties, and basically a .200 hitter this year against Lefties, he's got to be injured.

Miley today, we should keep an eye on how quick he gets around on basically someone he should have a good day with.

[a700hitter]

Hanley has been having a lot of trouble with upper echelon fast balls. He was completely overpowered and destroyed by Chapman that night Devers hit the HR. He has had reported tightness in his side. That can't be helping things. He just has not gotten into a groove like he did last year in the second half and time is running out.

[oldtimer]

Hanley has been having a lot of trouble with upper echelon fast balls. He was completely overpowered and destroyed by Chapman that night Devers hit the HR. He has had reported tightness in his side. That can't be helping things. He just has not gotten into a groove like he did last year in the second half and time is running out.

 

 

 

I was on the road so didn't see the las two games. From the box score last night it appears that only Moreland and Betts got two hits each and the rest (7 guys) took the collar. Our hitters seem to fall into cold spells for periods this season and that isn't unusual, but it is unusual that so many are underperforming their norms. Is it the hitting coach sharing the blame or is it all on the hitters? In my view, JF tends to stay too long with players who are underpeforming. Hanley is one of those and a shakeup may be needed to get players out of their malaise.