The 2018 Lineup

Maximus

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
5,774
Mookie RF
10D LF
JDM DH
Devers 3B
Hanley 1B
Bogaerts SS
JBJ CF
Nunez 2B
Vasquez C

Moreland gets AB's at 1B vs. righties based on the numbers and past history against particular starters. Bench is Moreland, Swihart, Leon, Marrero. Holt is traded.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Unless he's playing a different position... It'd sure be hard to be the #3 hitter from the bench.
I think his point is that since it's February 20th, it really doesn't matter who his #3 hitter is "right now". He didn't say he was his Opening Day #3 hitter.
 

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
I think his point is that since it's February 20th, it really doesn't matter who his #3 hitter is "right now". He didn't say he was his Opening Day #3 hitter.
The information in Hank's post obviously renders this moot, if it was tongue in cheek and/or didn't account for JDM. But if the manager is saying Hanley is his #3 hitter, I think it's pretty obvious the plan right now is to have him be the primary starter. So, yes, even on Feb. 20. Just like saying Mookie is his leadoff hitter means we should be expecting him to be the starter at his position.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The information in Hank's post obviously renders this moot, if it was tongue in cheek and/or didn't account for JDM. But if the manager is saying Hanley is his #3 hitter, I think it's pretty obvious the plan right now is to have him be the primary starter. So, yes, even on Feb. 20. Just like saying Mookie is his leadoff hitter means we should be expecting him to be the starter at his position.
Well, of course in a JDM-less lineup Hanley would be the primary DH, and #3 would be an eminently logical place for him to bat. So yes, Cora's statement tells us what the plan was as of yesterday morning, and no, it doesn't tell us anything at all about what's going to happen now.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
The information in Hank's post obviously renders this moot, if it was tongue in cheek and/or didn't account for JDM. But if the manager is saying Hanley is his #3 hitter, I think it's pretty obvious the plan right now is to have him be the primary starter. So, yes, even on Feb. 20. Just like saying Mookie is his leadoff hitter means we should be expecting him to be the starter at his position.
Spring training takes a while. Lets not put anything in pen yet.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
For the sake of drama if nothing else, I'll stick with this prediction.

9 Betts
7 Benintendi
6 Bogaerts
0 Martinez
5 Devers
4 Nunez/Pedroia
3 Moreland
8 Bradley
2 Vazquez

It's not a preference, but I think Hanley's traded to the Rockies with a surplus RHP reliever (Hembree/Workman). I don't know for who, maybe a somewhat expensive but still useful player like Mike Dunn or Gerardo Parra and a #10ish prospect.

Bench: Swihart, Marrero/Lin, Parra, Travis
 
Last edited:

tonyarmasjr

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 12, 2010
1,120
Well, of course in a JDM-less lineup Hanley would be the primary DH, and #3 would be an eminently logical place for him to bat. So yes, Cora's statement tells us what the plan was as of yesterday morning, and no, it doesn't tell us anything at all about what's going to happen now.
Right. Drellich's tweet was from today. I assumed this was a statement from Cora following the addition of JDM. That would illuminate the plan to have Hanley be the primary 1B, since JDM is the DH. That, apparently, wasn't the context of his comment.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
It's not a preference, but I think Hanley's traded to the Rockies with a surplus RHP reliever (Hembree/Workman). I don't know for who, maybe a somewhat expensive but still useful player like Mike Dunn or Gerardo Parra and a #10ish prospect.

Bench: Swihart, Marrero/Lin, Parra, Travis
The Rockies already have a ready to step in kid with McMahon who raked in the high minors last year. Plus their 2017 starter who outhit Hanley still sitting out there unsigned and likely ready to beg for a simple guaranteed MLB contract. Not sure I'm seeing a desire to jump in on Hanley there, much less give anything up that may be useful to them in the process, from the Colorado POV.

I can't envision a reality scenario where Moreland actually starts the year as a full time bench player here, but I do think that this late in the offseason it's a somewhat safe assumption that DD/Cora are preparing to build a bench that includes Hanley spending a fair amount of time on it.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
The Rockies already have a ready to step in kid with McMahon who raked in the high minors last year. Plus their 2017 starter who outhit Hanley still sitting out there unsigned and likely ready to beg for a simple guaranteed MLB contract. Not sure I'm seeing a desire to jump in on Hanley there, much less give anything up that may be useful to them in the process, from the Colorado POV.

I can't envision a reality scenario where Moreland actually starts the year as a full time bench player here, but I do think that this late in the offseason it's a somewhat safe assumption that DD/Cora are preparing to build a bench that includes Hanley spending a fair amount of time on it.
I think the Rockies are more likely to sign Duda or Morrison or Reynolds than give that kid the full-time reins in April, but that's for a different thread.

Curious to see how Hanley's 2018 will go, wherever it is.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,344
Probably best to move Hanley's future discussion to a new thread.... but there's a lot here to move and I can't. Anyhow...... yeah.... I don't know what to do with him. I know that between rest for JDM and platooning, there's always this idea that players will get plenty of PA's but it rarely works out and seems to only leave a player out that feels like they should be getting more.
I just don't know how you realistically make Hanley a starting 1B unless the plan is to actually injure the guy since that's the likely outcome.... and then he won't get to the plate appearance clause in his contract. Good idea. I don't see a good way to build up his trade value if he's platooning, and if he's starting and performing well then you don't want to trade him... but you still don't want to pick up his '19... and I don't think Moreland will be happy as a bench guy/pinch hitter/late inning defensive replacement. Someone who had an .800OPS, plus defense, 20+ HR's (and could have been better with better health) isn't playing that role.
But really, I think DD has to find a taker for him, and more than likely it'll need to be a team with a DH slot open. If I were DD I'd look to package him, as suggested above, with a quality surplus RH reliever for salary relief more than any prospect return. Some team would likely want him for $2M and would be okay picking up his '19 option if it meant $10M per. Seattle? Oakland? Said team would obviously have a vision of itself possibly competing.
I want Moreland as our 1B, and I think it's clear that DD does too- valueing his defense throughout an entire game, not just after the 8th inning. With JD as the DH, Hanley is redundant unless JBJ ends up on the trading block (thankfully, unlikely....). Bye Hanley.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,887
I couldn't disagree more with that. I think you keep Hanley, and if his option vests, it means he's playing well and producing for you, which is a good thing. And you end up (granted at the high cost of $22 million) with Hanley also playing 2019 highly motivated and playing for his next contract.

With Nunez as a utility guy once Pedroia comes back, and Moreland and Ramirez on the team, this team will have quality depth. Last year they didn't have that, and wound up playing Moreland and Bogaerts while they were hurt, making them black holes at the plate for large stretches.

Keep the depth. Let Hanley earn his time. He looks to be in great shape, so maybe he can play first. And there still should were be plenty of time for Moreland. If Hanley stinks to start the year or is disruptive because the option may not vest, THEN you cut him. But if he's going to play hard, I'd much rather have him as the the depth than have to rely on Sam Travis.

I think back to the team that broke my heart as a kid: The 1978 Red Sox. They got rid of a seemingly surplus player in Bernie Carbo, and then when injuries hit, they played guys hurt and wound up giving 86 plate appearances to Garry Hancock and his .494 OPS and 33 OPS-Plus. Virutally every position player on the the team except Jerry Remy was worse in the second half because they were worn down, thanks to a bench of Bob Bailey (116 PS, 83 OPS Plus), Jack Brohamer (277 PA, 65 OPS-Plus and Frank Duffy (117 PA, 66 OPS-Plus).
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
Hard to imagine anyone being interested in trading for Hanley while LoMo, Duda, Reynolds, etc are still available for just money (and presumably far less of it). Stranger things have happened I guess.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
I just don't know how you realistically make Hanley a starting 1B unless the plan is to actually injure the guy since that's the likely outcome.... and then he won't get to the plate appearance clause in his contract. Good idea. I don't see a good way to build up his trade value if he's platooning, and if he's starting and performing well then you don't want to trade him... but you still don't want to pick up his '19... and I don't think Moreland will be happy as a bench guy/pinch hitter/late inning defensive replacement. Someone who had an .800OPS, plus defense, 20+ HR's (and could have been better with better health) isn't playing that role.
But really, I think DD has to find a taker for him, and more than likely it'll need to be a team with a DH slot open. If I were DD I'd look to package him, as suggested above, with a quality surplus RH reliever for salary relief more than any prospect return. Some team would likely want him for $2M and would be okay picking up his '19 option if it meant $10M per. Seattle? Oakland? Said team would obviously have a vision of itself possibly competing.
I want Moreland as our 1B, and I think it's clear that DD does too- valueing his defense throughout an entire game, not just after the 8th inning. With JD as the DH, Hanley is redundant unless JBJ ends up on the trading block (thankfully, unlikely....). Bye Hanley.
Oakland and Seattle have Khris Davis and Nelson Cruz in their DH spots. If the Rockies buy that Hanley can be a full-time first baseman, great. They're the only NL team that conceivably needs one. The only AL team that's playing for something is the Twins, while the Royals, Rays, and White Sox have DH openings if they wanna go there.

Those teams' expendable players that could in any way make up a salary-swap trade for Hanley (more complicated than a one-for-one) are Gerardo Parra, Mike Dunn, Ian Desmond, Jason Hammel, Alex Gordon, Ian Kennedy, Danny Duffy, James Shields, Phil Hughes, Wilson Ramos, Adeiny Hechavarria, and Denard Span.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
Mookie RF
10D LF
JDM DH
Devers 3B
Hanley 1B
Bogaerts SS
JBJ CF
Nunez 2B
Vasquez C

Moreland gets AB's at 1B vs. righties based on the numbers and past history against particular starters. Bench is Moreland, Swihart, Leon, Marrero. Holt is traded.
This is pretty much my lineup as well, though with Brentz gone, I think it marginally increases the chances of Holt sticking around over Marrero since he can play OF.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
This is pretty much my lineup as well, though with Brentz gone, I think it marginally increases the chances of Holt sticking around over Marrero since he can play OF.
We need someone who can play SS, though. I'm not sure that's still Brock Holt.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
We need someone who can play SS, though. I'm not sure that's still Brock Holt.
I think Brock can play shortstop to roughly the same extent that Marrero can hit, plus they have Nunez. Of course it's true that Marrero would be the pick if you want a utility IF with a great glove; you go with Brock if you value the OF flexibility and the hitting as well. Depending on health all around, of course. The coaches and scouts have to figure this one out.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
The coaches and scouts have to figure this one out.
Exactly, adding the medical staff. If Holt is actually healthy, he's a good player. Same with Swihart. Both guys have lingering issues that make evaluation difficult, especially from a distance.
 

strek1

Run, Forrest, run!
SoSH Member
Jun 13, 2006
31,747
Hartford area
Exactly, adding the medical staff. If Holt is actually healthy, he's a good player. Same with Swihart. Both guys have lingering issues that make evaluation difficult, especially from a distance.
I agree. People have been too quick to throw Holt away.
 

DoyleCanBoyd

New Member
Jul 16, 2005
41
Philthadelphia
As presently constructed, I could see the Red Sox employing an almost Belichick-esque approach to the daily lineup wherein it changes day-to-day depending on pitcher, opposing pitcher, ballpark, etc. That being said, I don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I agree. People have been too quick to throw Holt away.
As someone advocating for Holt to be DFA’d, let me make clear that it’s never been either his hitting ability, or his defensive versatility, that caused me to take my position. It’s his unreliability, and his salary.

The vertigo/concussion/brain injury stuff makes him unreliable as a backup. And by stuff I mean the concussions and the vertigo appear to be inter-related, insofar as Holt himself describes 4 separate "concussion" episodes in the past three seasons, none of which have demonstrated headache-related symptoms but have "been all vision, balance type stuff".

His DL stints have gotten longer, as well. In 2015, he was able to avoid the DL but his production tailed off drastically in the second half. In 2016, he was on the DL for 6 weeks, from 5/20-6/30. In 2017, his time on the DL doubled to 12 weeks, from 4/21-7/15. I'm not a neurologist, but it’s pie-in-the-sky-foolishness to think this is going to go away next season.

And then there's his salary. That $2MM is generally chump change to the Red Sox payroll. I get that. But this year, with the team almost maxed out to the secondary CBT threshhold, that savings is potentially significant. Given that the Red Sox need to rebuild their farm, but risk losing not only draft position, but also the slot money that goes with it, it seems unwise to dedicate that cap space to an unreliable utility player.

IMO, it's better for the team to release him with DDski keeping that salary savings in his hip pocket for mid-season trades.

As for the lineup, I'd like to see this one rolled out to start the season:

1. R - Betts (RF)
2. L - Benintendi (LF)
3. R - Martinez (DH)
4. R - Ramirez (1B)
5. L - Devers (3B)
6. R - Bogaerts (SS)
7. R - Nunez (2B)
8. L/R - Vazquez (C)
9. L - Bradley (CF)

BENCH - Leon (C), Moreland (1B), Swihart (C/LF/RF), Marrero (2B/3B/SS)
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
As presently constructed, I could see the Red Sox employing an almost Belichick-esque approach to the daily lineup wherein it changes day-to-day depending on pitcher, opposing pitcher, ballpark, etc. That being said, I don't know if that's a good thing, or a bad thing.
Flashbacks to Jimy
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The more I look at Holt's numbers, the more I think he's history. His offense has declined for two years in a row, and last year was more of a plummet. He's about to turn 30, costs too much, and the Sox have other options. He's been a great story, but I have a hard time imagining him looking good enough in the early going to avoid a DFA.
 

normstalls

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 15, 2004
4,486
As for the lineup, I'd like to see this one rolled out to start the season:

1. R - Betts (RF)
2. L - Benintendi (LF)
3. R - Martinez (DH)
4. R - Ramirez (1B)
5. L - Devers (3B)
6. R - Bogaerts (SS)
7. R - Nunez (2B)
8. L/R - Vazquez (C)
9. L - Bradley (CF)

BENCH - Leon (C), Moreland (1B), Swihart (C/LF/RF), Marrero (2B/3B/SS)
I am on board with this lineup and bench. I think the lineup is pretty deep and has the potential to be very productive.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
To me - it's simple. They have little payroll flexibility so getting rid of Holt is one of the few ways they can save a few million. There are going to be fungible utility guys available in March too from other teams discards.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
To me - it's simple. They have little payroll flexibility so getting rid of Holt is one of the few ways they can save a few million. There are going to be fungible utility guys available in March too from other teams discards.
Yet it would of made more sense to simply non-tender Holt altogether is you really want to get that min/max'y though, right? Plus he is still checking off the backup outfielder box better then anybody else in the mix now that they've traded Brentz (Abraham reported yesterday that the Sox were scraping the play Swihart outside of C/1B plan too, fwtw).

The could also alternatively choose to focus a saving effort on the other side of the ball, and end up viewing the bullpen as being deep enough to ship upcoming FA Kelly and his $3.8m out.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Yet it would of made more sense to simply non-tender Holt altogether is you really want to get that min/max'y though, right? Plus he is still checking off the backup outfielder box better then anybody else in the mix now that they've traded Brentz (Abraham reported yesterday that the Sox were scraping the play Swihart outside of C/1B plan too, fwtw).

The could also alternatively choose to focus a saving effort on the other side of the ball, and end up viewing the bullpen as being deep enough to ship upcoming FA Kelly and his $3.8m out.
Not really. Nunez wasn't exactly a lock to return for the amount he returned for, so they probably kept the option open in case nothing else worked out.
 

chawson

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
4,660
The could also alternatively choose to focus a saving effort on the other side of the ball, and end up viewing the bullpen as being deep enough to ship upcoming FA Kelly and his $3.8m out.
Would be an odd move. Kelly always invites some puzzlement but his .222 wOBA vs. RHH last year was elite. With Grichuk and Stanton entering the division, there’s a good argument we’d need him even more.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
744
Yet it would of made more sense to simply non-tender Holt altogether is you really want to get that min/max'y though, right?
BROCKHOLT wreaking some havoc: http://www.weei.com/blogs/john-tomase/watch-red-sox-pitcher-joe-kelly-drilled-brock-holt-comebacker-during-drills-limps

Plus he is still checking off the backup outfielder box better then anybody else in the mix now that they've traded Brentz (Abraham reported yesterday that the Sox were scraping the play Swihart outside of C/1B plan too, fwtw).
Conflicting report here on the Swihart plan:
Manager Alex Cora said prior to Thursday's doubleheader that Swihart will focus on catching, playing the outfield and serving as designated hitter over the next week or so. He didn't have a timetable for when Swihart would start seeing time in the infield.

http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2018/02/the_plan_for_blake_swiharts_pl.html#incart_river_index
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Not really. Nunez wasn't exactly a lock to return for the amount he returned for, so they probably kept the option open in case nothing else worked out.
Right, but the underlining point in that is it implies that the Sox did/do view Holt as a potential option they'd go with, and if that's the case I'm not sure the desire to free up less then $2m is essentially trumping out there.

Or that DD is as intensely focused on that staying under the $237m mark possibility as we may be atm for that matter.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
Alex Cora was just on Sirius MLB radio and he thinks the Sox could have four 20/20 players (Betts, 10D, X, and Bradley.) Sounds like he will be a very aggressive manager.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Alex Cora was just on Sirius MLB radio and he thinks the Sox could have four 20/20 players (Betts, 10D, X, and Bradley.) Sounds like he will be a very aggressive manager.
It would be interesting if he bunched the four of them together, lineup-wise, and had each of them running more. That would create a ton of pressure ahead of the big bats, especially if Swihart can hit his way into playing catcher part-time, as well. Loads of potential for double steals.
 

beautokyo

New Member
Jun 5, 2008
267
Tokyo, Japan
BROCKHOLT wreaking some havoc: http://www.weei.com/blogs/john-tomase/watch-red-sox-pitcher-joe-kelly-drilled-brock-holt-comebacker-during-drills-limps



Conflicting report here on the Swihart plan:
Manager Alex Cora said prior to Thursday's doubleheader that Swihart will focus on catching, playing the outfield and serving as designated hitter over the next week or so. He didn't have a timetable for when Swihart would start seeing time in the infield.

http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2018/02/the_plan_for_blake_swiharts_pl.html#incart_river_index
Swihart started at 1st base today.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Alex Cora was just on Sirius MLB radio and he thinks the Sox could have four 20/20 players (Betts, 10D, X, and Bradley.) Sounds like he will be a very aggressive manager.
The only one on that list that's an eyebrow-raiser for me is Bradley, since he's never stolen even 10 bases before. Betts and Beni are already 20/20 guys, and X has gone 21 and 15, though in separate years.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
I think batting orders matter. Nor do I agree with your 5th best hitter should bat 3rd. You shouldn't be tied to the "formula." each team is different with players strengths different. And primarily I agree with Rich Garces Belly lineup but I'd use most of it - the same lineup regardless of right/left (though I'd have small changes). Beni, for example, stays at 2. Late in the game I want Beni's bat too - at the top.

1-- Betts
2-- Beni
3-- JDM
4-- Devers
5-- Xander
6-- Hanley/Moreland
7- Nunez
For 8 and 9 I'm torn Vaz or JBJ.
And 4 through 7 can be juggelled depending on who is hot.

**I like Devers at 4. Beni was very good vs righties and JDM is a terror vs lefties. Unless the lefty is dominant you never want a lefty facing JDM in a big spot. It would set up Devers nicely if a righty were to face him.. The team would need a deep bullpen.

*****Not a fan at all of putting Hanley 3rd nor am I fan of having Moreland 4th unless they were both previously hot or others are terribly cold.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,095
I think batting orders matter. Nor do I agree with your 5th best hitter should bat 3rd. You shouldn't be tied to the "formula." each team is different with players strengths different. And primarily I agree with Rich Garces Belly lineup but I'd use most of it - the same lineup regardless of right/left (though I'd have small changes). Beni, for example, stays at 2. Late in the game I want Beni's bat too - at the top.

1-- Betts
2-- Beni
3-- JDM
4-- Devers
5-- Xander
6-- Hanley/Moreland
7- Nunez
For 8 and 9 I'm torn Vaz or JBJ.
And 4 through 7 can be juggelled depending on who is hot.

**I like Devers at 4. Beni was very good vs righties and JDM is a terror vs lefties. Unless the lefty is dominant you never want a lefty facing JDM in a big spot. It would set up Devers nicely if a righty were to face him.. The team would need a deep bullpen.

*****Not a fan at all of putting Hanley 3rd nor am I fan of having Moreland 4th unless they were both previously hot or others are terribly cold.
Batting order matters in the regular season; it's meaningless in spring training. It's only use in spring training is to ensure that the player gets enough at bats before being pulled to give the minor leaguer some playing time.