harmony
-
Posts
6,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by harmony
-
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.
-
I tend to agree with you ... it doesn't pass the smell test. I wonder whether the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez specifically addressed that contingency and whether changes in the MLB Collective Bargaining would produce a result different from that suffered by Dennis Lamp in 1986.
-
Portland
-
Evan Drellich of NBC Sports Boston offers his analysis of the issue: https://www.nbcsports.com/boston/red-sox/drellich-dombrowski-didnt-need-cora-buffer-avoid-hanley-grievance In 1986 Howard Cosell addressed the issue of Dennis Lamp's option: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1986-09-17/sports/8602250111_1_dennis-lamp-collusion-blue-jays-management
-
Oregon has treated me well for nearly 24 years ... and counting.
-
https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2018&month=0&season1=2010&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0
-
Hanley Ramirez, through his agent, negotiated the vesting option, which is of value to the player. I question whether the vesting option can simply disappear any more than the 2018 salary of $22 million can disappear if Ramirez signs with another club upon release. Other clubs would be unlikely to sign Ramirez if the vesting option transfers over to the new club (at least until July or August when the ultimate vesting becomes unlikely). Would Ramirez have a grievance if the designation-for-assignment effectively prevented the option from vesting when he was on pace for the option to vest? I hope the Red Sox contract with Ramirez addresses that specific contingency.