Mookie to DL

[Spudboy]

lol

[mvp 78]

It means that he looks good in a suit.

 

Oh la la!

[Kimmi]

I think if someone else said this you might be the first to point out the following:

 

In the 10 games since Hanley was DFA'd, we've scored 56 runs, 5.6 per game.

 

More impressively, in the 8 games without both Mookie and Hanley, we've scored 42 runs, 5.25 per game.

 

So we still have some other hitters...

 

I was not implying that we don't have good hitters on the team. Far from that.

 

I was trying to point out that our depth took a hit with the release of Hanley, regardless of the number of runs we have scored since his release.

[Bellhorn04]

I was not implying that we don't have good hitters on the team. Far from that.

 

I was trying to point out that our depth took a hit with the release of Hanley, regardless of the number of runs we have scored since his release.

 

It's hard to say how much of a hit it took though. If Hanley is only a .700 OPS guy now that's not too difficult to replace. And the vesting option was a huge complicating factor IMO.

 

I was on board with Hanley at the start but he was so bad in May that he brought this situation on himself IMO.

[Kimmi]

It's hard to say how much of a hit it took though. If Hanley is only a .700 OPS guy now that's not too difficult to replace. And the vesting option was a huge complicating factor IMO.

 

I was on board with Hanley at the start but he was so bad in May that he brought this situation on himself IMO.

 

To me, it was all about the vesting option. If he didn't have it, do you think he would have been released? I think most of us would have to answer that question with a 'no'. Therein lies the rub with me.

 

I realize he had a terrible May. JBJ has had a terrible season outside of maybe 2 weeks. Devers has had a terrible May. Leon and Swihart have had terrible seasons for the most part so far this year. They are all being given the chance to work their way out of their slumps, and rightly so.

 

I just don't agree with his release so early in the year. It does cut into our depth, especially with right handed bats.

[Hitch]

To me, it was all about the vesting option. If he didn't have it, do you think he would have been released? I think most of us would have to answer that question with a 'no'. Therein lies the rub with me.

 

I realize he had a terrible May. JBJ has had a terrible season outside of maybe 2 weeks. Devers has had a terrible May. Leon and Swihart have had terrible seasons for the most part so far this year. They are all being given the chance to work their way out of their slumps, and rightly so.

 

I just don't agree with his release so early in the year. It does cut into our depth, especially with right handed bats.

 

It did hurt us depth wise and who knows Hanley might have started hitting again, but leaving that option getting any close to realisation would make the DFA all the harder to do later. He's definitely gone for no other reason than the clause. We had to take the shot now even if it does leave us a little light.

[Kimmi]

It did hurt us depth wise and who knows Hanley might have started hitting again, but leaving that option getting any close to realisation would make the DFA all the harder to do later. He's definitely gone for no other reason than the clause. We had to take the shot now even if it does leave us a little light.

 

I get the logic behind it. I just don't agree with it.

 

And I think the whole 'story' behind how it went down has left a sour taste in my mouth.

[Hitch]

I get the logic behind it. I just don't agree with it.

 

And I think the whole 'story' behind how it went down has left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

Yeah I hear you. I agree with all that. That's the part of sports that will never allow me to fully love it. It's all about the business.

[cp176]

I truly believe that if Hanley had hit he would still be here. To say that the existence of the vesting option coupled with his inability to get the job done both were not factors in his release would be naive on my part I think. In all honesty, I don't spend much time thinking about these things. Teams do what they have to do. We may possibly wind up getting more production from the guys taking Hanley's place than he was going to give us. Now if this were the late 70's and we were talking about management allowing Fisk, Lynn, and Burleson to leave, I might have more to say.

[Bellhorn04]

I get the logic behind it. I just don't agree with it.

 

And I think the whole 'story' behind how it went down has left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

If they had been perfectly truthful they would have said it was the vesting option, sure. But presumably that could have possibly caused issues with the union.

 

The real culprits here were the contract and Hanley's lousy numbers, neither of which DD or Cora had anything to do with.

[cp176]

If they had been perfectly truthful they would have said it was the vesting option, sure. But presumably that could have possibly caused issues with the union.

 

The real culprits here were the contract and Hanley's lousy numbers, neither of which DD or Cora had anything to do with.

 

If they had been perfectly truthful, they would have said the vesting option was a factor for sure. I bet they thought we could figure that one out though on our own.

[Bellhorn04]

If they had been perfectly truthful, they would have said the vesting option was a factor for sure. I bet they thought we could figure that one out though on our own.

 

Truth with a touch of sarcasm: 'Hanley, thanks for taking our 88 million in return for one good half-season. Sorry we couldn't make it 110 million.'

[Maxbialystock]

To me, it was all about the vesting option. If he didn't have it, do you think he would have been released? I think most of us would have to answer that question with a 'no'. Therein lies the rub with me.

 

I realize he had a terrible May. JBJ has had a terrible season outside of maybe 2 weeks. Devers has had a terrible May. Leon and Swihart have had terrible seasons for the most part so far this year. They are all being given the chance to work their way out of their slumps, and rightly so.

 

I just don't agree with his release so early in the year. It does cut into our depth, especially with right handed bats.

 

All due respect--and you have everyone's respect--but I just don't see the depth argument when this team is 8-4 without Mookie, who really is a difference-maker. Moreover, in the final analysis Mr. Ramirez was/is really a DH, and that doesn't help our depth much. As moonslav has pointed out, acquiring JD and keeping Moreland were strong evidence that the Sox were thinking Hanley was expendable before this season started. Granted, the vesting option was a key consideration for acquiring JD and keeping Moreland.

 

The only rationale for keeping Hanley and making that vesting option possible was not that he added depth, but that he brought great hitting--an OPS of .900 or better--and that was never going to happen.

[notin]

Yeah I hear you. I agree with all that. That's the part of sports that will never allow me to fully love it. It's all about the business.

 

Agreed.

 

The "stories" behind departures always get too ugly for this fan. Even in the Theo regime, there was too much childish media babble about someone who was released or traded away, like they needed to justify everything solely for PR purposes.

 

We do get as fans that sometimes players are not as good as they once were and moving them can lead to a better overall team. There is no need to bring up all their negative traits like it is necessary that fans forget what good or great players they once were.

[sk7326]

To me, it was all about the vesting option. If he didn't have it, do you think he would have been released? I think most of us would have to answer that question with a 'no'. Therein lies the rub with me.

 

I realize he had a terrible May. JBJ has had a terrible season outside of maybe 2 weeks. Devers has had a terrible May. Leon and Swihart have had terrible seasons for the most part so far this year. They are all being given the chance to work their way out of their slumps, and rightly so.

 

I just don't agree with his release so early in the year. It does cut into our depth, especially with right handed bats.

 

It was weird to me too. That said, it does get him a chance to find a team early which is good. And the Sox have a lot of ways to replace that production - it's on the kids to figure it out.

[SoxHop]

Moving on from Hanley does a couple things. It finally answers the question of when or if he will get back to where the Sox hoped he would be. Which I think may just have always lingered. They can plan to move on now that he is gone.

 

Also, if someone picks him up now, the Sox save some money. Let someone else take the gamble at much discounted rate.

[Spudboy]

How about Mookie?

 

Last night on live tv Lou Merloni posed the idea that Mookie may have damaged an Oblique muscle.

 

He said that if this is the case Mookie may be out for months. Swinging a bat with an injured oblique is impossible. Mookie could even be done for the season.

 

Now before everyone lays into Merloni about what an idiot he is we should consider that he is closer to the source of the story than many people and certainly anyone on this board.

 

In the absence of details coming from the Sox and no explanation why little is being said about the injury by them this idea carries some weight.

 

I hope this is not the case. But you never know. The Sox are being very much like Belichick.

[cp176]

Truth with a touch of sarcasm: 'Hanley, thanks for taking our 88 million in return for one good half-season. Sorry we couldn't make it 110 million.'

 

Your sarcasm sensor is on high alert. I was just sick of being ignored. lol

[notin]

How about Mookie?

 

Last night on live tv Lou Merloni posed the idea that Mookie may have damaged an Oblique muscle.

 

He said that if this is the case Mookie may be out for months. Swinging a bat with an injured oblique is impossible. Mookie could even be done for the season.

 

Now before everyone lays into Merloni about what an idiot he is we should consider that he is closer to the source of the story than many people and certainly anyone on this board.

 

In the absence of details coming from the Sox and no explanation why little is being said about the injury by them this idea carries some weight.

 

I hope this is not the case. But you never know. The Sox are being very much like Belichick.

 

I hope Merloni is only speculating.

 

But you are right that he would have much more information tan any of us..

[Spudboy]

I hope Merloni is only speculating.

 

But you are right that he would have much more information tan any of us..

 

Yeah he probably was speculating but he does have good info and experience in this stuff.

 

I am hoping for the best. Or Betts!

[Kimmi]

If they had been perfectly truthful they would have said it was the vesting option, sure. But presumably that could have possibly caused issues with the union.

 

The real culprits here were the contract and Hanley's lousy numbers, neither of which DD or Cora had anything to do with.

 

Sorry, but Dombrowski and Cora do not get a free pass on this one.

 

And I say that as a person who absolutely loves Cora.

[Kimmi]

All due respect--and you have everyone's respect--but I just don't see the depth argument when this team is 8-4 without Mookie, who really is a difference-maker. Moreover, in the final analysis Mr. Ramirez was/is really a DH, and that doesn't help our depth much. As moonslav has pointed out, acquiring JD and keeping Moreland were strong evidence that the Sox were thinking Hanley was expendable before this season started. Granted, the vesting option was a key consideration for acquiring JD and keeping Moreland.

 

The only rationale for keeping Hanley and making that vesting option possible was not that he added depth, but that he brought great hitting--an OPS of .900 or better--and that was never going to happen.

 

In a short sample, we have not been hurt by any lack of depth. Hopefully, we will have Mookie back soon and won't have to deal with extended injuries.

 

Hanley had close to a .900 OPS in April. How do we know he wouldn't have rebounded from his slump? A slump that was fueled by a .156 BABIP, BTW.

 

I'm not saying that he might not have been released eventually anyway. I just think it was too early in the season to let him go.

[Kimmi]

It was weird to me too. That said, it does get him a chance to find a team early which is good. And the Sox have a lot of ways to replace that production - it's on the kids to figure it out.

 

Thankfully for Hanley, there seems to a fair amount of interest in him.

[Kimmi]

How about Mookie?

 

Last night on live tv Lou Merloni posed the idea that Mookie may have damaged an Oblique muscle.

 

He said that if this is the case Mookie may be out for months. Swinging a bat with an injured oblique is impossible. Mookie could even be done for the season.

 

Now before everyone lays into Merloni about what an idiot he is we should consider that he is closer to the source of the story than many people and certainly anyone on this board.

 

In the absence of details coming from the Sox and no explanation why little is being said about the injury by them this idea carries some weight.

 

I hope this is not the case. But you never know. The Sox are being very much like Belichick.

 

PA reported that Mookie hit off a tee today.

 

He didn't say much else, but it sounds like Mookie is progressing.

[Kimmi]

All due respect--and you have everyone's respect--but I just don't see the depth argument when this team is 8-4 without Mookie, who really is a difference-maker. Moreover, in the final analysis Mr. Ramirez was/is really a DH, and that doesn't help our depth much. As moonslav has pointed out, acquiring JD and keeping Moreland were strong evidence that the Sox were thinking Hanley was expendable before this season started. Granted, the vesting option was a key consideration for acquiring JD and keeping Moreland.

 

The only rationale for keeping Hanley and making that vesting option possible was not that he added depth, but that he brought great hitting--an OPS of .900 or better--and that was never going to happen.

 

And then there's this, courtesy of Red Sox Stats:

 

Hardest hit ball rank out of 417 players

5 117 Ramirez

39 114 Moreland

63 113 Devers

75 113 Martinez

84 112 Bradley

108 112 Bogaerts

156 111 Betts

169 110 Nunez

201 110 Benintendi

262 108 Swihart

319 107 Leon

346 106 Holt

362 105 Vazquez

[Bellhorn04]

Sorry, but Dombrowski and Cora do not get a free pass on this one.

 

And I say that as a person who absolutely loves Cora.

 

I'll ask you the same question I asked notin.

 

Let's assume the option was the real reason they released him at this point.

 

Should they have told the truth?

 

(notin says they didn't have to give any reason at all.)

[Slasher9]

Truth with a touch of sarcasm: 'Hanley, thanks for taking our 88 million in return for one good half-season. Sorry we couldn't make it 110 million.'

 

dang. that's pretty good tho

[sk7326]

In a short sample, we have not been hurt by any lack of depth. Hopefully, we will have Mookie back soon and won't have to deal with extended injuries.

 

Hanley had close to a .900 OPS in April. How do we know he wouldn't have rebounded from his slump? A slump that was fueled by a .156 BABIP, BTW.

 

I'm not saying that he might not have been released eventually anyway. I just think it was too early in the season to let him go.

 

The vesting option was the big deal clearly. One key here will be Bradley. A plus of releasing Ramirez is giving JD a place to play where he can cause less active damage (if the team wants to rotate him in the field for his own sanity).

[Jasonbay44]

I'll ask you the same question I asked notin.

 

Let's assume the option was the real reason they released him at this point.

 

Should they have told the truth?

 

(notin says they didn't have to give any reason at all.)

No, I don't think they do. As long as the team didn't wrongfully throw Hanley under the bus, saying he was a cancer, or something like that, which to my knowledge they didn't, I don't think a reason was needed. Hanley isn't dumb, I'm sure he understands the business side of this and knows what is going on.

[a700hitter]

Sorry, but Dombrowski and Cora do not get a free pass on this one.

 

And I say that as a person who absolutely loves Cora.

uncharacteristic unambiguous accountability from Kimmi. I disagree with your interpretation of the situation, but I applaud the firm stance assigning fault.