jad

Exactly. And things could get even worse (I assume RS have to at least consider the possibility of a grievance on that vesting option). That + Pablo + Castillo should suggest to them that bad or wishful thinking on contracts can get you into a heap of difficulty, and that when you sign someone, you should think in terms of worst case scenarios rather than best-case (oh Pablo will be a fan favorite! I'm sure JD Drew will hit .300 rather than his career average. I'm sure the racist fans in Boston will embrace A. Gonzalez. No way Lester continues his great career. D. Price will be a Cy Young winner for years. Jackie Freaking Clark!!! Carl Crawford will be a lifetime .350 hitter! What could possibly happen if you let Pedro have one more batter? Shouldn't Buckner be allowed to be on the field when the series is wrapped up? ...)

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!)

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.

Ha! But then, look at the time we spend here devoted to topics that do not matter in the least!--that's the joy of sports.

I agree that this seems reasonable. But I can't find anything in what I see in the CBA that addresses it. The one passage I found that deals with something similar (on qualified free agents) seems to lump incentives in with the basic salary: Art. XX.B.4.b: For purposes of the previous sentence, the “total guarantee” of a contract signed by a Qualified Free Agent shall include the following: (a) total salary in any guaranteed contract years (including any Player option years); ( any signing bonus (regardless of when paid); © any buyout associated with the first Club or mutual option year; and (d) any performance, roster, or award bonuses, escalators, or vesting options, but only to the extent the Player would have earned those bonuses, escalators, or vesting options based on his performance in any prior season of his career. We all seem to be assuming that different language applies in the present case. Does anyone know where in the CBA that language is? (Not arguing, by the way; I'm genuinely curious where this gets addressed, and why DD and Cora think it's not a problem.)

And how would 'holding them accountable' improve their calls? You could fine them. But so what? It's not as if the umpires are missing calls because they don't care enough. They call what they see. It's just damn hard to "see" a 95mph slider moving through a very ill-defined strike zone that theoretically varies for each hitter (which is absurd of course--it's not as if the basket in the NBA magically moves to a higher position because a taller player is shooting.)

Right. But the sticky issue that is being reported variously is not whether the new team contract has that vesting option (we all agree it doesn't, since the contract is whatever Hanley and the new team agree to), but whether the RS are still responsible for it, just as they are responsible for the difference between what the new team offers and what the RS are already committed to pay in terms of salary. It sounds to me as if that may well be a grey area not specifically addressed in the contract. The problem that the Union might have is that if incentives disappear, teams would be encouraged to draw up contracts 'back-loaded' w/ incentives, and then could just release players who are performing at, say, a mediocre level that is just enough to reach those levels. I would think if there is a problem here, the next CBA will deal with it.

Some reports (again casually) state that in a TRADE or waiver pick up, all details come w/ contract, including incentives: i.e., 497 plate appearances Punkt. Which also makes sense. (We'll probably find out in a few days, as surely this was something considered in detail by Sox management.)

Thanks. Drelich claims the vesting option isn't there if Hanley is released (but he doesn't really offer any evidence or discussion of this). I don't see why the Players Union would accept this. Do incentive clauses (which are an important part of many contracts) disappear when a player is released? (i.e., the clause says something like: if Hanley has 497 PA for the RS or for any team that he is traded to or acquires him through waivers). If not, I can't see why the union wouldn't claim those incentives are an essential part of the contract and the RS are on the hook if he achieves them.

I have to think that once he signs a new contract (which he would have to do if released), that supersedes the details of the old (except for the actual money owed). That would mean no team will trade for him, but he would easily find a new team once released. (There may be specific language in the contract about this? although I'm not sure the union allows for any reduction in the perks of a contract the player signs under any circumstance). It would be bizarre if the vesting option remained after he was released. This would essentially prevent anyone from picking him up this year until there was no chance of him making 497 (which is what I assume would happen). This was the sort of thing the Players Union tries to avoid, but obviously unforeseen circumstances occur (e.g., like Castillo essentially being stuck in the minors, w/ barely a chance to prove himself on the next level).

Questions on Hanley's contract (maybe answered earlier). (1) If the RS 'trade' him, the contract goes with him. Would that include the vesting option? (i.e., if he reaches 497 plate appearances for the year, would the RS be responsible for the 22million the next year?) If so, then trading him is out of the question. (Of course,the other team could agree to pick that up, but there would be no trading partners). (2) if the RS release him, then what? If he gets picked up, the RS of course still owe him the difference between what the other team pays and the salary the RS signed him for. But what about the vesting option? Does that still apply? (i.e., one of the two teams is responsible for 22 million the next year). If so, that makes the whole thing very dicey. Anyone know?

Agree entirely. The first year was a disaster, but as a regular in the line-up playing first, he was fine. You can't blame the player for agreeing to an inflated contract.

I agree. Not sure what the specifics of this kind of deal are, but obviously, the intent is to distinguish a 'regular player' from one who sits on the bench, not to distinguish a guy who gets 490ABs from one who gets 500. And had the RS said they were releasing him specifically to avoid next year's contract, or worse, given him another 150 ABs or so before releasing him, they would certainly have been violating the spirit of that clause.

I'm going to miss him. An erratic but very exciting player, who, like his namesake Manny, made hitting look like the most natural thing in the world.

It's mostly due to one or two posters who are now on my block list. But it does make the threads almost unreadable. (Plus, of course, fans of other teams--but why they post here is something they need to discuss with their middle school counselor, not us.)

Thank you JasonBay. Now I can actually scroll through game threads with only two 10-year-olds on my block list.

Gotta see that again. Doesn't the on-deck hitter need to tell him to slide?? He's just standing there. Nunez got deked by the catcher. (That's on the on-deck hitter, no?)

That unnerving silence when almost no one other than two a-holes on your ignore list are talking.

Why would the rules about the shift favor power hitters? The shift should favor hitters who want to hit to the opposite field. No one wants to do that.

Well, that alas will likely ensure another streak of 1-20 or so.

Thank god they don't bunt!

He needs to stop getting at-bats at the major league level.

For God's sake just bench him. He cannot hit a belt-high fastball when he knows it's coming. This is embarrassing to the team and to him as well.

Eck: I love you. But the ball is carrying BECAUSE the air is light, not IN SPITE of that fact.

"Despite the misty weather, the ball is sailing ..." Wrong. BECAUSE of the misty weather, the ball is carrying farther than it would otherwise.