The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[S5Dewey]

Now that Hanley is gone, I do forsee the sox trying to sneak Swihart into the OF mix. JBJ got a big vote of confidence not being sent down and with Hanley out of the picture, CF is his unless he continues to suck. The other option is to throw Swihart out in LF and move Beni to CF

 

Auhhh.. I dunno. The seem to have a big commitment to getting JDM into that outfield.

[jacksonianmarch]

Or Swihart into the DH spot.

[oldtimer]

Now that Hanley is gone, I do forsee the sox trying to sneak Swihart into the OF mix. JBJ got a big vote of confidence not being sent down and with Hanley out of the picture, CF is his unless he continues to suck. The other option is to throw Swihart out in LF and move Beni to CF

 

Has anyone read or heard any story about how the decision was made to release Hanley? Cora seemed to be in favor of keeping him and now he is gone. I wonder where the impetus came from. Was it DD who pushed this through? People are right to think there may be another part of this story, like an acquisition in the works. If Hanley is no longer on the roster, does a prorated amount of his contract become available for some acquisition?

 

As a minimum, this decision says to the team that you have to perform and no player is exempt from being let go.

[mvp 78]

From the Globe:

 

The Sox were prepared to let Ramirez stay in the lineup and let the option vest if his production warranted it. But after he went 0 for 4 with three strikeouts Thursday, he is now hitting .254/.313/.395 for the season, with a .708 OPS that ranks 30th among 44 first basemen with at least 100 plate appearances.

 

Yet while Cora continued to pen Ramirez into the lineup, the production cratered this month. Starting with an 0-for-6 game May 1 and continuing through the 0-for-4 night Thursday that extended his hitless stretch to five games (0 for 20), Ramirez struggled to a .163/.200/.300 line this month while seeing his ground-ball rate soar (59 percent of balls in play in May).

 

The poor numbers aren’t isolated. They represent a step down from his 2017 struggles (.242/.320/.429), and likewise hearken to his 2015 season (.249/.291/.426). Over a two-season period beginning last year, Ramirez ranks in the bottom five among big league first basemen in Wins Above Replacement as calculated by Fangraphs.

 

In contrast to Jackie Bradley Jr., another Red Sox player who has been in a tailspin this month but whose glove has kept him in the lineup, Ramirez offered negative defensive value at first base relative to former Gold Glover Mitch Moreland.

 

Yet the Sox were willing to take that risk rather than part with another player from the big league roster — whether by trading Blake Swihart, optioning Bradley or Brock Holt to Triple A, or placing Eduardo Nunez on the disabled list — for a few reasons.

 

First, Ramirez is limited to first base and designated hitter. Whereas Swihart (catcher, first, third, left), Holt (every position except catcher), and Nunez (third, short, second) all give the Red Sox depth options at a number of positions, Ramirez plays only a position where Moreland looks like the superior two-way option.

 

Swihart has theoretical upside that the Sox have been unable to explore, in part because he has been behind multiple players at every position he can play. The departure of Ramirez might open more playing time for Swihart at first, and it should maximize the roster flexibility.

 

Moreover, had the Sox parted with Swihart, they would have left themselves in a vulnerable position with their catching depth should either Sandy Leon or Christian Vazquez suffer an injury.

 

Furthermore, an unknown loomed about how Ramirez might respond if reduced to a part-time role that would jeopardize next season’s earnings. He repeatedly said that he wasn’t concerned about the $22 million vesting option, and that his sole focus was the team’s performance, but in designating him, the Red Sox won’t have to test that proposition.

[cp176]

From the Globe:

 

The Sox were prepared to let Ramirez stay in the lineup and let the option vest if his production warranted it. But after he went 0 for 4 with three strikeouts Thursday, he is now hitting .254/.313/.395 for the season, with a .708 OPS that ranks 30th among 44 first basemen with at least 100 plate appearances.

 

Yet while Cora continued to pen Ramirez into the lineup, the production cratered this month. Starting with an 0-for-6 game May 1 and continuing through the 0-for-4 night Thursday that extended his hitless stretch to five games (0 for 20), Ramirez struggled to a .163/.200/.300 line this month while seeing his ground-ball rate soar (59 percent of balls in play in May).

 

The poor numbers aren’t isolated. They represent a step down from his 2017 struggles (.242/.320/.429), and likewise hearken to his 2015 season (.249/.291/.426). Over a two-season period beginning last year, Ramirez ranks in the bottom five among big league first basemen in Wins Above Replacement as calculated by Fangraphs.

 

In contrast to Jackie Bradley Jr., another Red Sox player who has been in a tailspin this month but whose glove has kept him in the lineup, Ramirez offered negative defensive value at first base relative to former Gold Glover Mitch Moreland.

 

Yet the Sox were willing to take that risk rather than part with another player from the big league roster — whether by trading Blake Swihart, optioning Bradley or Brock Holt to Triple A, or placing Eduardo Nunez on the disabled list — for a few reasons.

 

First, Ramirez is limited to first base and designated hitter. Whereas Swihart (catcher, first, third, left), Holt (every position except catcher), and Nunez (third, short, second) all give the Red Sox depth options at a number of positions, Ramirez plays only a position where Moreland looks like the superior two-way option.

 

Swihart has theoretical upside that the Sox have been unable to explore, in part because he has been behind multiple players at every position he can play. The departure of Ramirez might open more playing time for Swihart at first, and it should maximize the roster flexibility.

 

Moreover, had the Sox parted with Swihart, they would have left themselves in a vulnerable position with their catching depth should either Sandy Leon or Christian Vazquez suffer an injury.

 

Furthermore, an unknown loomed about how Ramirez might respond if reduced to a part-time role that would jeopardize next season’s earnings. He repeatedly said that he wasn’t concerned about the $22 million vesting option, and that his sole focus was the team’s performance, but in designating him, the Red Sox won’t have to test that proposition.

 

I think that that last paragraph voiced a legit concern. Take a chance on him being able to accept going to the bench or just release him. Looks like the best move for all was made. Cora didn't need to have to deal with a potential problem of that size during his first year.

[mvp 78]

I think that that last paragraph voiced a legit concern. Take a chance on him being able to accept going to the bench or just release him. Looks like the best move for all was made. Cora didn't need to have to deal with a potential problem of that size during his first year.

 

Definitely showed that DD has Cora's back and was going to help him not have to deal with that sticky situation.

[Spudboy]

Definitely showed that DD has Cora's back and was going to help him not have to deal with that sticky situation.

 

Above all this was a sound business move.

 

Toss away and sentimentality. This needed to be done for the good of the team going forward. And seriously, most other teams would have done the same.

[mvp 78]

Above all this was a sound business move.

 

Toss away and sentimentality. This needed to be done for the good of the team going forward. And seriously, most other teams would have done the same.

 

The worst GM is a sentimental GM. I can't see Ben making the move that DD did today.

[SoxHop]

The worst GM is a sentimental GM. I can't see Ben making the move that DD did today.

 

I can't either.

[illinoisredsox]

The worst GM is a sentimental GM. I can't see Ben making the move that DD did today.

 

I can't either.

 

As somebody penned somewhere in another thread, Ben was a great Director of Player Personnel; he was a less than stellar GM.

[Spudboy]

I can't either.

 

I agree as well.

[notin]

The worst GM is a sentimental GM. I can't see Ben making the move that DD did today.

 

Very few GMs DFA the long term deals they sign. Dombrowski left Detroit with a few questionable ones that he didn't terminate either.

 

It's just that much easier to clean up someone else's mistakes...

[Bellhorn04]

The worst GM is a sentimental GM. I can't see Ben making the move that DD did today.

 

I'm not sure I see the grounds for Ben being classed as sentimental. He presided over cutting loose World Series heroes in Lester and Lackey.

[Bellhorn04]

Very few GMs DFA the long term deals they sign. Dombrowski left Detroit with a few questionable ones that he didn't terminate either.

 

Who do you mean?

[mvp 78]

I'm not sure I see the grounds for Ben being classed as sentimental. He presided over cutting loose World Series heroes in Lester and Lackey.

 

I didn’t mean to infer it. They were two separate strands of thought.

[Jack Flap]

Has anyone read or heard any story about how the decision was made to release Hanley? Cora seemed to be in favor of keeping him and now he is gone. I wonder where the impetus came from. Was it DD who pushed this through? People are right to think there may be another part of this story, like an acquisition in the works. If Hanley is no longer on the roster, does a prorated amount of his contract become available for some acquisition?

 

As a minimum, this decision says to the team that you have to perform and no player is exempt from being let go.

 

Apparently, it's Cora who suggested the move:

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/...ox-rumors.html

 

...which makes me feel even better about the whole situation, to be honest. Although Hanley had given no public indication that the vesting option was going to be an issue for him, Cora apparently felt his role was going to have to be reduced and he probably wasn't going to take it well, which is something I think we have to weigh pretty heavily in all of this. Maybe Hanley would have caught fire again at some point...maybe not. But it seems pretty clear to me that the Sox felt like they were going to have to make this call at some point and wanted to avoid any messy drama -- so why not pull the trigger now?

[Kimmi]

Or Swihart into the DH spot.

 

Now that Hanley's gone, Cora is open to the idea of giving Swihart some playing time behind the plate.

 

Good logic there, Cora.

[Jasonbay44]

Now that Hanley's gone, Cora is open to the idea of giving Swihart some playing time behind the plate.

 

Good logic there, Cora.

 

Did he actually say that? What the hell? Lol

[mvp 78]

Did he actually say that? What the hell? Lol

 

Per DD, Cora lobbied for Hanley to be DFA’d.

[devildavid]

Per DD, Cora lobbied for Hanley to be DFA’d.

 

Good for Cora. He's on the ball.

[Slasher9]

So Cora is the GM now?

DD should give him his paycheck this week....

[Kimmi]

Did he actually say that? What the hell? Lol

 

Yes, he did.

[notin]

Per DD, Cora lobbied for Hanley to be DFA’d.

 

Per notin, no he didn't.

 

According to Dombrowski, Cora went from batting Hanley third in the order (and occasionally second in the order,) to wanting him off the team? No dropping in the batting order? No benching more often? Nope - #3 hitter out to out the door.

 

That's a pretty drastic change.

 

Hanley was DFA's because his overall contract has been a failure and one hot month didn't change that. And because his option needed to be avoided. I get why DD can't admit the latter part, but the story he's telling makes Cora look like an absolute idiot. "Cut my number three hitter!!". I don't think it was necessarily even the wrong move, but I don't buy the story from Dombrowski.

[notin]

So Cora is the GM now?

DD should give him his paycheck this week....

 

Well, technically the Sox don't have a GM. So it's nice to see someone stepping in...

[Bellhorn04]

Per notin, no he didn't.

 

According to Dombrowski, Cora went from batting Hanley third in the order (and occasionally second in the order,) to wanting him off the team? No dropping in the batting order? No benching more often? Nope - #3 hitter out to out the door.

 

That's a pretty drastic change.

 

Hanley was DFA's because his overall contract has been a failure and one hot month didn't change that. And because his option needed to be avoided. I get why DD can't admit the latter part, but the story he's telling makes Cora look like an absolute idiot. "Cut my number three hitter!!". I don't think it was necessarily even the wrong move, but I don't buy the story from Dombrowski.

 

Honestly though, what does it matter if the story we're getting is the truth or not. Personally I couldn't care less. And as time goes on I don't think anyone else will either.

[devildavid]

So Cora is the GM now?

DD should give him his paycheck this week....

 

A manager can make suggestions to the FO. I think it is smart to take good advice from anyone in the organization. This idea that we need to assign blame/credit to one person is not realistic. What would have happened to Red Sox history if Pedro Martinez hadn't lobbied for a particular player whose talents were being overlooked elsewhere?

[notin]

Honestly though, what does it matter if the story we're getting is the truth or not. Personally I couldn't care less. And as time goes on I don't think anyone else will either.

 

Well, if Cora did do that, then I have to question his managerial acumen. Why was he batting the player he determined to be expendable in the 2 and 3 spot in the order?

 

The only way this makes sense is if DD really worked with whateve Alex said.

 

DD: Stop playing Hanley so much. He's slumping now and going to get real expensive. Play him less.

Alex: He's had a few bad games in a row, but he's been a big part of the team and I'm not so sure he'd be the same as a part time player.

DD:Not sure he'd be the same as a part time player? (Light bulb over his head) So he won't pan out playing part time? That's exactly what I need. Thanks, Alex!!

[Bellhorn04]

Well, if Cora did do that, then I have to question his managerial acumen. Why was he batting the player he determined to be expendable in the 2 and 3 spot in the order?

 

The only way this makes sense is if DD really worked with whateve Alex said.

 

DD: Stop playing Hanley so much. He's slumping now and going to get real expensive. Play him less.

Alex: He's had a few bad games in a row, but he's been a big part of the team and I'm not so sure he'd be the same as a part time player.

DD:Not sure he'd be the same as a part time player? (Light bulb over his head) So he won't pan out playing part time? That's exactly what I need. Thanks, Alex!!

 

Alex's managing seems just fine. 36-16 works for me.

 

I think the story is probably at least partially BS, but it doesn't affect my opinion of Cora at all.

 

It was a stupid damn vesting option in a stupid contract inherited from previous management that put everyone in a stupid situation.

[notin]

Alex's managing seems just fine. 36-16 works for me.

 

I think the story is probably at least partially BS, but it doesn't affect my opinion of Cora at all.

 

It was a stupid damn vesting option in a stupid contract inherited from previous management that put everyone in a stupid situation.

 

It doesn't affect my opinion of Cora because I really Don't believe it.

 

There been rumblings about Dombrowski and even people above Dombrowski wanting Hanley gone since the day DD first came to Lansdowne Street. So now the story is Cora finally pulled the trigger?

[Bellhorn04]

It doesn't affect my opinion of Cora because I really Don't believe it.

 

There been rumblings about Dombrowski and even people above Dombrowski wanting Hanley gone since the day DD girly came to Lansdowne Street. So now the story is Cora finally pulled the trigger?

 

Do you really find DD girly?

 

I don't doubt at all that DD wanted Hanley's vesting option gone.

 

I suspect there was a LOT of discussion before this season about exactly how they were going to handle this, including what they were going to say if they DFA'd Hanley.

 

I suspect this story was partially to allay concerns about the Players Union objecting.

 

And it's pretty clearly 100% BS that the option had nothing to do with the decision.

 

But I really don't expect to get the actual truth from management a lot of the time. Because they have to play the PR game, it's part of the deal.