Hanley DFA’d

[Spudboy]

I don't understand why all of this is being discussed at such length.

 

The Sox took advantage of a fortunate coincidence with Hanley's slump and Pedroia's return happening at the same time and unloaded a player who was drastically under performing to his bloated contract.

 

What they did was solid business. Regardless of what anyone here says, the Sox will be off the hook for $37.+ mil as long as they can release him.

 

I do think that the way they explained why they DFA'd him was pretty stupid. Both DD and Cora look like idiots for trying to sell their rationale.

 

Whatever.

[harmony]

Not sure why everyone is so exercised about this. The phrase in the CBA regarding these situations is "on pace", and in a comparable case defines that not as whether a released player actually attains those levels w/ another team, but rather whether he was 'on pace' to achieve them with the original team (in terms of numbers--games played/ABs, Hanley certainly was). I don't think the Union defines a player's performance by how his home town fans feel about it, which is in almost all cases "HE SUCKS!"

 

But we'll see. I hope there is a grievance, because that will be entertaining, and sports, finally is all about entertainment.

I would find a grievance more interesting than entertaining.

 

A definitive answer may be found in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez.

 

Or not.

[harmony]

Baseball is hard enough that the players have to devote almost all of the energies into being able to hit the ball or get hitters out. Most don't even know the details of their own contracts, so I don't think they are concerned about Hanley's contract.

That's when the players association step in.

[Bellhorn04]

A definitive answer may be found in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez.

 

Or not.

 

There really doesn't appear to be one in the CBA.

[jacksonianmarch]

I would find a grievance more interesting than entertaining.

 

A definitive answer may be found in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez.

 

Or not.

 

DD timed it perfectly. Hanley wasn't producing and was given ample opportunity. His positional value fell far short of the contract. Other options were more appealing than a no position DH who wasn't hitting. He fell far enough short of the option to avoid speculation. I think this is a moot point for the sox. They wont have to worry about a hearing

[OH FOY]

If he got 496 at bats and cut him, would he have to be paid by the Sox, for next year? Legally? Seen Companies with vesting after 5 years for Pension, Lay-off Workers, after 4 years and 10 Months, and Union couldn't help them. These are the people I worry about. Edited May 28, 2018 by OH FOY!

[Bellhorn04]

If he got 496 at bats and cut him, would he have to be paid by the Sox, for next year? Legally?

 

If he got 496, they would likely lose a grievance, huh?

[OH FOY]

What's the wording in the grievance?

[Bellhorn04]

What's the wording in the grievance?

 

Hey, we're already having enough trouble finding anything definitive about the Sox being 'off the hook' as it is LOL

[OH FOY]

Lol!

[moonslav59]

Won't someone who loves Hanley please just humor me and tell me how the "sample size" was just too small at this point in the season to dump him. My God - it's only the first of June. lol

 

The sample size was 3.3 years.

 

He sucked for about 2.3 of them. (3 negative WAR years and one 3.0 WAR year)

 

Stat w LAD w BOS

BA .299 .260

OBP .368 .326

SLG .506 .450

OPS .874 .776

OPS+ 144 102

 

We got the guy to hit, and an OPS+ of 102 was not any where near what we expected. DFA'ing a player who comes up that short is certainly a reasonable thing to do.

 

 

[cp176]

The sample size was 3.3 years.

 

He sucked for about 2.3 of them. (3 negative WAR years and one 3.0 WAR year)

 

Stat w LAD w BOS

BA .299 .260

OBP .368 .326

SLG .506 .450

OPS .874 .776

OPS+ 144 102

 

We got the guy to hit, and an OPS+ of 102 was not any where near what we expected. DFA'ing a player who comes up that short is certainly a reasonable thing to do.

 

 

 

I'll admit that my memory is a little shaky but I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that Hanley's recent shoulder surgeries were going to allow him to play like he did 7 or 8 years ago. Some would make the arguement that a healed Hanley just didn't have enough time to strut his stuff. Not me! Oh well though I also don't think that 2 months of playing regularly is a particular small sample size either. I'm pretty much in the minority here don't you think. I don't even like the expression sample size. My point I guess that I was trying to make is that you can't change the individual sample size rules just to suit the way you want to look at things.

[harmony]

If he got 496 at bats and cut him, would he have to be paid by the Sox, for next year? Legally? Seen Companies with vesting after 5 years for Pension, Lay-off Workers, after 4 years and 10 Months, and Union couldn't help them. These are the people I worry about.

I suspect those workers did not have a guaranteed five-year contract.

 

Hanley Ramirez was guaranteed four years. The Red Sox will pay Ramirez for those four years but have effectively denied him the opportunity for the fifth-year option to vest.

[harmony]

I don't understand why all of this is being discussed at such length.

 

What they did was solid business. Regardless of what anyone here says, the Sox will be off the hook for $37.+ mil as long as they can release him.

 

Whatever.

Perhaps you don’t understand that the Red Sox are on the hook for the roughly $15 million balance on the 2018 salary for Hanley Ramirez (less the prorated league minimum if Ramirez is released and signs with another club).

Edited May 28, 2018 by harmony

[moonslav59]

Perhaps you don’t understand that the Red Sox are on the hook for the roughly $15 million balance on the 2018 salary for Hanley Ramirez (less the prorated league minimum if Ramirez is released and signs with another club).

 

You are assuming he'll end up signing for the minimum. My guess is, he signs for $1.5-3M with someone.

[Bellhorn04]

I suspect those workers did not have a guaranteed five-year contract.

 

Hanley Ramirez was guaranteed four years. The Red Sox will pay Ramirez for those four years but have effectively denied him the opportunity for the fifth-year option to vest.

 

Um, is there something in a player's contract that guarantees they will play X number of games no matter badly they are performing?

 

Is there a guarantee they won't be released before the contract term is up? If so, Pablo Sandoval should have been howling!!!

[jacksonianmarch]

He isn’t signing for more than the league minimum

[harmony]

Um, is there something in a player's contract that guarantees they will play X number of games no matter badly they are performing?

 

Is there a guarantee they won't be released before the contract term is up? If so, Pablo Sandoval should have been howling!!!

Of course Hanley Ramirez could be released but the player, as Pablo Sandoval can attest, can still claim the agreed-upon benefits under the contract.

 

One could argue the intent of the vesting option as Ramirez signed with the Red Sox coming off two injury-shortened seasons:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ramirha01.shtml

 

Over the Monster posted this column only 31 days before the Red Sox designated Ramirez for assignment:

 

https://www.overthemonster.com/2018/4/24/17274604/hanley-ramirez-cleans-away-the-doubts-ken-rosenthal-pablo-sandoval-tripe

 

The vesting option was a topic of discussion last offseason:

 

https://www.overthemonster.com/2017/11/8/16621420/hanley-ramirez-vesting-option-red-sox-lineup

 

https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-sox/2017/12/19/hanley-ramirez-contract-trade-rumors

[harmony]

He isn’t signing for more than the league minimum

Because Hanley Ramirez will get his $22 million this year regardless.

[illinoisredsox]

You are assuming he'll end up signing for the minimum. My guess is, he signs for $1.5-3M with someone.

 

Hamley is guaranteed $22M for the year; per the CBA, he cannot get 1 penny more. The Red Sox owe him roughly $15M for the rest of this season. If I'm another team, why would I pay him $1.5M (meaning the Sox would pay $13.5M) rather than the prorated minimum (~$367K right now) and let the Sox pay $14.6M. I get his services either way.

[jacksonianmarch]

Because Hanley Ramirez will get his $22 million this year regardless.

 

Exactly. And if the Giants, for example, pay him $4 mil, then the Sox are only on the hook for $18 mil.

[Bellhorn04]

One could argue the intent of the vesting option as Ramirez signed with the Red Sox coming off two injury-shortened seasons

 

No doubt that the vesting option had a lot to do with injury concerns.

 

What wasn't foreseen was Hanley's precipitous decline in productivity to a negligible WAR over 3.33 years.

 

It could EASILY be argued and supported by data that Hanley failed to earn the option because of his poor productivity (which may still be impacted by some lingering injury issues-who knows).

[Bellhorn04]

The vesting option is clearly a non-guaranteed, contingent benefit.

[oldtimer]

The vesting option is clearly a non-guaranteed, contingent benefit.

 

I asked this question before, but perhaps I was not clear and will ask it again. Does the remaining amount of money owed to Hanley count against the luxury tax limit? Certainly we DFAed him as we DFAed Pablo. I don't think Pablo's contract counts against the luxury tax limit so why should the remainder of Hanley's. Obviously we still have to pay both contracts so it is money out of the Red Sox budget but I see the two as having one significant difference.

 

If it doesn't count against the luxury tax limit, then the Red Sox would pick up another $15 million in cap space. I assume John Henry would be willing to scape more money together to help the team with a pitcher or field player with that money.

 

Along that line, don't look now, but JBJ is hitting around 290 for the past week. Perhaps the coaching he has received is starting to sink in. I have always thought he really tries hard but just wasn't able to apply coaching in the past. great for the club if he makes solid progress and it would reduce the pressure on looking for a CF replacement.

[jad]

I asked this question before, but perhaps I was not clear and will ask it again. Does the remaining amount of money owed to Hanley count against the luxury tax limit? Certainly we DFAed him as we DFAed Pablo. I don't think Pablo's contract counts against the luxury tax limit so why should the remainder of Hanley's. Obviously we still have to pay both contracts so it is money out of the Red Sox budget but I see the two as having one significant difference.

 

If it doesn't count against the luxury tax limit, then the Red Sox would pick up another $15 million in cap space. I assume John Henry would be willing to scape more money together to help the team with a pitcher or field player with that money.

 

Along that line, don't look now, but JBJ is hitting around 290 for the past week. Perhaps the coaching he has received is starting to sink in. I have always thought he really tries hard but just wasn't able to apply coaching in the past. great for the club if he makes solid progress and it would reduce the pressure on looking for a CF replacement.

 

Short answer: yes it does. RS has to pay the difference between what the new team pays and what the contract was, and all they have to pay counts against the luxury tax. Pablo's number definitely counts, and so will everything owed Hanley (including the next year, depending on what happens with the vesting option that we've been discussing in various ways here.)

[jad]

I asked this question before, but perhaps I was not clear and will ask it again. Does the remaining amount of money owed to Hanley count against the luxury tax limit? Certainly we DFAed him as we DFAed Pablo. I don't think Pablo's contract counts against the luxury tax limit so why should the remainder of Hanley's. Obviously we still have to pay both contracts so it is money out of the Red Sox budget but I see the two as having one significant difference.

 

If it doesn't count against the luxury tax limit, then the Red Sox would pick up another $15 million in cap space. I assume John Henry would be willing to scape more money together to help the team with a pitcher or field player with that money.

 

Along that line, don't look now, but JBJ is hitting around 290 for the past week. Perhaps the coaching he has received is starting to sink in. I have always thought he really tries hard but just wasn't able to apply coaching in the past. great for the club if he makes solid progress and it would reduce the pressure on looking for a CF replacement.

 

NBA has what's called an Amnesty clause, whereby you can release a player under certain circumstances (I can't recall what those are), and although you pay whatever was owed (NBA salaries, like MLB, are guaranteed), what you pay doesn't count against the cap. MLB doesn't have anything like that as far as I know, and the rules in the NBA I think severely restrict when and how often it can be used.

[oldtimer]

NBA has what's called an Amnesty clause, whereby you can release a player under certain circumstances (I can't recall what those are), and although you pay whatever was owed (NBA salaries, like MLB, are guaranteed), what you pay doesn't count against the cap. MLB doesn't have anything like that as far as I know, and the rules in the NBA I think severely restrict when and how often it can be used.

 

Thanks for both of you answering. I was sketchy on that point. Would have seemed fair that if you no longer have the services you shouldn't have it apply to the salary luxury cap. So that really does hamper what we can do. I guess we have to hope that Pedey starts hitting and that JBJ makes progress, which he appears to be doing.

[harmony]

Short answer: yes it does. RS has to pay the difference between what the new team pays and what the contract was, and all they have to pay counts against the luxury tax. Pablo's number definitely counts, and so will everything owed Hanley (including the next year, depending on what happens with the vesting option that we've been discussing in various ways here.)

jad is correct:

 

Edited May 28, 2018 by harmony

[moonslav59]

We can see how much HRam's contract is handucffing us this year.

 

Having that contract next year would have nearly crippled us.

[notin]

Baseball is hard enough that the players have to devote almost all of the energies into being able to hit the ball or get hitters out. Most don't even know the details of their own contracts, so I don't think they are concerned about Hanley's contract.

 

While probably true, nearly all of them have hired people to care about their contracts...