Bellhorn04
-
Posts
54,666 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
75
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Bellhorn04
-
If he got 496, they would likely lose a grievance, huh?
-
"One of these things is not like the others." What you pointed out there is that sometimes there is a risk in not signing the player.
-
There really doesn't appear to be one in the CBA.
-
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.
-
The shifts are definitely not a great thing for the game. I was reading about what happened in a Mets-Marlins game recently. The Marlins had men at first at second and the Mets had a huge overshift to the right. The Marlins runner at second was able to virtually jog over to third unmolested for a 'stolen base' because the Mets had no one close enough to third base to stop it. It was embarrassing, Mickey Mouse stuff.
-
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?
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Is the Swihart honeymoon over already?
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
I concur with this.
-
Larry doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
-
4 innings stinks. Bullpen killer. Cashman was just publicly lamenting how Yankees starters haven't been going deep enough in games. They're averaging 5.4 per start.
-
There is no confusion at all in the reports on this. If some other team makes a deal for Hanley within the week, the option passes to them. If not, another team can sign him to a new contract, but the option is non-existent because it's part of the terminated contract. Do you want to e-mail Speier or do you want me to? He's pretty good on answering them in my experience.
-
The only tinkering with the game that MLB itself-the 'powers that be'-might be responsible for, that I can see, would be juicing the baseballs.
-
You're very troll-like Larry.
-
Do you really think columnists like Speier and Drellich would be reporting in no uncertain terms that the Red Sox are off the hook for the option if they didn't have some solid information on it? Do you really think if this was a 'gray area' someone wouldn't have picked up on that fact?
-
It's not easy to find out anything definitive about this, you're quite right about that. All I can figure is this: 1) A vesting option is not part of the standard contract as seen in the CBA - it's a 'special covenant'. So we can't see what the language actually is. 2) A vesting option is a 'Club Option', not a 'Player Option' even though it is automatically triggered by the games played. I think this may be a critical part of why it dies with the contract.
-
The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread
Bellhorn04 replied to StephenCurry30's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
And why didn't some Sox press guy badger DD about it like Tommy Cruise in A Few Good Men? 'You ordered the DFA, didn't you???!!!' Finally DD blowing up: 'You're goddam right I did!!!' -
The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread
Bellhorn04 replied to StephenCurry30's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
If we lived in a world where people like Dombrowski were totally comfortable being 100% honest, he could have started his remarks about Hanley something like this: 'First of all, let me remind everyone who doesn't know already, that it was Ben Cherington's bonehead idea to not only give Hanley 88 million but to put in this ridiculous vesting option, and it was that idiotic move that had a lot to do with me sitting here instead of him...' -
I don't see how it can be a gray area at this point in time. There have been plenty of vesting options in MLB contracts.
-
The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread
Bellhorn04 replied to StephenCurry30's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
I think that for business and governments, liberal doses of lying have always been the normal. Maybe we're just more enlightened about that fact now. -
Alright! There's two of us.
-
I curse and swear a lot in real life, trust me. I just try to pick my spots here.
-
The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread
Bellhorn04 replied to StephenCurry30's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
Do you really find DD girly? I don't doubt at all that DD wanted Hanley's vesting option gone. I suspect there was a LOT of discussion before this season about exactly how they were going to handle this, including what they were going to say if they DFA'd Hanley. I suspect this story was partially to allay concerns about the Players Union objecting. And it's pretty clearly 100% BS that the option had nothing to do with the decision. But I really don't expect to get the actual truth from management a lot of the time. Because they have to play the PR game, it's part of the deal.
