A Realistic View at 2018: Part I

[oldtimer]

I beg to differ for multiple reasons.

 

 

 

 

My point is, I think Hanley's play should dictate his playing time. I wouldn't be worried about that option vesting if he earns it he earns it.

 

Still it would help us to clear the $22 million from our payroll. We may need cap space next year and he is the obvious choice for that.

[jacksonianmarch]

I don’t think he’ll have the chance. I anticipate a full on platoon through Memorial Day with the best producer stealing playing time from the other starting in June. If Hanley gets the weak part of the platoon in terms of AB’s for a couple months, The best man can get the lions share thereafter and Hanley will still miss out. He’s 475 PAs from triggering the option. If you assume 5PAs a game, that’s 95 games. A L/R platoon is usually 70%/30% in favor of the LHH. Through May, that’ll mean Hanley will miss out on 42 games. That would put him at a max of 120 games. With his injury history and the presence of Moreland, I doubt he plays more than 95 or so. He should miss the PA threshold by a bit

[Hugh2]

I don’t think he’ll have the chance. I anticipate a full on platoon through Memorial Day with the best producer stealing playing time from the other starting in June. If Hanley gets the weak part of the platoon in terms of AB’s for a couple months, The best man can get the lions share thereafter and Hanley will still miss out. He’s 475 PAs from triggering the option. If you assume 5PAs a game, that’s 95 games. A L/R platoon is usually 70%/30% in favor of the LHH. Through May, that’ll mean Hanley will miss out on 42 games. That would put him at a max of 120 games. With his injury history and the presence of Moreland, I doubt he plays more than 95 or so. He should miss the PA threshold by a bit

 

First off, I don't completely disagree with you. I think there's a good chance Hanleys' option does not vest between platooning and the risk of injury. However, platoons never work out to where player A gets 100% at bats against the RHP and player B gets 100% of the at bats vs. the LHP. Additionally, if Hanley is mashing, or at the very least performing better than a struggling Moreland he even then could get more at bats vs. RHP.

 

In my personal opinion, giving the recent track record and age I wouldn't bank on Hanley having back to back good seasons. So if by chance injury and/or his play allows his option to vest I think the Sox could move him. If he's not productive I think the Sox are not going to give him the playing time.

[Hugh2]

Still it would help us to clear the $22 million from our payroll. We may need cap space next year and he is the obvious choice for that.

 

I agree. Where I was going with this is that I don't think Hanley should or will have his option vest unless he plays very well and steals at bats away from Moreland. If that does happen, I'm speculating we can move that 22 million dollars.

[jacksonianmarch]

No, you cannot. You cannot move $22 mil for a no D hitter who isn't elite. JD is in his prime and is an elite hitter. Hanley, even at his best, is not an elite hitter. That contract will be an anchor for next yr

[OH FOY]

Put this another way, what if Hanley was a FA after this year, you think a team would sign him on a 1 year deal for 22 million? Especially after this Off-Season, and the FA's coming out next year? Even with a great season? I wouldn't.

[moonslav59]

Put this another way, what if Hanley was a FA after this year, you think a team would sign him on a 1 year deal for 22 million? Especially after this Off-Season, and the FA's coming out next year? Even with a great season? I wouldn't.

 

They would not sign him for even $11M after this year, even if he hits .280 30 100.

 

Look what Duda got. He's a good no field- decent hit player comp. (Actually, Duda has been more consistent with his bat-- when not hurt.)

[harmony]

FanGraphs columnist Jay Jaffe offers his take on Hanley Ramirez:

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-happy-healthy-hanley-ramirez/

[moonslav59]

HRam needs 497 PAs to vest, but perhaps more importantly he needs to pass a team physical to vest.

 

I do have high hopes the surgery will help. HRam is a hell of a hitter, when fully healthy, and apparently he's got himself into great shape (losing 15 pounds).

 

He'll get his chance to shine. He wants another big contract, so even if he doesn't vest, he needs to hit well in 496 PAs with us.

[FredLynn]

I agree. Where I was going with this is that I don't think Hanley should or will have his option vest unless he plays very well and steals at bats away from Moreland. If that does happen, I'm speculating we can move that 22 million dollars.

 

IMO under no circumstances should Hanley's option vest. Even if he has a good season-or a great season-no sane GM in baseball is going to take his contract off us thinking that he can repeat his production next year at his age. If I am DD I make certain that he is not with the team next year. That money can be put to much better use.

[moonslav59]

IMO under no circumstances should Hanley's option vest. Even if he has a good season-or a great season-no sane GM in baseball is going to take his contract off us thinking that he can repeat his production next year at his age. If I am DD I make certain that he is not with the team next year. That money can be put to much better use.

 

I totally agree.

 

I remember writing after the horrible 2015 season, that even if HRam hit .330 40 130 in 2016, I'd trade him. That position did not go over too well.

 

We should have traded him after his decent 2016 season. Now, we have to play Moreland to keep HRam's PAs low enough not to vest.

 

Pure insanity.

 

It could have been Duda for sure.

 

It should have been Moose. (or Morrison by dumping Holt, too.)

[cp176]

I totally agree.

 

I remember writing after the horrible 2015 season, that even if HRam hit .330 40 130 in 2016, I'd trade him. That position did not go over too well.

 

We should have traded him after his decent 2016 season. Now, we have to play Moreland to keep HRam's PAs low enough not to vest.

 

Pure insanity.

 

It could have been Duda for sure.

 

It should have been Moose. (or Morrison by dumping Holt, too.)

 

My opinion for what its worth is that vesting option be damned if the man has a throwback year and hits. I don't think that any of you are seeing things clearly if you think that making sure Hanley doesn't get the at necessary at bats is any kind of a priority for this team. Winning is the priority and if Hanley really hits, Hanley really plays.

[FredLynn]

My opinion for what its worth is that vesting option be damned if the man has a throwback year and hits. I don't think that any of you are seeing things clearly if you think that making sure Hanley doesn't get the at necessary at bats is any kind of a priority for this team. Winning is the priority and if Hanley really hits, Hanley really plays.

 

Winning IS the priority-winning this year AND next year. While Hanley may have a decent year this year-players playing for a contract often have better than usual years-no way in hell I want him and his bloated salary on my team next year. Spend the money on someone more likely to help the team in 2019 and beyond.

[Kimmi]

I beg to differ for multiple reasons.

 

1. This year's free agent market seems to have been an anomaly. Teams have been trying to reset, and save their money for next year.

 

2. Morrison has one good year on his record after an entire career of playing at replacement level.

 

3. Morrison was a free agent, I'm talking about trading a player.

 

If Hanley has a really good year, and there are a plethora of teams that have reset and have cash you might find a market for Hanley if there are a few teams who missed out on Machado, Donaldson, Harper, McCutchen + and that's just the hitters. If someone like Matt Harvey has a bounce back year the pitching market is stacked as well when Kershaw opts out.

 

I'm not saying we get a lot for Hanley, but you can easily shed his money next year. There will be a team that missed out and will hope Hanley can replicate his 2018 if it's a good year. They won't be locked down by years or losing draft picks either.

 

 

My point is, I think Hanley's play should dictate his playing time. I wouldn't be worried about that option vesting if he earns it he earns it.

 

That is the bottom line. If Hanley is hitting, he'll get the at bats. If he's not hitting he won't.

 

IMO, it would be a good thing if his option vests. That means he was hitting like the Hanley of old.

[Kimmi]

My opinion for what its worth is that vesting option be damned if the man has a throwback year and hits. I don't think that any of you are seeing things clearly if you think that making sure Hanley doesn't get the at necessary at bats is any kind of a priority for this team. Winning is the priority and if Hanley really hits, Hanley really plays.

 

!!!

[Hugh2]

IMO under no circumstances should Hanley's option vest. Even if he has a good season-or a great season-no sane GM in baseball is going to take his contract off us thinking that he can repeat his production next year at his age. If I am DD I make certain that he is not with the team next year. That money can be put to much better use.

 

If Hanley puts up a .285/.340/.480 season a team will pay him for one year. We're talking about one year in a market that I'm certain teams are going to be spending the money opposed to this year. Even if I'm being a bit optimistic I'm sure we could get a team to eat the majority of it.

 

I don't think this is a high certainty, but if that DOES happen, it's because he has a good season. If Hanley is having a good season alongside JDM in this lineup it might be worth it a thousand times over if the go to the WS.

 

But I agree, that money could be put to much better use in 2019. Which is exactly why I'd shed it.

[moonslav59]

My opinion for what its worth is that vesting option be damned if the man has a throwback year and hits. I don't think that any of you are seeing things clearly if you think that making sure Hanley doesn't get the at necessary at bats is any kind of a priority for this team. Winning is the priority and if Hanley really hits, Hanley really plays.

 

If he plays very well this season, he will likely suck next year.

 

I'm not saying we will bench him, if he's doing very well, since that depends on how well Moreland and Swihart are doing.

[cp176]

If he plays very well this season, he will likely suck next year.

 

I'm not saying we will bench him, if he's doing very well, since that depends on how well Moreland and Swihart are doing.

 

it might be likely but that really is a guess. you just don't know.

[cp176]

IMO under no circumstances should Hanley's option vest. Even if he has a good season-or a great season-no sane GM in baseball is going to take his contract off us thinking that he can repeat his production next year at his age. If I am DD I make certain that he is not with the team next year. That money can be put to much better use.

 

 

I think that you certainly get a lot of support here for that opinion. I just don't think that DD thinks that way. I hope he doesn't. It might come to that at some point for sure but I do agree with Kimmi on this one. If he hits like like he did many moons ago unlikely or not his option is going to vest and it might not be the worst thing that could happen for us.

[moonslav59]

it might be likely but that really is a guess. you just don't know.

 

Well, year 4 would be a contract year again, so he'll be trying hard.

 

I just don't think, no matter how well HRam does, he'll be worth $22M next winter.

[Bellhorn04]

it might be likely but that really is a guess. you just don't know.

 

Very true. And I think we should all stop obsessing about the option (although I know it'll be an ongoing topic).

 

What Cora said suggests the team is going to 'play it straight', that is, play Hanley as long as he's hitting and forget about the option - which is what you would hope a team with World Series aspirations would do.

[Bellhorn04]

So on another topic:

 

Does the Altuve extension (5/151) set any sort of benchmark for a Mookie extension?

[moonslav59]

So on another topic:

 

Does the Altuve extension (5/151) set any sort of benchmark for a Mookie extension?

 

It starts in 2020 and runs to his age 34 season.

 

Good deal for both sides.

 

I think Mookie would get something similar.

[Kimmi]

Well, year 4 would be a contract year again, so he'll be trying hard.

 

I just don't think, no matter how well HRam does, he'll be worth $22M next winter.

 

He may not be worth $22 mil next season, but if he's raking this year, it would be rather silly to sit him on the bench because of what he may or may not be worth next year. Especially if Moreland, who apparently has no business being on our team, if having a mediocre or worse season.

 

If Hanley is hitting, he'll get the at bats. If he's not, he won't. Even Hanley realizes this.

[Kimmi]

Very true. And I think we should all stop obsessing about the option (although I know it'll be an ongoing topic).

 

What Cora said suggests the team is going to 'play it straight', that is, play Hanley as long as he's hitting and forget about the option - which is what you would hope a team with World Series aspirations would do.

 

Well said.

[Bellhorn04]

Moreland should get most of his AB's against RH pitching. He can also come in for late inning defense.

[Kimmi]

It starts in 2020 and runs to his age 34 season.

 

Good deal for both sides.

 

I think Mookie would get something similar.

 

After this past offseason, I'm thinking (hoping) we will see more players signing extensions.

 

If Mookie signed a similar extension, that would be a 7 year extension for him @ $30 mil per year. Still too long, but better than the 10 year deal that would take him to his age 37 season that was being talked about.

[Kimmi]

Moreland should get most of his AB's against RH pitching. He can also come in for late inning defense.

 

When Moreland was first signed, that was the plan. Then Hanley's injury forced Moreland into most of the playing time at 1B.

 

As I said before, if Cora can platoon them like they were intended to be platooned, I think they could be a very productive duo.

[moonslav59]

After this past offseason, I'm thinking (hoping) we will see more players signing extensions.

 

If Mookie signed a similar extension, that would be a 7 year extension for him @ $30 mil per year. Still too long, but better than the 10 year deal that would take him to his age 37 season that was being talked about.

 

If HRam vests, kiss the extensions good bye or face the mega penalties associated with going over $40M.

 

Close the window a year or two earlier.

 

Yes, win now is great, but I thought you cared more about the future.

 

Keeping HRam means getting rid of Pom or Kimbrel (we probably lose one anyway- now it's both), or take the mega penalty and further hurt our chances at rebuilding after the window closes.

[notin]

Moreland should get most of his AB's against RH pitching. He can also come in for late inning defense.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Moreland's role was minimal at first and Hanley was given every opportunity to return to form.

 

I think Hanley's questionable stamina and health and ancillary to hurt himself will play a bigger role in this option than the alleged platoon. ..