Hanley DFA’d

[moonslav59]

Reading this makes me appreciate Dave Dombrowski more.

 

I remember this specific offseason. Cherrington also screwed up with the starting staff--he went into the season with a weak starting staff. I remember being troubled by that more than the Sandoval and Hanley signings.

 

I looked at that off-season as part of a two season rebuilding effort: offense in 2015 and pitching in 2016. The starting pitcher class for 2016 was stacked.

 

I hated the Pablo signing and was okay with the HRam signing, but both ended up doing much worse than even I expected. Much, much worse.

 

Our record on big FA signings has been close to horrible. Even the Manny signing that was a great one, ended badly. JD is off to a very nice start.

 

Here's an incomplete list:

 

JD Martinez

Price

HRam

Pablo

Lackey

Crawford

JD Drew

DiceK

Renteria

Manny

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

The Red Sox gave Hanley every opportunity to produce and earn that option. He failed to hit and his hot April was mostly a mirage (inflated BABIP). Pedroia was returning, they had to make a move, and Hanley is about as useless as a player can be. And so the Red Sox dumped their weakest position player to make room for Pedroia. Made sense.

 

I'd bet HRam would outhit Swihart for the remainder of 2018, but Swihart can play more positions, is cheaper and has a chance for a future with the Sox, small though it may be.

[OH FOY]

You'll get your chance, if a team picks Hanley at Vet Minimum, we'll compare. Also see which player helps a team more. Wouldn't it be about same price?

Forget the Sox salary that's automatic, for Hanley. They are about on same page now in pay.

Edited May 27, 2018 by OH FOY!

[jad]

Steve Adams writes...

 

 

As with any player who has been designated for assignment, the Red Sox will have a week to trade Ramirez, place him on outright waivers or release him. Given the remaining $15.17MM on this year’s $22MM salary and that easily attainable vesting option, it’s all but certain that Ramirez will be released rather than sent elsewhere. At that point, he’d be free to sign a new contract with a new club that would only owe him the pro-rated league minimum and wouldn’t need to worry about the vesting provision in his prior agreement in Boston.

 

Right. But the sticky issue that is being reported variously is not whether the new team contract has that vesting option (we all agree it doesn't, since the contract is whatever Hanley and the new team agree to), but whether the RS are still responsible for it, just as they are responsible for the difference between what the new team offers and what the RS are already committed to pay in terms of salary. It sounds to me as if that may well be a grey area not specifically addressed in the contract.

 

The problem that the Union might have is that if incentives disappear, teams would be encouraged to draw up contracts 'back-loaded' w/ incentives, and then could just release players who are performing at, say, a mediocre level that is just enough to reach those levels. I would think if there is a problem here, the next CBA will deal with it.

Edited May 27, 2018 by jad

[notin]

Right. But the sticky issue that is being reported variously is not whether the new team contract has that vesting option (we all agree it doesn't, since the contract is whatever Hanley and the new team agree to), but whether the RS are still responsible for it, just as they are responsible for the difference between what the new team offers and what the RS are already committed to pay in terms of salary. It sounds to me as if that may well be a grey area not specifically addressed in the contract.

 

The problem that the Union might have is that if incentives disappear, teams would be encouraged to draw up contracts 'back-loaded' w/ incentives, and then could just release players who are performing at, say, a mediocre level that is just enough to reach those levels. I would think if there is a problem here, the next CBA will deal with it.

 

Someone still has to sign it.

 

I don't think the Union ever liked incentive clauses anyway. They'd prefer guaranteed money. There is a reason incentives are only tied to participation-based stats (plate appearances, innings pitched, etc.) instead of performance-based stats...

[Thunder]

So, I haven't been around the last few days, so I didn't yet give my initial reaction to the Hanley DFA. I was sitting at work when an alert popped up on my phone. My mind was absolutely blown. But, as soon as I read all the stuff about the contract, it made perfect sense to me. I love Hanley, but this is a business. I'm a business major, so I know how personal feelings must be thrown aside. What I'll miss most are the no doubters he hit, and all of Fenway singing along to his walk up song, which was "Take On Me" by a-ha.

[Bellhorn04]

So, I haven't been around the last few days, so I didn't yet give my initial reaction to the Hanley DFA. I was sitting at work when an alert popped up on my phone. My mind was absolutely blown. But, as soon as I read all the stuff about the contract, it made perfect sense to me. I love Hanley, but this is a business. I'm a business major, so I know how personal feelings must be thrown aside. What I'll miss most are the no doubters he hit, and all of Fenway singing along to his walk up song, which was "Take On Me" by a-ha.

 

Well said.

[a700hitter]

Right. But the sticky issue that is being reported variously is not whether the new team contract has that vesting option (we all agree it doesn't, since the contract is whatever Hanley and the new team agree to), but whether the RS are still responsible for it, just as they are responsible for the difference between what the new team offers and what the RS are already committed to pay in terms of salary. It sounds to me as if that may well be a grey area not specifically addressed in the contract.

 

The problem that the Union might have is that if incentives disappear, teams would be encouraged to draw up contracts 'back-loaded' w/ incentives, and then could just release players who are performing at, say, a mediocre level that is just enough to reach those levels. I would think if there is a problem here, the next CBA will deal with it.

There are certain performance incentives that are not permitted in the CBA, but this doesn't sound like an area that is grey based on the reporting.

[Bellhorn04]

There are certain performance incentives that are not permitted in the CBA, but this doesn't sound like an area that is grey based on the reporting.

 

I don't see how it can be a gray area at this point in time. There have been plenty of vesting options in MLB contracts.

[a700hitter]

I don't see how it can be a gray area at this point in time. There have been plenty of vesting options in MLB contracts.

It isn't, and Dave would not have released him if another team could invoke the option.

[Spudboy]

I don't clam to be an expert on all the contract stuff.

 

But it sure seems obvious that DD and the Sox got rid of Hanley for the best of reasons. They did not want to pay him the balance of his contract.

 

In particular the $22. mil vesting option for 2019. The ******** DD and Cora dealt out was just cover for the real reason.

 

To believe otherwise is being naive.

[Spudboy]

It isn't, and Dave would not have released him if another team could invoke the option.

 

This would seem to be obvious.

[jad]

It isn't, and Dave would not have released him if another team could invoke the option.

 

I agree that this seems reasonable. But I can't find anything in what I see in the CBA that addresses it. The one passage I found that deals with something similar (on qualified free agents) seems to lump incentives in with the basic salary: Art. XX.B.4.b:

 

For purposes of the previous

sentence, the “total guarantee” of a contract signed by a Qualified

Free Agent shall include the following: (a) total salary in any guaranteed

contract years (including any Player option years); ( any

signing bonus (regardless of when paid); © any buyout associated

with the first Club or mutual option year; and (d) any performance,

roster, or award bonuses, escalators, or vesting options, but only to

the extent the Player would have earned those bonuses, escalators,

or vesting options based on his performance in any prior season of

his career.

 

We all seem to be assuming that different language applies in the present case. Does anyone know where in the CBA that language is? (Not arguing, by the way; I'm genuinely curious where this gets addressed, and why DD and Cora think it's not a problem.)

[Bellhorn04]

I agree that this seems reasonable. But I can't find anything in what I see in the CBA that addresses it. The one passage I found that deals with something similar (on qualified free agents) seems to lump incentives in with the basic salary: Art. XX.B.4.b:

 

For purposes of the previous

sentence, the “total guarantee” of a contract signed by a Qualified

Free Agent shall include the following: (a) total salary in any guaranteed

contract years (including any Player option years); ( any

signing bonus (regardless of when paid); © any buyout associated

with the first Club or mutual option year; and (d) any performance,

roster, or award bonuses, escalators, or vesting options, but only to

the extent the Player would have earned those bonuses, escalators,

or vesting options based on his performance in any prior season of

his career.

 

We all seem to be assuming that different language applies in the present case. Does anyone know where in the CBA that language is? (Not arguing, by the way; I'm genuinely curious where this gets addressed, and why DD and Cora think it's not a problem.)

 

It's not easy to find out anything definitive about this, you're quite right about that.

 

All I can figure is this:

 

1) A vesting option is not part of the standard contract as seen in the CBA - it's a 'special covenant'. So we can't see what the language actually is.

 

2) A vesting option is a 'Club Option', not a 'Player Option' even though it is automatically triggered by the games played. I think this may be a critical part of why it dies with the contract.

[a700hitter]

I agree that this seems reasonable. But I can't find anything in what I see in the CBA that addresses it. The one passage I found that deals with something similar (on qualified free agents) seems to lump incentives in with the basic salary: Art. XX.B.4.b:

 

For purposes of the previous

sentence, the “total guarantee” of a contract signed by a Qualified

Free Agent shall include the following: (a) total salary in any guaranteed

contract years (including any Player option years); ( any

signing bonus (regardless of when paid); © any buyout associated

with the first Club or mutual option year; and (d) any performance,

roster, or award bonuses, escalators, or vesting options, but only to

the extent the Player would have earned those bonuses, escalators,

or vesting options based on his performance in any prior season of

his career.

 

We all seem to be assuming that different language applies in the present case. Does anyone know where in the CBA that language is? (Not arguing, by the way; I'm genuinely curious where this gets addressed, and why DD and Cora think it's not a problem.)

I used to get paid quite a rich salary for researching such things. I no longer do such research unless it affects me directly. I'll leave this to the paid attorneys for Hanley and the Red Sox. It seems that the Red Sox think they are off the hook for the option.

[harmony]

I don't pretend to know the rules as well as Dave Dombrowski and his advisers.

 

Perhaps a black-and-white answer in found in the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez.

 

Alternatively, it's a gray area and Dombrowski, upon legal advice, decided to push the envelope.

 

For all I know Ramirez could be fine with a voided vesting option.

 

I'm interested in how the move is viewed by the union and by Red Sox players, current and prospective.

[a700hitter]

I don't pretend to know the rules as well as Dave Dombrowski and his advisers.

 

Perhaps a black-and-white answer in found in the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez.

 

Alternatively, it's a gray area and Dombrowski, upon legal advice, decided to push the envelope.

 

For all I know Ramirez could be fine with a voided vesting option.

 

I'm interested in how the move is viewed by the union and by Red Sox players, current and prospective.

I don’t think current or past players give a hoot about Hanley’s situation. With regard to the union, if they think their is a grievance, I am sure that they will notify Hanley. I don’t think they are going to give a public statement about it.

[harmony]

I don’t think current or past players give a hoot about Hanley’s situation. With regard to the union, if they think their is a grievance, I am sure that they will notify Hanley. I don’t think they are going to give a public statement about it.

Players may or may not care about Hanley Ramirez personally, but could be interested that the Red Sox effectively voided a player's negotiated benefit of value. Employees sometimes care about the treatment of a co-worker regardless of whether the co-worker is well-liked.

[jad]

I used to get paid quite a rich salary for researching such things. I no longer do such research unless it affects me directly. I'll leave this to the paid attorneys for Hanley and the Red Sox. It seems that the Red Sox think they are off the hook for the option.

 

Ha! But then, look at the time we spend here devoted to topics that do not matter in the least!--that's the joy of sports.

[Dalas21000]

So Cora's gonna keep JBJ hitting .175, and send down HanRam?

[Dalas21000]

So Cora's gonna keep JBJ hitting .175, and send down HanRam?

 

Its ok though because we got Swihart hitting .139 and JBJ at .181

[Dalas21000]

I don't pretend to know the rules as well as Dave Dombrowski and his advisers.

 

Perhaps a black-and-white answer in found in the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez.

 

Alternatively, it's a gray area and Dombrowski, upon legal advice, decided to push the envelope.

 

For all I know Ramirez could be fine with a voided vesting option.

 

I'm interested in how the move is viewed by the union and by Red Sox players, current and prospective.

 

Considering that Cora kept Swihart at .139 and JBJ at .181 and dumped HanRam I'd be pretty pissed

[Dalas21000]

Considering that Cora kept Swihart at .139 and JBJ at .181 and dumped HanRam I'd be pretty pissed

 

JBJ was at .175 before today

[Bellhorn04]

I don't pretend to know the rules as well as Dave Dombrowski and his advisers.

 

Perhaps a black-and-white answer in found in the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez.

 

Alternatively, it's a gray area and Dombrowski, upon legal advice, decided to push the envelope.

 

Do you really think columnists like Speier and Drellich would be reporting in no uncertain terms that the Red Sox are off the hook for the option if they didn't have some solid information on it?

 

Do you really think if this was a 'gray area' someone wouldn't have picked up on that fact?

[harmony]

Do you really think columnists like Speier and Drellich would be reporting in no uncertain terms that the Red Sox are off the hook for the option if they didn't have some solid information on it?

 

Do you really think if this was a 'gray area' someone wouldn't have picked up on that fact?

The question goes beyond whether the Red Sox are off the hook. The question is whether the vesting option dissipates into thin air.

 

I don't consider media reports as conclusive evidence, especially if the reports cite no authority.

 

Speier and Drellich could be correct ... or not.

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/05/25/red-sox-part-ways-with-hanley-ramirez/V8PHkHq10EEMLEATQKCeQK/story.html

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/drellich-dombrowski-didnt-cora-buffer-180135017.html

 

https://sports.yahoo.com/drellich-saying-goodbye-hanley-gamble-185817251.html

Edited May 27, 2018 by harmony

[Bellhorn04]

The question goes beyond whether the Red Sox are off the hook. The question is whether the vesting option dissipates into thin air.

 

There is no confusion at all in the reports on this. If some other team makes a deal for Hanley within the week, the option passes to them. If not, another team can sign him to a new contract, but the option is non-existent because it's part of the terminated contract.

 

Do you want to e-mail Speier or do you want me to? He's pretty good on answering them in my experience.

[harmony]

There is no confusion at all in the reports on this. If some other team makes a deal for Hanley within the week, the option passes to them. If not, another team can sign him to a new contract, but the option is non-existent because it's part of the terminated contract.

 

Do you want to e-mail Speier or do you want me to? He's pretty good on answering them in my experience.

The terminated contract's 2018 salary obligation of $22 million does not become "non-existent." Why is the vesting option treated differently?

 

Feel free to contact Alex Speier (for whom I have great respect).

 

If a team signs Hanley Ramirez immediately upon his release, I'll be convinced that the vesting option is void. But I'll remain suspicious if Ramirez goes unsigned for a month or two.

[moonslav59]

The terminated contract's 2018 salary obligation of $22 million does not become "non-existent." Why is the vesting option treated differently?

 

Feel free to contact Alex Speier (for whom I have great respect).

 

If a team signs Hanley Ramirez immediately upon his release, I'll be convinced that the vesting option is void. But I'll remain suspicious if Ramirez goes unsigned for a month or two.

 

If he goes unsigned for a month or two, he won't be meeting the PA number needed to vest anyways.

[moonslav59]

Do you really think columnists like Speier and Drellich would be reporting in no uncertain terms that the Red Sox are off the hook for the option if they didn't have some solid information on it?

 

Do you really think if this was a 'gray area' someone wouldn't have picked up on that fact?

 

The best evidence is that the Sox DFA'd him,

 

They would not have done it, if they still had to pay the vest.

[Natick to NC]

The best evidence is that the Sox DFA'd him,

 

They would not have done it, if they still had to pay the vest.

 

This post by Moon is kindof the equivalent of a walkoff granny ...shut this crap subject down now please.