Hanley DFA’d

[Hitch]

LOL!!! Hanley is the only one to blame for being associated with the drug guy. Therefore whatever comes from that "friendship" that adversely affects Hanley is his responsibility.

 

If you've got a friend that's doing illegal stuff that you don't know about, should we blame you, too?

[a700hitter]

So the reporter did know it was him? So your line of: "i was referring to the person who broke the story on Hanley. That person didn’t know who he was." is completely false?

 

Even if it were the case (which it clearly isn't) they would have known who Hanley was within 10 minutes of hearing his name for the first time. To now say that they knew he was on the Red Sox, but didn't know anything about him before they posted is so absurd a comment there's very little else needs saying on the matter.

My answer to your question is no, and f*** off.

[Hitch]

My answer to your question is no, and f*** off.

 

You should settle down. Anger isn't good for blood pressure in older fellas. Or just admit you got something very wrong, rather than being forced to lie about it. That would help too, Donald.

[Hitch]

Suspects get stopped all the time and point the finger at someone else. It's not news in a metropolitan area.

 

We can debate whether it's news when the suspect points the finger at a former MLB All Star (and later apparently recants).

 

I have no idea what your reply has to do with my post.

[a700hitter]

You should settle down. Anger isn't good for blood pressure in older fellas. Or just admit you got something very wrong, rather than being forced to lie about it. That would help too, Donald.

Troll.

[Natick to NC]

Hanley was designated for assignment before any of this happened.

 

Sure he was

[harmony]

So the reporter did know it was him? So your line of: "i was referring to the person who broke the story on Hanley. That person didn’t know who he was." is completely false?

 

Even if it were the case (which it clearly isn't) they would have known who Hanley was within 10 minutes of hearing his name for the first time. To now say that they knew he was on the Red Sox, but didn't know anything about him before they posted is so absurd a comment there's very little else needs saying on the matter.

Suspects get stopped all the time and point the finger at someone else. It's not news in a metropolitan area.

 

We can debate whether it's news when the suspect points the finger at a former MLB All Star (and later apparently recants).

[Hitch]

Lie.

Get called on it.

Lie about the lie.

Call somebody a troll for pointing out said lies.

 

And they say the art of conversation is dead.

[harmony]

I have no idea what your reply has to do with my post.

My apologies. I responded to the wrong post and have now deleted my errant reply to you.

[Hitch]

Suspects get stopped all the time and point the finger at someone else. It's not news in a metropolitan area.

 

We can debate whether it's news when the suspect points the finger at a former MLB All Star (and later apparently recants).

 

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I think you have misread the context of my post if you think that reply is in keeping, or arguing against, what I was saying.

 

My post was saying that a journalist would run checks on a name of anyone they were about to out publicly, never mind a Red Sox player they knew.

 

I was also pointing out A700's lie and then stupidity of his subsequent new position of the reporter knowing of Hanley, but then somehow....not knowing him.

 

 

edit: Ah I just saw your post above. No problem.

[Natick to NC]

Hanley is available for league minimum. Any team in contention needing a right handed bat would take a chance on that, regardless of his lackluster performance since he's been with Boston.

 

If no team is willing to touch him based on a false report, then that is just wrong.

 

This is all that needs to be. Understood .Great post and for the record I'd take the guy back yesterday but I think outside the box .Just maybe this player wants to make a point now .

[Spudboy]

If you've got a friend that's doing illegal stuff that you don't know about, should we blame you, too?

 

Yes. For having poor judgement.

 

Not for the crimes the other guy commits.

[a700hitter]

Lie.

Get called on it.

Lie about the lie.

Call somebody a troll for pointing out said lies.

 

And they say the art of conversation is dead.

So, you disagree with my opinion that the initial reporting of the incident was unfair poor journalism?

[Hitch]

So, you disagree with my opinion that the initial reporting of the incident was unfair poor journalism?

 

I'm not sure why you've pivoted to this from what we were discussing, but no, I don't disagree with that as I've already said on the previous page.

[a700hitter]

I'm not sure why you've pivoted to this from what we were discussing, but no, I don't disagree with that as I've already said on the previous page.

Because that was the point of my post that you addressed— that the reporting was knee jerk and irresponsible. In the original report, the writer said that she didn’t know baseball, but she knew crime. Whether or not she knew knew Hanley, the reporting was knee jerk and irresponsible. If she didn’t know who Hanley was, that would make her more irresponsible for not checking it out. The point of my post was about the shoddy reporting, and my so called “lie” was not my lie at all. It was based on the writer’s initial account. But you might have known that if you put a little more effort into thinking and reading than trolling.

[Natick to NC]

I'm not sure why you've pivoted to this from what we were discussing, but no, I don't disagree with that as I've already said on the previous page.

 

frankly I never give a rip what your saying so there's that ,don't take it personal .

[Hitch]

Because that was the point of my post that you addressed— that the reporting was knee jerk and irresponsible. In the original report, the writer said that she didn’t know baseball, but she knew crime. Whether or not she knew knew Hanley, the reporting was knee jerk and irresponsible. If she didn’t know who Hanley was, that would make her more irresponsible for not checking it out. The point of my post was about the shoddy reporting, and my so called “lie” was not my lie at all. It was based on the writer’s initial account. But you might have known that if you put a little more effort into thinking and reading than trolling.

 

*sigh*

 

Yes, it was irresponsible. This is patently obvious.

 

You said that she reported it without knowing who Hanley was.

 

i was referring to the person who broke the story on Hanley. That person didn’t know who he was.

 

I then said that a reporter does background checks on people before actually mentioning their name in connection with a crime. This is standard. It is why the Oregon Post got the story about Luke Heimlich being an admitted pedophile. Because they run a background check on him because he was about to be drafted and it showed up in the records. So even if they didn't know who Hanley was, they soon would have.

 

The reporter knew that he was on the Red Sox,but didn’t know anything about him.

 

Of course that point doesn't matter because you then followed it up a few minutes later with the above. So the reporter did actually know who he was now, but knew nothing of him. And again, I feel the need to point out the stupidity of this statement. They knew he was a professional ball player but didn't actually know anything about him.

 

Quite why you've brought it back to the point (last discussed 3/4 pages ago) that the reporting was knee-jerk is anyone's guess. My guess is it was easier to go back to that than say "yeah I got it wrong on my first reply".

[Hitch]

frankly I never give a rip what your saying so there's that ,don't take it personal .

 

It'll take a while, but I will learn to live with this.

[a700hitter]

*sigh*

 

Yes, it was irresponsible. This is patently obvious.

 

You said that she reported it without knowing who Hanley was.

 

 

 

I then said that a reporter does background checks on people before actually mentioning their name in connection with a crime. This is standard. It is why the Oregon Post got the story about Luke Heimlich being an admitted pedophile. Because they run a background check on him because he was about to be drafted and it showed up in the records. So even if they didn't know who Hanley was, they soon would have.

 

 

 

Of course that point doesn't matter because you then followed it up a few minutes later with the above. So the reporter did actually know who he was now, but knew nothing of him. And again, I feel the need to point out the stupidity of this statement. They knew he was a professional ball player but didn't actually know anything about him.

 

Quite why you've brought it back to the point (last discussed 3/4 pages ago) that the reporting was knee-jerk is anyone's guess. My guess is it was easier to go back to that than say "yeah I got it wrong on my first reply".

Whether or not the reporter knew Hanley was irrelevant to the point of my post -- a point with which you agree — that the reporting was shoddy. Yet, you have seized on an irrelevancy and tried to pin it on me as a lie when it was the reporters own story. She said "I don't know baseball." As with most of your posts they fail to address the point being discussed, and this time you have outdone yourself by being wrong about the irrelevancy that you are discussing. Now piss off you stupid troll. Edited June 26, 2018 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

Mods, I urge you to check out Hitch's body of posts. You guys do a great job, and I trust your judgment on this, but it might be worth a quick audit.

[Hitch]

Oh for goodness sake.

 

"Piss off. f*** off. Troll."

 

All in the last page and a bit for having your words quoted back to you. You're so thin skinned I think a paper cut would likely kill you.

 

You're the type of man that feels it would diminish you if you had to admit you are wrong, aren't you? I shouldnt expect any different, really. You've been this way for the 5 years I've been reading this board.

[Sox75]

Although I'm officially retired from this thread, I don't get why Hitch is coming at 700 Eastwood?

 

It's a bit blizzard? I've looked back & see no dastardly lies.....

 

As for anybody convicting Hanley on this board, well that's just ********. We all said we couldn't believe it IF Hanley got himself mixed up in something like this, but that it was not altogether SHOCKING given some of his bode-headed behavior over MANY years. Most of us don't FaceTime with guys in massive Drug Rings that addict and kill 10's of thousands per year? Most of us have lost touch with guys who got HEAVY into drugs within a decade after HS?

 

I think we handled this NEWS pretty well. It sounded unbelievable, but most of us probably said, in our heart of hearts . . . . "if this was going to happen to ANYBODY on the Sox, yeh.... I guess i'd probably pick Hanley??? I guess?

 

Still, pretty much all of us said, in one way or another, "we really hope there is something wrong here! Why the f*** would an MLB player making $20+ mil per year, with a net wealth of over $100 mil at least, get involved in something like this? Most were thinking, Jesus Hanley, please tell me you don't really know this POS!!! For the record, I don't think we know anything about the extent of their relationship, or even if there is "ANY RELATIONSHIP" whatsoever?

 

Anyway... we all pretty much said that we hope that Hanley is INNOCENT, and the HE IS of course, INNOCENT until proven guilty of anything....

 

 

Yes! I most certainly am guilty of believing Hanley and Pablo are long term stoners. Guilty as charged, and I respect those wo disagree with my assessment. I still like Hanley very much. He redeemed himself after 2015. Pablo is still a fat & lazy POS. I LIKE him as a person, but hate him as a Red Sox DRAIN! Still, I will take the heat as far as making accusations go.

 

Others like 700 Clint Eastwood? Why would you ever take him on? He can kick your ass by simply giving you one of his patented sneers. It's just crazy to pick a fight with that guy! I recently saw him take on an entire LA gang? Is this Hitch crazy????

 

[Jack Flap]

For the record, I don't think we know anything about the extent of their relationship, or even if there is "ANY RELATIONSHIP" whatsoever?

 

Agree. As far as I know, it's been reported that they grew up together in the DR, and that the guy claimed to be delivering something from Hanley's mother. They could be best buds (which a lot of people seem to be more or less assuming), or it could be some old family friend that he rarely sees or talks to. Either way, he won't be the first baseball player to be acquainted with some shady individuals.

[cp176]

Although I'm officially retired from this thread, I don't get why Hitch is coming at 700 Eastwood?

 

It's a bit blizzard? I've looked back & see no dastardly lies.....

 

As for anybody convicting Hanley on this board, well that's just ********. We all said we couldn't believe it IF Hanley got himself mixed up in something like this, but that it was not altogether SHOCKING given some of his bode-headed behavior over MANY years. Most of us don't FaceTime with guys in massive Drug Rings that addict and kill 10's of thousands per year? Most of us have lost touch with guys who got HEAVY into drugs within a decade after HS?

 

I think we handled this NEWS pretty well. It sounded unbelievable, but most of us probably said, in our heart of hearts . . . . "if this was going to happen to ANYBODY on the Sox, yeh.... I guess i'd probably pick Hanley??? I guess?

 

Still, pretty much all of us said, in one way or another, "we really hope there is something wrong here! Why the f*** would an MLB player making $20+ mil per year, with a net wealth of over $100 mil at least, get involved in something like this? Most were thinking, Jesus Hanley, please tell me you don't really know this POS!!! For the record, I don't think we know anything about the extent of their relationship, or even if there is "ANY RELATIONSHIP" whatsoever?

 

Anyway... we all pretty much said that we hope that Hanley is INNOCENT, and the HE IS of course, INNOCENT until proven guilty of anything....

 

 

Yes! I most certainly am guilty of believing Hanley and Pablo are long term stoners. Guilty as charged, and I respect those wo disagree with my assessment. I still like Hanley very much. He redeemed himself after 2015. Pablo is still a fat & lazy POS. I LIKE him as a person, but hate him as a Red Sox DRAIN! Still, I will take the heat as far as making accusations go.

 

Others like 700 Clint Eastwood? Why would you ever take him on? He can kick your ass by simply giving you one of his patented sneers. It's just crazy to pick a fight with that guy! I recently saw him take on an entire LA gang? Is this Hitch crazy????

 

 

I've consistently said that I believe that there is a lot more to the story of Hanley's release than his facing an option year. That statement alone in some minds makes me someone who has tried and conviicted him of potential charges even before they have been made. Isn't that the way the world works today? Twisting people's words seems to be the way to go. For the record, I don't care at all about Hanley Ramirez and his everlasting legacy. I appreciated him as a ballplayer and that is it. I'm not overly impressed with entertainers though in general. Some here in some ways with their support of him I think are trying to make him something that he might not be. I will always believe that people are going to judge us by the company we keep. who happen to be our friends. It doesn't make it right but it does happen. I don't know Hanley and subsequently I don't know his friends. I'm happy that I don't.

[mvp 78]

OTOH, if Hanley rebounded from his horrible May back to his April numbers, his fWAR could get much better.

 

The problem is that the hand you are referring to has no basis in reality. Over the past few years, Hanley has shown himself to be in steep decline. He's not a guy you can pencil in as a contributor over the long haul.

[mvp 78]

Sure he was

 

This happened before his release. The guy was pulled over in April. If the Sox were going to dump him for this, why wait an additional 30 days?

[mvp 78]

This is all that needs to be. Understood .Great post and for the record I'd take the guy back yesterday but I think outside the box .Just maybe this player wants to make a point now .

 

Hanley just flat out sucked the last 30 days of dressing up for the Sox.

 

4/25 - 5/24

 

573 OPS for a guy who is slow and a barely adequate 1b. There are far better options out there. Hell, Adam Lind may be better than Hanley right now and he's sitting down in AAA. Now that is thinking outside the box.

[notin]

The problem is that the hand you are referring to has no basis in reality. Over the past few years, Hanley has shown himself to be in steep decline. He's not a guy you can pencil in as a contributor over the long haul.

 

There has been a few injuries to contribute. But then Hanley turns 35 this year and isn't likely to get healthier and certainly not back to what he was 5 or 6 years ago...

[Slasher9]

It sounded unbelievable, but most of us probably said, in our heart of hearts . . . . "if this was going to happen to ANYBODY on the Sox, yeh.... I guess i'd probably pick Hanley???

 

why is that?

[OH FOY]

Looking back.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2220395-mlb-free-agents-2014-15-predicting-final-landing-spots-for-the-top-15-players#slide15