Hanley DFA’d

[harmony]

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

 

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

Perhaps the issue is too complicated for some.

 

Naturally the Red Sox would not have designated Hanley Ramirez for assignment if the front office thought the club would need to pay the vesting option.

 

The issue is what happens to the vesting option, a negotiated benefit of value to the player.

 

Ramirez through his agent presumably negotiated the vesting option to seal the deal. Perhaps Ramirez would not have signed on that date if he knew the Red Sox would not give him a reasonable opportunity to meet the conditions of the vesting option. After all, Ramirez -- who this year hit third in the batting order 38 times and second six times -- was on pace for the option to vest.

 

I don't have a definite answer ... I have only questions.

[harmony]

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

And that may be grounds for a grievance ... the action by the Red Sox effectively deprived Ramirez the opportunity to vest the option (a milestone he was on pace to meet).

 

I wonder whether the landscape (or the CBA) have changed since the Dennis Lamp case in 1986:

 

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/01/Pitcher-Dennis-Lamp-released-by-the-Blue-Jays-after/4730536475600/

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-09-24/sports/8603110498_1_jays-bullpen-american-league-east-title-relief

 

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-09-17/sports/8602250111_1_dennis-lamp-collusion-blue-jays-management

Edited May 28, 2018 by harmony

[moonslav59]

And that may be grounds for a grievance ... the action by the Red Sox effectively deprived Ramirez the opportunity to vest the option (a milestone he was on pace to meet).

 

I doubt they'd win the grievance.

 

The one thing in their favor is the fact that Cora had HRam batting 2nd or 3rd right up to his release,

 

Moreland & JDM hitting over 1.000 helps the Sox.

 

HRam sucking 3 of the last 4 years is the clincher.

 

Sox win any grievance.

[harmony]

I doubt they'd win the grievance.

 

The one thing in their favor is the fact that Cora had HRam batting 2nd or 3rd right up to his release,

 

Moreland & JDM hitting over 1.000 helps the Sox.

 

HRam sucking 3 of the last 4 years is the clincher.

 

Sox win any grievance.

Hanley Ramirez was playing well enough to be on pace for the option to vest ... in fact well enough to be hitting second or third in a loaded lineup.

 

I suspect you're not an attorney.

 

Ramirez may or may not file a grievance and, if so, may or may not prevail ... but the situation raises interesting issues.

[moonslav59]

Maybe HRam will go on to have the same success Pablo is having after his release...

 

You need to see second baseman Pablo Sandoval (!) rob a hit with a diving play and finger-wag afterward | MLB.com

WWW.MLB.COM

---

The Official Site of Major League Baseball

[Station 13]

Hanley Ramirez was playing well enough to be on pace for the option to vest ... in fact well enough to be hitting second or third in a loaded lineup.

I suspect you're not an attorney.

 

Ramirez may or may not file a grievance and, if so, may or may not prevail ... but the situation raises interesting issues.

 

He was?

[Station 13]

Maybe HRam will go on to have the same success Pablo is having after his release...

 

You need to see second baseman Pablo Sandoval (!) rob a hit with a diving play and finger-wag afterward | MLB.com

WWW.MLB.COM

---

The Official Site of Major League Baseball

 

There was a tremor felt on the play.

[moonslav59]

Hanley Ramirez was playing well enough to be on pace for the option to vest ... in fact well enough to be hitting second or third in a loaded lineup.

 

I suspect you're not an attorney.

 

Ramirez may or may not file a grievance and, if so, may or may not prevail ... but the situation raises interesting issues.

 

I'm not an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express...

[harmony]

Maybe HRam will go on to have the same success Pablo is having after his release...

 

You need to see second baseman Pablo Sandoval (!) rob a hit with a diving play and finger-wag afterward | MLB.com

WWW.MLB.COM

---

The Official Site of Major League Baseball

I saw Pablo Sandoval hit two doubles at AT&T Park last fall:

 

MLB Gameday: Rockies 0, Giants 4 Final Score (09/20/2017) | MLB.com

WWW.MLB.COM

---

Follow MLB results with FREE box scores, pitch-by-pitch strikezone info, and Statcast data for Rockies vs. Giants at AT&T Park

 

... but stayed on the bench in my most recent visit to AT&T Park:

 

MLB Gameday: Rockies 6, Giants 1 Final Score (05/18/2018) | MLB.com

WWW.MLB.COM

---

Follow MLB results with FREE box scores, pitch-by-pitch strikezone info, and Statcast data for Rockies vs. Giants at AT&T Park

[harmony]

He was?

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2018-batting-orders.shtml

[Station 13]

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2018-batting-orders.shtml

 

I know Hanley batted 3rd. But he didn't play well enough to keep playing, and especially hitting 3rd.

[S5Dewey]

Hanley Ramirez was playing well enough to be on pace for the option to vest ... in fact well enough to be hitting second or third in a loaded lineup.

Please don't confuse the fact that Hanley was hitting second or third in the lineup with your statement that he was playing well enough for the option to vest. He wasn't, and that was the problem. If he'd been playing well enough for the option to vest he wouldn't have been DFA'd.

[moonslav59]

I know Hanley batted 3rd. But he didn't play well enough to keep playing, and especially hitting 3rd.

 

Usually, the first step is a demotion in the line-up and then a benching with perhaps a later look-see.

 

Jumping from batting 2nd or 3rd to DFA seems strange.

 

I still think the DFA was justified. He's given us nothing for 3 of his 4 years here. We gave him all the chances he could ask for.

 

One could easily argue he hadn't won a FT job to start the season to begin with. Cora gave him the chance. He started off like he was going to claim the job for himself, despite Moreland and JD's great starts, but his last 18 games sealed his fate.

 

The fact that Moreland and JD were both over 1.000 at the time of the DFA, makes the release grievance-proof in my book

[harmony]

The fact that Moreland and JD were both over 1.000 at the time of the DFA, makes the release grievance-proof in my book

You're missing the issue.

 

Regardless of the performance of Mitch Moreland or J.D. Martinez (or Jackie Bradley) Hanley Ramirez was on pace to vest the option, a negotiated benefit of value to the player. The designation for assignment may prevent the option from vesting as much as a Red Sox benching would have (a performance-based benching may have had fewer legal ramifications).

[Station 13]

You're missing the issue.

 

Regardless of the performance of Mitch Moreland or J.D. Martinez (or Jackie Bradley) Hanley Ramirez was on pace to vest the option, a negotiated benefit of value to the player. The designation for assignment may prevent the option from vesting as much as a Red Sox benching would have (a performance-based benching may have had fewer legal ramifications).

 

Hanley was losing his job, he didn't keep pace.

[moonslav59]

You're missing the issue.

 

Regardless of the performance of Mitch Moreland or J.D. Martinez (or Jackie Bradley) Hanley Ramirez was on pace to vest the option, a negotiated benefit of value to the player. The designation for assignment may prevent the option from vesting as much as a Red Sox benching would have (a performance-based benching may have had fewer legal ramifications).

 

I'm not missing that point. That point was based on him playing well in April and amassing enough PAs to "be on pace" to vest. That may be a point they use in a possible grievance, but HRam was playing himself into a benching and a no vest. 18 crappy games is significant enough to warrant a benching or DFA,

 

Asking a team to bench a guy that was slated to be a back-up DH just so a grievance will not be filed is ludicrous. Moreland's hot start was a factor, because it basically relegated HRam to a DH role that was taken by JD. There literally was no place to play him, so the DFA was well founded and can be supported with a lot of evidence.

 

Yes, HRam has some points on his side, duely noted, but IMO, he's not even close to winning a grievance. I believe that so firmly, I doubt one will even be filed.

[a700hitter]

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.

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.

[Kimmi]

It's interesting to note that the GM and execs of other teams find the timing of Hanley's DFA questionable.

[jacksonianmarch]

This was the best way for DD to do it. If they trimmed his PT and he missed by a few ABs, then a grievance was gonna happen. If they cut him at season’s start, they wouldn’t see if he was truly back to baseline from surgery. They gave him almost two months and cut bait with the option too far away for it to be an issue with the union

[jad]

You're missing the issue.

 

Regardless of the performance of Mitch Moreland or J.D. Martinez (or Jackie Bradley) Hanley Ramirez was on pace to vest the option, a negotiated benefit of value to the player. The designation for assignment may prevent the option from vesting as much as a Red Sox benching would have (a performance-based benching may have had fewer legal ramifications).

 

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.

[Bellhorn04]

It's interesting to note that the GM and execs of other teams find the timing of Hanley's DFA questionable.

 

I read some of these comments in Cafardo's article.

 

But there was nothing in these other execs' comments about the vesting option, almost as if they were oblivious of its existence.

[Bellhorn04]

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.

 

The issues you and harmony are raising just make me realize how these vesting options are a recipe for disaster.

 

Hanley was healthy, there's no question about that.

 

But his numbers for 2018 and for the life of the contract were clearly bad enough to justify a team not wanting to have the option vest for another 22 million of miniscule WAR!

 

So are they obligated to keep playing him as a virtual act of charity?

[Bellhorn04]

Another point about the vesting option - if it wasn't there, if the contract was a straight 4/88, Hanley would not have been DFA'd! The vesting option screwed everyone.

 

Thanks Ben!

[Bellhorn04]

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!"

 

Hanley was 'on pace' for yet another flatline 0.0 WAR.

 

Hanley was 'on pace' to be rewarded for another flatline 0.0 or slightly negative WAR by being paid another 22 million to produce another similar result another year older!

 

Were the Red Sox wrong to not want to accommodate this?

[S5Dewey]

Hanley was 'on pace' for yet another flatline 0.0 WAR.

 

Hanley was 'on pace' to be rewarded for another flatline 0.0 or slightly negative WAR by being paid another 22 million to produce another similar result another year older!

 

Were the Red Sox wrong to not want to accommodate this?

 

This doesn't boil down to whether the Sox were right or wrong in terms of Hanley's production. It's all about the interpretation of the contract and whether his PA's being on pace to get to 475 overrides his lack of production. There's no doubt in my mind that Hanley should have been DFA'd for TWO reasons but whether it will stand up to the scrutiny of the contract is another story.

 

FWIW, I think the Sox will be held harmless, but what do I know?

[cp176]

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

[Bellhorn04]

This doesn't boil down to whether the Sox were right or wrong in terms of Hanley's production. It's all about the interpretation of the contract and whether his PA's being on pace to get to 475 overrides his lack of production.

 

In my mind there HAS to be some consideration of production and of the team's right to award or deny playing time based on production as any team normally would. And there is plenty of precedence for teams abruptly benching or releasing players who have been slumping for a month or less.

[S5Dewey]

In my mind there HAS to be some consideration of production and of the team's right to award or deny playing time based on production as any team normally would. And there is plenty of precedence for teams abruptly benching or releasing players who have been slumping for a month or less.

 

I agree. The stumbling block is that he's Hanley Ramirez, he has a lot of seniority in the league, and he has a huge contract. Those things give him special consideration.

[jad]

In my mind there HAS to be some consideration of production and of the team's right to award or deny playing time based on production as any team normally would. And there is plenty of precedence for teams abruptly benching or releasing players who have been slumping for a month or less.

 

Oh I agree. And I'm not questioning the RS decision. I'm only bringing up the 'on-pace' issue. No one has said the contract reads that the vesting option is there ONLY if he hits well. It is triggered by plate appearances only, and in that sense 497 K's are as good as 497 HR. I don't like incentives in contracts, because (although they sound good in theory), they lead to difficulties like this. (The same way the "save" statistic--a complete artifice--changes the way relief pitchers are used, and possibly the way they perform.) . I don't think anyone would deny that Hanley was working "in good faith" (he was trying). But the same thing cannot be said of the RS by releasing him in expectation that the option would kick in. No one denies (except COra and DD) that they were doing this to save money and to avoid the terms they themselves had agreed to in the contract.

 

(Can't wait for the grievance! WORKERS UNITE!)

[OH FOY]

File the grievance and he'll lose. But, why not. Might as well. Contract will be honored, in guaranteed money.

 

Think Rusney Castillo can file a grievance, that the Sox are colluding not to bring him up, because of Salary Cap implications. The whole world knows this, but he's getting paid his Contract, Sox can do anything they want after that.

Edited May 28, 2018 by OH FOY!