harmony

No offense but I prefer a more authoritative source than "we.":) Perhaps the Red Sox contracts specifically extinguishes the vesting option if the club releases Hanley Ramirez. Or not.

Despite playing on a first-place team in the 2017 and 2018 seasons, Hanley Ramirez was good enough to be on pace to accumulate the 1,050 plate appearances needed to vest the 2019 option. The Red Sox clearly have the authority to release any player but lack the authority to escape their contractual obligations, such as the balance of the guaranteed 2018 salary of $22 million. Hanley Ramirez has a contract that says the 2019 option will vest with 1,050 plate appearances in 2017-18. If Ramirez attains that milestone with another team, what happens with the vesting option? Will teams shy away from Ramirez out of fear the option will vest? If a new contract with another team does not extinguish the 2018 salary obligation, how can the new contract extinguish the vesting option? I raise the questions but have not found definitive answers.

If the signing team is confident that the club is not on the hook for the vesting option.

USA Today baseball writer Bob Nightengale predicts that Jed Lowrie could return to the Red Sox before the trade deadline: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2018/05/29/mlb-trade-deadline-manny-machado-josh-donaldson-cole-hamels-rumors/650523002/ I doubt it.

For the 2000 Pawtucket Red Sox, David Eckstein played 115 games at second base and one game at shortstop: https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=eckste001dav The trivia I don't remember and need to look up.

The Red Sox sign Adam Lind to a minor league contract:

To date the Red Sox starters rank second in the American League in fWAR: https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=al&qual=0&type=8&season=2018&month=0&season1=2018&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

jad is correct:

Because Hanley Ramirez will get his $22 million this year regardless.

Of course Hanley Ramirez could be released but the player, as Pablo Sandoval can attest, can still claim the agreed-upon benefits under the contract. One could argue the intent of the vesting option as Ramirez signed with the Red Sox coming off two injury-shortened seasons: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/ramirha01.shtml Over the Monster posted this column only 31 days before the Red Sox designated Ramirez for assignment: https://www.overthemonster.com/2018/4/24/17274604/hanley-ramirez-cleans-away-the-doubts-ken-rosenthal-pablo-sandoval-tripe The vesting option was a topic of discussion last offseason: https://www.overthemonster.com/2017/11/8/16621420/hanley-ramirez-vesting-option-red-sox-lineup https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-sox/2017/12/19/hanley-ramirez-contract-trade-rumors

Perhaps you don’t understand that the Red Sox are on the hook for the roughly $15 million balance on the 2018 salary for Hanley Ramirez (less the prorated league minimum if Ramirez is released and signs with another club).

I suspect those workers did not have a guaranteed five-year contract. Hanley Ramirez was guaranteed four years. The Red Sox will pay Ramirez for those four years but have effectively denied him the opportunity for the fifth-year option to vest.

If you want to know what goes into the decision-making of the wheeling-and-dealing general manager of an MLB franchise that has not been to the postseason since 2001, try The Wheelhouse with Jerry Dipoto: http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/fan_forum/podcasts/index.jsp?c_id=sea&podcast=wheelhouse The latest episode covers Seattle's recent trade for Alex Colome and Denard Span (and the role played by a young data analyst who was pitching for MIT a year ago).

That's when the players association step in.

I would find a grievance more interesting than entertaining. A definitive answer may be found in the Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez. Or not.

You're missing the issue. Regardless of the performance of Mitch Moreland or J.D. Martinez (or Jackie Bradley) Hanley Ramirez was on pace to vest the option, a negotiated benefit of value to the player. The designation for assignment may prevent the option from vesting as much as a Red Sox benching would have (a performance-based benching may have had fewer legal ramifications).

https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2018-batting-orders.shtml

I saw Pablo Sandoval hit two doubles at AT&T Park last fall: MLB Gameday: Rockies 0, Giants 4 Final Score (09/20/2017) | MLB.com WWW.MLB.COM Follow MLB results with FREE box scores, pitch-by-pitch strikezone info, and Statcast data for Rockies vs. Giants at AT&T Park ... but stayed on the bench in my most recent visit to AT&T Park: MLB Gameday: Rockies 6, Giants 1 Final Score (05/18/2018) | MLB.com WWW.MLB.COM Follow MLB results with FREE box scores, pitch-by-pitch strikezone info, and Statcast data for Rockies vs. Giants at AT&T Park

Hanley Ramirez was playing well enough to be on pace for the option to vest ... in fact well enough to be hitting second or third in a loaded lineup. I suspect you're not an attorney. Ramirez may or may not file a grievance and, if so, may or may not prevail ... but the situation raises interesting issues.

And that may be grounds for a grievance ... the action by the Red Sox effectively deprived Ramirez the opportunity to vest the option (a milestone he was on pace to meet). I wonder whether the landscape (or the CBA) have changed since the Dennis Lamp case in 1986: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/01/Pitcher-Dennis-Lamp-released-by-the-Blue-Jays-after/4730536475600/ http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-09-24/sports/8603110498_1_jays-bullpen-american-league-east-title-relief http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-09-17/sports/8602250111_1_dennis-lamp-collusion-blue-jays-management

Perhaps the issue is too complicated for some. Naturally the Red Sox would not have designated Hanley Ramirez for assignment if the front office thought the club would need to pay the vesting option. The issue is what happens to the vesting option, a negotiated benefit of value to the player. Ramirez through his agent presumably negotiated the vesting option to seal the deal. Perhaps Ramirez would not have signed on that date if he knew the Red Sox would not give him a reasonable opportunity to meet the conditions of the vesting option. After all, Ramirez -- who this year hit third in the batting order 38 times and second six times -- was on pace for the option to vest. I don't have a definite answer ... I have only questions.

The terminated contract's 2018 salary obligation of $22 million does not become "non-existent." Why is the vesting option treated differently? Feel free to contact Alex Speier (for whom I have great respect). If a team signs Hanley Ramirez immediately upon his release, I'll be convinced that the vesting option is void. But I'll remain suspicious if Ramirez goes unsigned for a month or two.

The question goes beyond whether the Red Sox are off the hook. The question is whether the vesting option dissipates into thin air. I don't consider media reports as conclusive evidence, especially if the reports cite no authority. Speier and Drellich could be correct ... or not. https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2018/05/25/red-sox-part-ways-with-hanley-ramirez/V8PHkHq10EEMLEATQKCeQK/story.html https://sports.yahoo.com/drellich-dombrowski-didnt-cora-buffer-180135017.html https://sports.yahoo.com/drellich-saying-goodbye-hanley-gamble-185817251.html

Players may or may not care about Hanley Ramirez personally, but could be interested that the Red Sox effectively voided a player's negotiated benefit of value. Employees sometimes care about the treatment of a co-worker regardless of whether the co-worker is well-liked.

I don't pretend to know the rules as well as Dave Dombrowski and his advisers. Perhaps a black-and-white answer in found in the MLB Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez. Alternatively, it's a gray area and Dombrowski, upon legal advice, decided to push the envelope. For all I know Ramirez could be fine with a voided vesting option. I'm interested in how the move is viewed by the union and by Red Sox players, current and prospective.