Is Hanley Ramirez this team's backup Third Baseman (and discussion of other emergency backups)?

[Lose Remerswaal]

Checking the game thread I see I wasn't the only one surprised when Sandoval left the game after the HBP with Ramirez coming in to play third from left field and the outfield was switched around.  I wasn't expecting Leon to come in (like he did at the end of the last Yankee game), as this game was still up in the air, but I did expect Bogaerts to come in to SS with Holt moving to third.
 
Did we learn something last night? Or was Farrell just giving Xander the full game off and this doesn't mean anything?

 

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Bogaerts was awaiting MRI results and would not have come in unless or until they were clean (which they were).
 
Ramirez is likely the backup 3Bman if Holt is forced to backup somewhere else.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Ahhh.  I was unaware Bogaerts was awaiting MRI results.  I guess that's not threadworthy!

 

[Byrdbrain]

I think he just wanted to give X the full day so he could get back at it right away, X is in the lineup today and BrockHolt is at 3B so he is your backup. That said Hanley is probably the backup today as well since even if he can go they likely want to give Pablo the full day.

 

[barbed wire Bob]

From the Herald:
 

 
Hanley Ramirez was so impressed by Brock Holt at shortstop during the Red Sox' 8-7 win over the Nationals on Tuesday night that when Sox manager John Farrell asked him if he wanted to play short or third base after Pablo Sandoval exited the game with an injury, Ramirez, a natural shortstop, requested to play third.
“Brock, he’s a good shortstop,” Ramirez said. “He made a couple plays in the beginning of the game. Why would you want to move him to third when he’s been feeling good at short? So I just said I’d go to third.”
Holt was filling in for Xander Bogaerts, who is out of action with a sore right knee, which left the Sox in a tough spot following Sandoval's injury.
Sandoval was hit in the left foot by a Stephen Strasburg curveball in the third inning, remained in the game temporarily and was removed in the top of the sixth with a left foot contusion. Farrell said postgame scans were negative and Sandoval will be re-evaluated on Wednesday.
Ramirez hadn't played third since appearing there eight times with the Dodgers and 90 times with the Marlins in 2012.
“We don’t have nobody else,” Ramirez said. “I have to do it for the team. It was a pleasure for me.”

 

[Harry Hooper]

From everything we've heard, Hanley really wanted to come back to Boston and help this team win.

 

[TigerBlood]

From everything we've heard, Hanley really wanted to come back to Boston and help this team win.

Right? Its kind of hard to wrap my mind around it, to be honest. It could be like, things are going good for him and the team right now, so he's happy to be here and contributing - for the moment. But he's literally been all smiles since joining Boston after taking a bit of a discount and moving to a new position. And by all accounts, he was never such a media darling before. I would really love to know exactly why. All because he came up in our system 10 years ago? Is Anibal Sanchez next?

 

[Hank Scorpio]

Bogaerts was awaiting MRI results and would not have come in unless or until they were clean (which they were).
 
Ramirez is likely the backup 3Bman if Holt is forced to backup somewhere else.

 
The bigger question, which we hopefully don't need to explore, who replaces who in the infield for longer term (DL) stints.
 
I'd guess something like:
 
Napoli -> Craig/Nava Platoon, not sure who would take Napoli's roster spot.
 
Pedroia, Bogaerts, Sandoval -> Holt, with Weeks taking the roster spot as a utility infielder.
 
Alternately, if you'd rather keep moving Holt around the diamond, you could call up Coyle, Marrero or Cecchini to get some MLB action, but I wouldn't do so at the expense of Holt PAs if he's still hitting the ball well.
 
With a longer term injury to Sandoval, it might be worth looking at moving Ramirez to 3B and calling up Castillo to be the everyday LF.

 

[Doctor G]

The bigger question, which we hopefully don't need to explore, who replaces who in the infield for longer term (DL) stints.
 
I'd guess something like:
 
Napoli -> Craig/Nava Platoon, not sure who would take Napoli's roster spot.
 
Pedroia, Bogaerts, Sandoval -> Holt, with Weeks taking the roster spot as a utility infielder.
 
Alternately, if you'd rather keep moving Holt around the diamond, you could call up Coyle, Marrero or Cecchini to get some MLB action, but I wouldn't do so at the expense of Holt PAs if he's still hitting the ball well.
 
With a longer term injury to Sandoval, it might be worth looking at moving Ramirez to 3B and calling up Castillo to be the everyday LF.

Cecchini is probably the primary backup for sandoval in the event of DL.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
The bigger question, which we hopefully don't need to explore, who replaces who in the infield for longer term (DL) stints.
 
I'd guess something like:
 
Napoli -> Craig/Nava Platoon, not sure who would take Napoli's roster spot.
 
Pedroia, Bogaerts, Sandoval -> Holt, with Weeks taking the roster spot as a utility infielder.
 
Alternately, if you'd rather keep moving Holt around the diamond, you could call up Coyle, Marrero or Cecchini to get some MLB action, but I wouldn't do so at the expense of Holt PAs if he's still hitting the ball well.
 
With a longer term injury to Sandoval, it might be worth looking at moving Ramirez to 3B and calling up Castillo to be the everyday LF.

I had a similar question, but my thought was that they could move Betts back to 2B in the event of a Pedroia injury and bring up JBJ (or healthy Castillo) to hold down CF. Then again, maybe don't mess too much with JBJ right now?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Right. I wouldn't mess with JBJ right now. Give him time to get his act together - for me he's still in the long term plan.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

Right? Its kind of hard to wrap my mind around it, to be honest. It could be like, things are going good for him and the team right now, so he's happy to be here and contributing - for the moment. But he's literally been all smiles since joining Boston after taking a bit of a discount and moving to a new position. And by all accounts, he was never such a media darling before. I would really love to know exactly why. All because he came up in our system 10 years ago? Is Anibal Sanchez next?

 
He just got paid. The 4 year contract he just signed guarantees him more money than he'd made in his entire career prior to signing it. A secure and large contract means he doesn't have to pretend he's a SS to up his next payday.

 

[grimshaw]

Sandy Leon could probably fill in again in an emergency.  That seems like a back up catcher type deal. 
 
Steven Wright could probably throw and catch his own knuckleball in a pinch.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
He just got paid. The 4 year contract he just signed guarantees him more money than he'd made in his entire career prior to signing it. A secure and large contract means he doesn't have to pretend he's a SS to up his next payday.

There's probably also some anticipatory vindication on his part.  He was dinged in the press as being immature while he was still with Boston.  He also very likely obsessed about playing for and in Boston when he was a minor leaguer.  Which'd be normal. 
 
So although there's not a Boston-Fan obsession with H-Ram (the one-that-got-away was quickly mitigated), there might be something of a H-Ram obsession with Boston Fandom. 

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

Bigger picture, the OF logjam (Victorino/Craig/Nava redundancy) has led to the infield thin-ness we saw on Tuesday. Better defensive coverage would come with the hypothetical departure of Victorino or Craig* and call-up of Weeks, who, like Brock Holt!, can fill in at several IF/OF positions.
 
*Not a suggestion, just a recognition that this has been widely discussed and is, I think, still a possible outcome as the team settles into the season.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Bigger picture, the OF logjam (Victorino/Craig/Nava redundancy) has led to the infield thin-ness we saw on Tuesday. Better defensive coverage would come with the hypothetical departure of Victorino or Craig* and call-up of Weeks, who, like Brock Holt!, can fill in at several IF/OF positions.
 
*Not a suggestion, just a recognition that this has been widely discussed and is, I think, still a possible outcome as the team settles into the season.

 
How many teams carry two utility guys?  I think the infield depth is fine.  They happened to have two starters become unavailable on the same day, which isn't going to happen very often.  They have at least three guys who can fill in at 1B (Craig, Nava and Ortiz), one at 2B (Holt), two at SS (Holt and Hanley) and two at 3B (Holt and Hanley).  How much more depth do you need on the 25 man?  The fact that Holt can play anywhere and their starting LF can also play at least two infield positions gives them plenty of flexibility.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

 
How many teams carry two utility guys?  I think the infield depth is fine.  They happened to have two starters become unavailable on the same day, which isn't going to happen very often.  They have at least three guys who can fill in at 1B (Craig, Nava and Ortiz), one at 2B (Holt), two at SS (Holt and Hanley) and two at 3B (Holt and Hanley).  How much more depth do you need on the 25 man?  The fact that Holt can play anywhere and their starting LF can also play at least two infield positions gives them plenty of flexibility.

FWIW Betts could probably cover 2b at least in case of an emergency (Holt needed elsewhere). Victorino goes to CF and two of Hanley/Nava/Craig are at the corners. It's hardly a good defense but it wouldn't be a catastrophe for a game or two.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I totally forgot about Betts at 2B.  Thanks for correcting me.  The depth is even better than I thought.

 

[grimshaw]

Ya - I highly doubt they'll have any issues fielding at least replacement level production at every position, given how stacked the AAA team is.
Even if they had to call up Marrero he would have good value just for all the grounders he'd get to.

 

[semsox]

FWIW Betts could probably cover 2b at least in case of an emergency (Holt needed elsewhere). Victorino goes to CF and two of Hanley/Nava/Craig are at the corners. It's hardly a good defense but it wouldn't be a catastrophe for a game or two.

 
If Pedroia were out for an extended period of time, it's a no brainer that Mookie mans 2nd base for the duration of his absence.

 

[Al Zarilla]

 
If Pedroia were out for an extended period of time, it's a no brainer that Mookie mans 2nd base for the duration of his absence.

Why would you interrupt Mookie's excellent adventure development in center field. If, shudder, Pedey had to go on the DL, they can play Holt at 2B and/or bring up Jemile Weeks, who is not bad at 2B. 

 

[phenweigh]

Why would you interrupt Mookie's excellent adventure development in center field. If, shudder, Pedey had to go on the DL, they can play Holt at 2B and/or bring up Jemile Weeks, who is not bad at 2B. 

The only reason I can think of is that it may give Rusney an opening for regular playing time.  That of course would depend on what's happening with a lot of other players.

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

 
How many teams carry two utility guys?

 
A better question might be how many teams would carry two utility guys if they could.  Your comment implies that a utility guy isn't as good to have as a less positionally flexible guy.  I'd argue that more positional flexibility is better, if you're getting equal (or better) offensive production.
Last year, the Sox' "utility guy" Brock Holt provided 2.3 fWAR / 2.1 bWAR in 492 PAs.  All the projection systems are looking for a regression to the mean for this season, but they're all in the 1+ WAR area. On the other hand, Allen Craig, for instance, is projected for less than 1 WAR in all the systems. Again, I don't want to turn this into an Allen Craig discussion. The point is, labeling Brock Holt as just a "utility guy," and assuming that since the team has one utility guy it shouldn't have another, isn't considering the full picture.  I think what a baseball team wants is productive baseball players who do things to help the team win.  If Player A is more productive than Player B, the team should want Player A. If Player A also happens to be able to play all the positions that Player B can play, and a few additional positions, all the better. Brock Holt is projected to be a more productive player this season than Allen Craig. So what if he's a "utility guy"?
 
Anyway, here's a view of the depth chart of the current 25-man roster.  EB is emergency back-up, as in the circumstances would be very unusual for that player to have to fill that role.
C: (1) Hanigan, (2) Leon, (EB) Holt?
1B: (1) Napoli, (2/3) Craig/Nava (depending on RHP/LHP), (4) Holt, (5) Ortiz
2B: (1) Pedroia, (2) Holt, (EB) Betts
SS: (1) Bogaerts, (2) Holt, (EB) Ramirez
3B: (1) Sandoval, (2) Holt, (EB) Ramirez
LF: (1) Ramirez, (2/3) Craig/Nava (depending on RHP/LHP), (4) Holt
CF: (1) Betts, (2) Holt, (EB) Victorino
RF: (1) Victorino, (2/3) Craig/Nava (depending on RHP/LHP), (4) Holt

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
A better question might be how many teams would carry two utility guys if they could.  Your comment implies that a utility guy isn't as good to have as a less positionally flexible guy.  I'd argue that more positional flexibility is better, if you're getting equal (or better) offensive production.
Last year, the Sox' "utility guy" Brock Holt provided 2.3 fWAR / 2.1 bWAR in 492 PAs.  All the projection systems are looking for a regression to the mean for this season, but they're all in the 1+ WAR area. On the other hand, Allen Craig, for instance, is projected for less than 1 WAR in all the systems. Again, I don't want to turn this into an Allen Craig discussion. The point is, labeling Brock Holt as just a "utility guy," and assuming that since the team has one utility guy it shouldn't have another, isn't considering the full picture.  I think what a baseball team wants is productive baseball players who do things to help the team win.  If Player A is more productive than Player B, the team should want Player A. If Player A also happens to be able to play all the positions that Player B can play, and a few additional positions, all the better. Brock Holt is projected to be a more productive player this season than Allen Craig. So what if he's a "utility guy"?
 
Anyway, here's a view of the depth chart of the current 25-man roster.  EB is emergency back-up, as in the circumstances would be very unusual for that player to have to fill that role.
C: (1) Hanigan, (2) Leon, (EB) Holt?
1B: (1) Napoli, (2/3) Craig/Nava (depending on RHP/LHP), (4) Holt, (5) Ortiz
2B: (1) Pedroia, (2) Holt, (EB) Betts
SS: (1) Bogaerts, (2) Holt, (EB) Ramirez
3B: (1) Sandoval, (2) Holt, (EB) Ramirez
LF: (1) Ramirez, (2/3) Craig/Nava (depending on RHP/LHP), (4) Holt
CF: (1) Betts, (2) Holt, (EB) Victorino
RF: (1) Victorino, (2/3) Craig/Nava (depending on RHP/LHP), (4) Holt

 
No, I was implying that the options for a second utility guy (ie., Weeks) aren't as good as the other guys currently on the 25 man roster.  Holt is a very good utility player who can play all over the field and be productive.  The only way it makes sense to carry two of those guys is if they're both better players than Nava, Craig, or whoever else would be on the bench.  My initial post was in response to your concern (at least that's how I interpreted it- apologies if I misunderstood) that there wasn't enough infield depth on the current roster.  Considering the versatility of Holt, Hanley, Betts, Craig and Nava, I was basically saying that I don't see infield depth as a problem at all right now.

 

[Hyde Park Factor]

I totally forgot about Betts at 2B.  Thanks for correcting me.  The depth is even better than I thought.

Agreed. Remember when Francona had to start Kevin Youkilis in left field for a few games? No, thank you.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Not that it matters, but Leon is probably the #4 Third Baseman, as he played it on Sunday night in the Bronx

 

[Reverend]

Right? Its kind of hard to wrap my mind around it, to be honest. It could be like, things are going good for him and the team right now, so he's happy to be here and contributing - for the moment. But he's literally been all smiles since joining Boston after taking a bit of a discount and moving to a new position. And by all accounts, he was never such a media darling before. I would really love to know exactly why. All because he came up in our system 10 years ago? Is Anibal Sanchez next?

 
Bradford:

Some might want to paint the moment Hanley Ramirez returned to play third base in the sixth inning of the Red Sox' 8-7 win over the Nationals as a defining snapshot in the 31-year-old's brief existence as a member of these Red Sox.
 
But what was he going to do? Say no? Red Sox manager John Farrell needed Ramirez to play somewhere on the left side of the infield after Pablo Sandoval's foot contusion forced the third baseman from the game. He asked Ramirez where he would rather play, shortstop or third base. The player gave the answer and then went out and played the position.
 
What the instance should highlight is the overreactions to every little thing Ramirez does (that's not hitting home runs). Why is it this way? Because, for better or worse, we were expecting something different. We were expecting him to say no.
 
There were moments that fit our previous expectations in the Red Sox' latest win.
 
The outfielder's duck-and-cover reaction to a ball off the base of the left-field wall. The jogging down the third-base line before turning it on for the last 20 feet when he realized pitcher Blake Treinen's throw was going to sail past catcher Wilson Ramos, allowing for a pivotal run.
 
But, much like was the case with the original Red Sox star named Ramirez, Manny, by the time the player strolled out of the clubhouse, yelling into Farrell's office, "You're the best!" those uneasy miscues had been forgotten.
 
The Ramirez who has presented himself with the Red Sox has been jovial, hard-working, productive and still slightly flawed. So while everyone is trying to decipher if this is the genuine article, and the unselfishness that once again surfaced Tuesday is here to stay, just know this: All you want if you're the Sox is to bottle this Hanley -- the good and the bad -- for as long as possible.
 

 

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

 
No, I was implying that the options for a second utility guy (ie., Weeks) aren't as good as the other guys currently on the 25 man roster.  Holt is a very good utility player who can play all over the field and be productive.  The only way it makes sense to carry two of those guys is if they're both better players than Nava, Craig, or whoever else would be on the bench.  My initial post was in response to your concern (at least that's how I interpreted it- apologies if I misunderstood) that there wasn't enough infield depth on the current roster.  Considering the versatility of Holt, Hanley, Betts, Craig and Nava, I was basically saying that I don't see infield depth as a problem at all right now.

OK, thanks for clarifying. I was thinking the infield seems thin, as evidenced by resorting to the emergency 3B on Tuesday. But the fact that the Sox' emergency options are guys who have played the position in the past couple of years does speak to the depth being satisfactory. I looked at a couple other teams' rosters and realized the Sox are in a relatively good place depth-wise.
I certainly am not advocating to replace Craig or Nava with Weeks. But I think there's a possibility that Craig or Victorino gets hurt or remains unproductive to the point of being traded/DFA'd. If that happens, then the decision on who to call up becomes very interesting. If Craig is effective and Victorino is gone, the Sox probably call up Castillo and give him right field (assuming he's healthy and playing well). If Victorino is effective and Craig is gone, the Sox probably leave Castillo in Pawtucket to play regularly. So who gets the call? They don't NEED a corner OF/1B to replace Craig, since Holt does that already. They're basically free to bring up anybody they think can help the most in limited playing time (so probably not a prospect you want getting regular ABs) - I'd think Berry, Brentz or Weeks, with Weeks' positional flexibility his pro, Brentz' power his, and Berry's speed his. Which Avenger do you need?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

OK, thanks for clarifying. I was thinking the infield seems thin, as evidenced by resorting to the emergency 3B on Tuesday. But the fact that the Sox' emergency options are guys who have played the position in the past couple of years does speak to the depth being satisfactory. I looked at a couple other teams' rosters and realized the Sox are in a relatively good place depth-wise.
I certainly am not advocating to replace Craig or Nava with Weeks. But I think there's a possibility that Craig or Victorino gets hurt or remains unproductive to the point of being traded/DFA'd. If that happens, then the decision on who to call up becomes very interesting. If Craig is effective and Victorino is gone, the Sox probably call up Castillo and give him right field (assuming he's healthy and playing well). If Victorino is effective and Craig is gone, the Sox probably leave Castillo in Pawtucket to play regularly. So who gets the call? They don't NEED a corner OF/1B to replace Craig, since Holt does that already. They're basically free to bring up anybody they think can help the most in limited playing time (so probably not a prospect you want getting regular ABs) - I'd think Berry, Brentz or Weeks, with Weeks' positional flexibility his pro, Brentz' power his, and Berry's speed his. Which Avenger do you need?

I can't see any scenario other than the status quo where Castillo stays in Pawtucket. In other words if any of Ramirez, Mookie, Vic, Nava or Craig go on the DL or Nava/Craig/vic gets traded then Rusney is up.

And I think Victorino is going to have to play very well to avoid losing his job. Mediocrity is not going to cut it.

 

[edoug]

How many strong RH batters have batted at Fenway? Well Hanley did something that has never been done.  He put a hole in the Monster.