Hanley DFA’d

[Fan_since_Boggs]

Hanley's early season success was more of an anomaly than his slump. If the Red Sox believed that Hanley's early season success was legit, maybe they ride out his slump. Instead, they probably believed his early season success was the result of an inflated BABIP. As his BABIP normalized, his numbers sank. He was headed for another unproductive season, another OPS+ south of 100. That's where Hanley's OPS+ has been in 3 of the last 4 seasons. He gave the Red Sox a large sample size of sucking. Edited May 31, 2018 by Fan_since_Boggs

[moonslav59]

I think we both agree that DFAing him was the desirable thing to do for the good of the team. Even if he was good this year the likelihood that he would be worth $22M next year was nearly zero. I wish him well, but I am glad the Sox didn't do anything stupid.

 

We can agree on this.

 

To me, the JD & Moreland signings were the sign they were looking to eventually platoon or limit HRam's PAs. His slump gave us an easy out.

 

Had he continued hitting well, we'd have been screwed for 2019, but HRam hitting really well would have helped our odds to win this year.

 

JD and Moreland being over 1.000 certainly made the choice easier.

[moonslav59]

Hanley's early season success was more of an anomaly than his slump. If the Red Sox believed that Hanley's early season success was legit, maybe they ride out his slump. Instead, they probably believed his early season success was the result of an inflated BABIP. As his BABIP normalized, his numbers sank. He was headed for another unproductive season, another OPS+ south of 100. That's where Hanley's OPS+ has been in 3 of the last 4 seasons. He gave the Red Sox a large sample size of sucking.

 

That's why I was surprised he was handed the FT jobon opening day. He hadn't eraned doodilly-squat.

[Spudboy]

Of course the option was an overwhelmingly huge part of the decision. We (fans) have absolutely no idea what else if anything contributed to said decision and to what extent "else" was or was not a factor.

 

It is also a fact that fans know nothing of what really goes on in a clubhouse (which is what I was trying to say); those who think they do are delusional.

 

I do agree with you on this. None of know what is really happening behind the scenes. Hanley could have been diddling Henry's trophy twat wife for all we know.

 

MY POINT is that the 22 mil option was THE REASON he was set free.

 

Lol. set free. Odd choice of words.

[Spudboy]

It was all about the $22M for 2019 and our need to pay to keep or replace impending free agents plus some hefty arb raises.

 

Exactly.

 

Why this is difficult to understand is beyond me.

[Bellhorn04]

Every player slumps. Only a few established players get DFA'd over a 17-18 game slump.

 

HRam was bound to have a slump at some point this year.

 

DD pounced at the first one for obvious reasons.

 

 

He did pounce. That's the perfect word for it.

[oldtimer]

He did pounce. That's the perfect word for it.

 

I still don't understand why they bat him second the last time. What if he had hit a home run, double and walked? Would they still have DFAed him? Wouldn't that have looked stupid?

[Bellhorn04]

I still don't understand why they bat him second the last time. What if he had hit a home run, double and walked? Would they still have DFAed him? Wouldn't that have looked stupid?

 

Good question. We'll never know the answer to what they'd have done if Hanley had heated up again. Maybe just bided their time a little longer.

[Spudboy]

I still don't understand why they bat him second the last time. What if he had hit a home run, double and walked? Would they still have DFAed him? Wouldn't that have looked stupid?

 

Most likely they were planing for the DFA all along. As I have said, this was a convenient time to let him go.

 

Who knows what would have happened if he had continued to be hot?

 

The batting order position seems to have nothing to do with when he was going to be DFA.

 

It is what it is.

 

The Sox did what they should have done. Although the timing and the way they rationalized it are peculiar.

 

Why do we continue to even talk about it?

[Bellhorn04]

The vesting option put DD and Cora in a bad position from the start. They tried to handle it in a smart way, and they still ended up taking a lot of flak for it.

[Spudboy]

The vesting option put DD and Cora in a bad position from the start. They tried to handle it in a smart way, and they still ended up taking a lot of flak for it.

 

True.

[moonslav59]

I still don't understand why they bat him second the last time. What if he had hit a home run, double and walked? Would they still have DFAed him? Wouldn't that have looked stupid?

 

Maybe to prove their case in a grievance that they gave him every chance possible to succeed, and he failed.

 

On the flip side, had they demoted him in the line-up, it might have looked better for them.

 

His 17 game slump came on quickly. It was probably just a matter of days- maybe after 13-14 games of sucking- that they began to wonder if this was the best (or perhaps only) chance they'd get to DFA him and not have to worry too much about losing a grievance.

 

They knew the Pedey decision was due in days and had to decide. Had DD told Cora to demote or bench HRam, it might not have helped in a grievance case.

 

I like the line about them not thinking HRam would handle a benching very well as a reason.

 

They had a short window to pounce and they took it. Maybe it came up on them faster than they expected. Maybe they thought they'd wait till Pedey came up to start limiting HRam's time with a better excuse, but then felt, let's just cut the cord now.

 

[mvp 78]

Most likely they were planing for the DFA all along. As I have said, this was a convenient time to let him go.

 

Who knows what would have happened if he had continued to be hot?

 

The batting order position seems to have nothing to do with when he was going to be DFA.

 

It is what it is.

 

The Sox did what they should have done. Although the timing and the way they rationalized it are peculiar.

 

Why do we continue to even talk about it?

 

Because the team is going so well that people have to nitpick about DFA'ing a s***** player, complaining about light hitting catchers and ranting that David Eckstein did play 3b at Pawtucket even though there is no evidence that he did.

[SoxHop]

I like the line about them not thinking HRam would handle a benching very well as a reason.

 

This is the only thing I think is strange about the whole incident. The Sox want him picked and for the most money possible. Why throw this oddball statement in making him seem like a clubhouse problem.

[Spudboy]

Because the team is going so well that people have to nitpick about DFA'ing a s***** player, complaining about light hitting catchers and ranting that David Eckstein did play 3b at Pawtucket even though there is no evidence that he did.

 

Lol.

 

I have yet to rant about it.

 

If you tell me that you saw something that others had not seen I would accept your words because I trust you.

 

People make mistakes. I may be in error. Then again whoever posted game data about Eckstein may have made an error that BBR did not catch.

 

People on this board are quick to question the validity or accuracy of what is said by others. I understand that. If I had posted that David Ortiz had a .460 OBP and someone corrected me I would understand.

 

I was there that day. I saw Eckstein at 3rd about 70 feet from where I was sitting. There are reasons that I am sure of what I saw. You and anyone else are free to believe what you wish.

 

You are welcome to be wrong as well.

[mvp 78]

I was there that day. I saw Eckstein at 3rd about 70 feet from where I was sitting. There are reasons that I am sure of what I saw. You and anyone else are free to believe what you wish.

 

You are welcome to be wrong as well.

 

And my friend swears he once saw a pterodactyl in the Bridgewater Triangle. I believe both of you though.

[Maxbialystock]

HanRam was addition by subtraction. Yes, the vesting option was the decider, but at the same time he sure as heck wasn't earning his $22M and Moreland was/is a much better choice at 1B.

 

About the clubhouse thing. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say his team mates really liked him. Even then, however, his weak hitting and so-so defense at 1B combined with Moreland being much better at both was going to force Cora to use Moreland more and HanRam less even though HanRam is making the big bucks. This can never be a good situation, regardless of the personalities involved.

 

As moonslav has said repeatedly, re-signing Moreland and acquiring JDM put HanRam's future with the Red Sox in jeopardy.

[Bellhorn04]

I like the line about them not thinking HRam would handle a benching very well as a reason.

 

What exactly was said? What I read from Cora was that it would be a difficult adjustment for Hanley-words to that effect. I didn't get that he thought Hanley would cause problems or anything like that.

[mvp 78]

What exactly was said? What I read from Cora was that it would be a difficult adjustment for Hanley-words to that effect. I didn't get that he thought Hanley would cause problems or anything like that.

 

He said that Hanley wasn't a guy who handles sitting on the bench very well.

 

I don't know if that's just demeanor, clubhouse, performance or what.

[mvp 78]

“We were prepared to maybe go in a different direction with our move,” Dombrowski said. “[Cora] called me, I remember it was about 11:30 in the morning, I was getting ready to go for a run, and Alex said, ‘I’ve got a thought for you about what we’re doing.’ And he said, ‘This is a move that I would like to make, I recommend making.’ Ultimately it comes into my final decision, but he said, ‘I really want to play Mitch Moreland more. He’s a good player, he’s played very well for us. I don’t think that Hanley is a person that [handles sitting] on the bench well. It gives us an opportunity to keep Blake Swihart and also be in a position where Blake can get more playing time.’ And so he said, ‘This is something that I’d recommend us doing.’ And I said, ‘You’re sure?’ And he said yeah and he went through some different reasons behind it and his thought process. And what I asked him to do at that point was to make sure that he went to the ballpark to meet with his coaching staff and be in a position where that was what he really wanted to do. I got to the ballpark yesterday, Frank Wren and I drove over, and he said this is what we’d like to do. So we proceeded in that direction.”

[mvp 78]

“I think his role was going to diminish,” Cora said of Ramirez. “For how good of a player he is, it was going to be difficult. It was probably going to be a platoon, maybe come in and pinch hit late in games, and that’s not a perfect role for Hanley Ramirez. He’s a guy who he needs his at-bats, and obviously with the versatility that we have with the other players — with Brock [Holt], with [Eduardo] Nunez, and with Blake [swihart] — as far as managing the game, it’s a lot easier with those guys.”

[a700hitter]

I do agree with you on this. None of know what is really happening behind the scenes. Hanley could have been diddling Henry's trophy twat wife for all we know.

 

MY POINT is that the 22 mil option was THE REASON he was set free.

 

Lol. set free. Odd choice of words.

Set rich would be more accurate.

[a700hitter]

Maybe to prove their case in a grievance that they gave him every chance possible to succeed, and he failed.

 

On the flip side, had they demoted him in the line-up, it might have looked better for them.

 

His 17 game slump came on quickly. It was probably just a matter of days- maybe after 13-14 games of sucking- that they began to wonder if this was the best (or perhaps only) chance they'd get to DFA him and not have to worry too much about losing a grievance.

 

They knew the Pedey decision was due in days and had to decide. Had DD told Cora to demote or bench HRam, it might not have helped in a grievance case.

 

I like the line about them not thinking HRam would handle a benching very well as a reason.

 

They had a short window to pounce and they took it. Maybe it came up on them faster than they expected. Maybe they thought they'd wait till Pedey came up to start limiting HRam's time with a better excuse, but then felt, let's just cut the cord now.

 

There is no indication that there will be a grievance except on message boards.

[a700hitter]

“I think his role was going to diminish,” Cora said of Ramirez. “For how good of a player he is, it was going to be difficult. It was probably going to be a platoon, maybe come in and pinch hit late in games, and that’s not a perfect role for Hanley Ramirez. He’s a guy who he needs his at-bats, and obviously with the versatility that we have with the other players — with Brock [Holt], with [Eduardo] Nunez, and with Blake [swihart] — as far as managing the game, it’s a lot easier with those guys.”

I don't see any inference that Hanley might become a clubhouse problem in what Cora and DD said. Some players need to play regularly to play their best. Others (like Cora) handle part-time roles very well, but are not full time roles. Hanley was not the right guy for the role that Cora needed to fill. It is as simple as that. It is bogus projection that people think they were making negative inferences about him becoming a clubhouse problem.

[mvp 78]

There is no indication that there will be a grievance except on message boards.

 

If he grieves it, I'd expect it to be a big enough deal where owners try to reduce the amount of vesting options going forward.

[a700hitter]

If he grieves it, I'd expect it to be a big enough deal where owners try to reduce the amount of vesting options going forward.

No grievance will be filed.

[Slasher9]

“I think his role was going to diminish,” Cora said of Ramirez. “For how good of a player he is, it was going to be difficult. It was probably going to be a platoon, maybe come in and pinch hit late in games, and that’s not a perfect role for Hanley Ramirez. He’s a guy who he needs his at-bats, and obviously with the versatility that we have with the other players — with Brock [Holt], with [Eduardo] Nunez, and with Blake [swihart] — as far as managing the game, it’s a lot easier with those guys.”

 

lol. what a f***ing crock of s***. f*** cora and DD for even saying this s***. keep your mouths shut. no reason to f***ing disparage the dude and kick him in the f***ing nuts on his way to throwing him out the door.

[Bellhorn04]

lol. what a f***ing crock of s***. f*** cora and DD for even saying this s***. keep your mouths shut. no reason to f***ing disparage the dude and kick him in the f***ing nuts on his way to throwing him out the door.

 

There is absolutely no disparagement in the comments you quoted.

[a700hitter]

lol. what a f***ing crock of s***. f*** cora and DD for even saying this s***. keep your mouths shut. no reason to f***ing disparage the dude and kick him in the f***ing nuts on his way to throwing him out the door.

I don't think it was disparaging. I think Hanley would probably agree that he would not perform best in a part time role. Some guys don't like to DH, because they don't feel involved in the flow of the game. What they said was not disparagement. He just wasn't the right guy for a part time role. You are engaging in projection.

[mvp 78]

No grievance will be filed.

 

I don't think so either.