harmony
-
Posts
6,331 -
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 Tracker: Picks & Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by harmony
-
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.
-
So far this year? Seattle's Edwin Diaz (and others) https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2018&month=0&season1=2018&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0 Small samples.
-
At this point you're dodging the question (which may be answered the specific terms of the Red Sox contract with Hanley Ramirez ... or not).
-
Precisely.
-
Hanley Ramirez is on pace to meet the conditions. If he signs with another team in a week he could still meet the conditions. In November 2014 Ramirez agreed to play four seasons for the Red Sox (or their assignee). The designation for assignment may or may not prevent Ramirez from meeting that condition. Still, the Red Sox are on the hook for the balance of his 2019 salary of $22 million (less the prorated league minimum if he signs elsewhere). That Red Sox obligation did not disappear. My point is that Ramirez should be entitled to the bargained-for benefit of the vesting option if he reaches 1,050 plate appearances in 2017-18 and passes a physical. My question is what team should be responsible for the vested option.
-
If, as Evan Drellich reports, the "Union steadfastly protects value of contracts," how can the vesting option, a negotiated benefit of value, simply disappear? I suspect we haven't heard the last of this issue.
-
Not necessarily if no team will sign Hanley Ramirez to the league minimum this year because of fears the 2019 option will vest. In November 2014 Ramirez signed a contract that reportedly said a 2019 option for $22 million would vest with 1,050 plate appearances in 2017-18 (and a passed physical after the 2018 season). I doubt the vesting option simply disappears, especially when Ramirez was on pace to vest the option. Again, I don't know the terms of the Red Sox contract, which I hope addressed this contingency.
-
Except the Red Sox are still on the hook for the balance of this year's $22 million salary (less the prorated league minimum) even though Hanley Ramirez would be playing for another team under a new contract.