The Case Against Moving Hanley

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
As sort of an aside, while the PED era did fuel a lot of HRs, I often wonder if power is "dying out" or if that will be true 5 years from now.

 
The MLB HR rate hasn't actually changed much in the past 10 years. It did have a spike in the steroid era, where it was hovering in the 2.8%-3.0% range between 1997 and 2006. But since then it's been between 2.5 and 2.7 every year except last year, when it did bottom out at 2.3. This year it's back up to 2.6 again, same as 2007-08.
 
It's not power that has died, it's batting average and on-base percentage. In 2007 the MLB batting line was .268/.336/.423. This year it's .254/.315/.401. ISO is only a bit down over that stretch, from .155 to .147. And BABIP is only a bit down, from .303 to .298. But the K rate has spiked from 17.1 to 20.2, while the BB rate has fallen from 8.5 to 7.5.
 
It's not mostly a power shortage that's plaguing mid-teens offenses, it's a shortage of the ability to avoid making outs.

 

[nvalvo]

While I think Hanley as a passible LF is a better option, I'd be a little surprised if they didn't ask Hanley to practice 1B in the offseason, or in early spring training.  If Ortiz had better knees though, the best plan might be to play Ortiz at 1B/DH and LF/DH Hanley, using Shaw et. al. to fill in at 1B/DH.  If if if.  If Craig had regained his power stroke in AAA. . .  If Hanley is able to log the hours in the OF to become passible. . .

 
This is the avenue I'd pursue. I just can't see how dumping him and carrying meaningful dead money helps the team as much as his potential for a return to form would (offensively, anyway), at least at this stage. 
 
I think next season we could put both old man Ortiz and hopefully-healthy-but-admittedly-fragile Hanley on schedules where they're starting 5 of 6 games, and PH'ing in a high impact spot in the sixth, while filling in around them from what is hopefully a deep bench. 
 
When everyone's healthy, you could have a schedule kind of like this, assuming the personnel on the 25-man roster remains similar (a big assumption): 
 
1B, per six games:  Ortiz 1, Shaw 2, Holt 3 
LF, per six games:  Hanley 3, whichever of the remaining OF is deemed most suitable for LF 3
DH, per six games:  Ortiz 4, Hanley 2
 
This gives us a survivable rotation until we ascertain whether Hanley's power has returned (or shows signs of returning). If it has, he's worth hanging onto as the DH heir apparent. If it hasn't, we swallow some money and deal him for dimes on the dollar mid-season. 

 

[Drek717]

 

it seems like a big part of the rationale for keeping Hanley is that we'll have a great DH whenever Ortiz retires. So then we have to jump through a lot of hoops to figure out what to do with him for another year or maybe two before he can become the full-time DH. Maybe he can try left field again. Maybe he can switch to first base and not stink up the joint. Maybe he can platoon a little with Ortiz. We're trying really hard to find a way to have him not screw up the team in the short term so that we can reap the full benefit of his offensive awesomeness in the long term. They signed him hoping he could be a $22 million asset to the team as a left fielder. He wasn't. Now we're hoping he can be an asset next year as a left fielder or first baseman. He won't.
 
It was a mistake to sign him. So let's learn from the mistake.

So what are they supposed to learn from the mistake?  Because no one is taking Hanley off their hands without one hell of a subsidy, probably a subsidy to the point of it being a bigger burden than finding a spot for Hanley.
 
Also, if he moves to 1B and is average or better he stays at 1B until someone moves him off that spot.  The presumption is that one of the Travises will do that and force Hanley to DH by way of their better defense and ML quality bat at league minimum salary, but maybe not.  Maybe Hanley is a natural at 1B, using those natural infielder instincts to be a rangey (for a 1B) fielder with stable receiver skills.  Who knows?  But it's a much better gamble than trying him in LF, and if it pays off he doesn't move again until he is pushed into the DH hole by a better fielding 1B.

 
 

 
While I think Hanley as a passible LF is a better option, I'd be a little surprised if they didn't ask Hanley to practice 1B in the offseason, or in early spring training.  If Ortiz had better knees though, the best plan might be to play Ortiz at 1B/DH and LF/DH Hanley, using Shaw et. al. to fill in at 1B/DH.  If if if.  If Craig had regained his power stroke in AAA. . .  If Hanley is able to log the hours in the OF to become passible. . .

The insurance against all the "ifs" this team will enter 2016 with (which can't be avoided) is depth.  Construct a roster that can easily withstand one or two every day fielders + starting pitchers (combined) flaming out and possibly, if the farm is providing, withstand three or even four.  Anything more is asking too much, but with Shaw, the ability to plan for Bradley/Castillo to share RF and 4th OF duties, and utility pieces like Marrero, Sam Travis, etc. on the farm there is a clear path to shoot for.
 
Good teams are a composite of planning and luck.  The Sox didn't plan well enough the last two years but have also gotten very little luck.  If the bad luck continues there isn't anything they can do to turn it around, other than wait knowing that it is really just the flip of the coin screwing them and laws of probability dictate that it will probably someday stop.  But they can go in better prepared and be more responsive when they're unlucky enough to have players fall short of expectations.
 
As for Hanley in LF, my concern is that he now looks at the position in a negative light, especially due to the close proximity of the walls, and will never fully acclimate to the job.  Maybe he does, but he seems actively afraid of getting too close to the walls out there and for a LF in Fenway that just won't fly.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
 

So what are they supposed to learn from the mistake?  Because no one is taking Hanley off their hands without one hell of a subsidy, probably a subsidy to the point of it being a bigger burden than finding a spot for Hanley.

 

 
To this point, I think one of the fringe benefits of the change of FO is that it will give Farrell, or a new manager if there is one, more leeway in handling players acquired by the previous administration. If it turns out that the best "spot for Hanley" next year is the bench, the manager will presumably feel more free to put him there under Dombrowski than he would have under Lucchino/Cherington. Turning a $22M player into a backup DH/pinch hitter is shouting "we screwed the pooch" from the rooftops, but it won't really be "we" any more, so that may fly.

 

[leftfieldlegacy]

I agree with most of this, but I think there's a small chance that Ortiz hits #501 or so this year and then retires. I want him to come back. More importantly I was trying to make the point that there are other kinds of insider info that don't directly relate to Hanley, yet affect the plan for Hanley.

 
I don't know what his chances are of hitting #501 this season, but I don't think there is even a small chance that Ortiz retires whether he gets to 501 or not.
 
Ortiz has vesting options for 2016 and 2017 based on plate appearances in the previous year. He will make $16M in 2016 if he reaches 600 PA this season. He only needs 112 more PA in 2015 to achieve that number. I'm sure 500 HR is a big milestone for Ortiz but even if he gets there this season, there is no way he is walking away from $16M in 2016. 

 

[Fireball Fred]

Ortiz will come back, I expect - but his career could end suddenly at any time. It's not true that anyone can play first (Brian Daubach couldn't) but Ramirez, a career infielder, probably could. He can probably DH, but that's not certain. He can't play left, though. So I think the Sox have to try him at first (and DH), with Travis as backup (unless he's at third). To me Ramirez is less of a problem than Sandoval, who's not as good a hitter as you want at first or DH.  

 

[LostinNJ]

So what are they supposed to learn from the mistake?  Because no one is taking Hanley off their hands without one hell of a subsidy, probably a subsidy to the point of it being a bigger burden than finding a spot for Hanley.

 
It's an interesting question: At what point does keeping Hanley become better than dumping him? 
 
As of this moment, for 2015 Hanley has been worth -0.9 WAR. In other words, in retrospect it would have benefited the team not to play him at all, despite the contract.
 
Let's imagine we magically know that he will improve next year to 0.0 WAR. In that case, it would behoove the team to send him elsewhere and subsidize part of the contract, even a big part. We'll get the same amount of value from him (zero), but at least it will cost less.
 
Now let's imagine we magically know he will improve all the way to 1.0 WAR. If a win is worth about $6 million, then it would be smart to send him to anyone who is willing to pay more than that.
 
So the main two variables are: How much value can we really expect him to have going forward? And how much of his salary will another team be willing to take on? Maybe this is too pessimistic, but it sure seems like a stretch to project him for more than about 1.5 WAR. And I bet someone who actually needs a DH would be willing to pay about half his salary. If both of these statements are right, he should go.
 
Two other less important factors are the talent the Red Sox could get back in a trade, and the effects of advancing age on Hanley's production. Both of these factors tilt the balance in favor of a trade.
 
Finally, an analogy: When you have to get rid of stuff (e.g., because you're moving), very often you'll look at something and think that it might have value in the future, but right now it's just taking up space in the van. Space has value too, and if you keep that thing for its potential future value, you won't have room for another thing that has actual value right now. You should always take the first thing to the Salvation Army. If you do need one of those later, you can go get another one. Hanley Ramirez is taking up valuable space right now. He's got one of only 25 roster spots, and he's taking playing time from other guys. Keeping him around next year as a part-time DH and occasional (incompetent) fielder seems like a waste of a precious roster spot. Yes, we'll need a DH in 2017 or 2018, but that's just about the easiest problem in baseball to solve.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

 
It's an interesting question: At what point does keeping Hanley become better than dumping him? 
 
As of this moment, for 2015 Hanley has been worth -0.9 WAR. In other words, in retrospect it would have benefited the team not to play him at all, despite the contract.
 
Let's imagine we magically know that he will improve next year to 0.0 WAR. In that case, it would behoove the team to send him elsewhere and subsidize part of the contract, even a big part. We'll get the same amount of value from him (zero), but at least it will cost less.
 
Now let's imagine we magically know he will improve all the way to 1.0 WAR. If a win is worth about $6 million, then it would be smart to send him to anyone who is willing to pay more than that.
 
So the main two variables are: How much value can we really expect him to have going forward? And how much of his salary will another team be willing to take on? Maybe this is too pessimistic, but it sure seems like a stretch to project him for more than about 1.5 WAR. And I bet someone who actually needs a DH would be willing to pay about half his salary. If both of these statements are right, he should go.
 
Two other less important factors are the talent the Red Sox could get back in a trade, and the effects of advancing age on Hanley's production. Both of these factors tilt the balance in favor of a trade.
 
Finally, an analogy: When you have to get rid of stuff (e.g., because you're moving), very often you'll look at something and think that it might have value in the future, but right now it's just taking up space in the van. Space has value too, and if you keep that thing for its potential future value, you won't have room for another thing that has actual value right now. You should always take the first thing to the Salvation Army. If you do need one of those later, you can go get another one. Hanley Ramirez is taking up valuable space right now. He's got one of only 25 roster spots, and he's taking playing time from other guys. Keeping him around next year as a part-time DH and occasional (incompetent) fielder seems like a waste of a precious roster spot. Yes, we'll need a DH in 2017 or 2018, but that's just about the easiest problem in baseball to solve.

but determining whether it's a waste of a roster spot depends in large part on who would take his spot if Hanley was dumped

 

[nothumb]

 
It's an interesting question: At what point does keeping Hanley become better than dumping him? 
 
As of this moment, for 2015 Hanley has been worth -0.9 WAR. In other words, in retrospect it would have benefited the team not to play him at all, despite the contract.
 
Let's imagine we magically know that he will improve next year to 0.0 WAR. In that case, it would behoove the team to send him elsewhere and subsidize part of the contract, even a big part. We'll get the same amount of value from him (zero), but at least it will cost less.
 
Now let's imagine we magically know he will improve all the way to 1.0 WAR. If a win is worth about $6 million, then it would be smart to send him to anyone who is willing to pay more than that.
 
So the main two variables are: How much value can we really expect him to have going forward? And how much of his salary will another team be willing to take on? Maybe this is too pessimistic, but it sure seems like a stretch to project him for more than about 1.5 WAR. And I bet someone who actually needs a DH would be willing to pay about half his salary. If both of these statements are right, he should go.
 
Two other less important factors are the talent the Red Sox could get back in a trade, and the effects of advancing age on Hanley's production. Both of these factors tilt the balance in favor of a trade.
 
Finally, an analogy: When you have to get rid of stuff (e.g., because you're moving), very often you'll look at something and think that it might have value in the future, but right now it's just taking up space in the van. Space has value too, and if you keep that thing for its potential future value, you won't have room for another thing that has actual value right now. You should always take the first thing to the Salvation Army. If you do need one of those later, you can go get another one. Hanley Ramirez is taking up valuable space right now. He's got one of only 25 roster spots, and he's taking playing time from other guys. Keeping him around next year as a part-time DH and occasional (incompetent) fielder seems like a waste of a precious roster spot. Yes, we'll need a DH in 2017 or 2018, but that's just about the easiest problem in baseball to solve.

 
This is all pretty helpful, but the one factor you are leaving out is the potential value of Hanley in years beyond 2016. While you're right in general that there is an opportunity cost to keeping him if you expect him to be worthless in 2016, you still have to balance that against his potential value to the Sox (positive or negative) in the out years relative to his contract, and how much you are subsidizing him in those years.
 
Since I doubt that the Sox are going to be able unload him for just half his 2016 salary, you have to factor in that we will still be subsidizing him in 2017 and 2018, years where he might very well be producing positive value at DH or 1B for the Sox. Not sure if that will tilt the trade/keep lever at all but it should be in there.
 
Also, if you are worried about opportunity cost for 2016 of keeping him, we can discuss that in real terms, not just theoretically. As bad as Hanley is as an everyday LF, it's pretty likely that the last guy on the Sox bench won't be much better. And Hanley's one projectable skill - above average RHH with pop - is potentially more valuable / rare off the bench and hides his warts better. Having a young, hyper-athletic OF plus Brock Holt means the Sox would actually be in a better position to have a platoon DH / emergency corner IF on the bench than most teams, if that is indeed all Hanley can do. This isn't to say that having a $22M benchwarmer is GOOD, but from a roster construction perspective it may not actually be diminishing the talent level of the team under typical utilization. It's actually reasonable to think that the Red Sox with Hanley as a bench bat could be slightly better than if he was replaced by, say, Josh Rutledge.
 
So, in short, the real opportunity cost of keeping Hanley as the 25th man next year would be if it limits the money they are willing to spend on pitching. It's not hard to imagine that the Sox FO could decide "fuck it, we can't move Hanley but we really like Cueto / Price / whatever, we can fade the tax and get under in 2017 because we'll have six pre-arb starters." It doesn't need to be an absolute yes or no based on whether somebody is willing to pay more for him than the cost of his wins (or lack thereof) on the market, because the Sox can spend more money if they choose to.
 
I'm not saying any of this to argue that a particular outcome is the unassailable best option. We can't know that because we aren't in the room and don't know the marketplace, don't know what their plan is for the pitching staff, don't know if Hanley secretly says playing 1B is against his religion, etc. But I do think it's pretty clear that exploring his value at 1B sooner than later is prudent, and that the Sox shouldn't take too much of a bath to get rid of him (or Panda), because the opportunity cost of waiting to ST, or even into 2016, is relatively low. I'm still guessing that the best overall option probably involves trying him at 1B or holding onto him into ST, and possibly even throughout 2016, rather than playing him in LF or eating half his salary.

 

[Al Zarilla]

You don't think a team would jump at 3/16M for Hanley?

And I don't see this as a comparison to Renteria. He just stopped hitting. Same with Crawford. We really didn't have a position for Hanley and hoped he could figure it out along the way. Crawford and Renteria had positions here and they didn't work out.

It blows my mind this leadership group thought a guy who told them he can't play a position due to the stress of bending over was a good idea to bring here. I mean, they weren't looking to move him to running back....

I mean, you can't even do curling without bending over. Unless he has a bad back from running into the garage wall early in the season, where does this bending over problem even begin to come from? HR's games played 2011 - 2014 were 92, 157, 86 and 128. Should have been a red flag? We used to complain about J.D. Drew's ability to stay on the field, but he averaged about 2.5 fWAR per year, including his negative last season . Oh well, if HR comes out healthy and raking next year and stays that way, we'll all forget this year's bad comedy, I guess.

 

[Heating up in the bullpen]

Saw a video clip on the MLB Gameday of Hanley getting some instruction at playing first base, followed by a sound bite from Lovullo saying HR was willing to try it.
Link to WEEI article on the same subject: http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/08/25/hanley-ramirez-i-think-with-me-at-first-were-going-to-have-a-better-team/

 

[Darnell's Son]

Abs mulled over the Hanley Ramirez situation today at the .com.

 
 
The question for Dombroski is does he want to trade Ramirez, while eating a bunch of money, and bet on Castillo, Betts and Bradley continuing to hit very well for the rest of the season or does he want to include one of them in a trade for a very good starting pitcher while keeping Ramirez in left and costing the team runs on defense.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

an article in the Globe reports on Hanley's injury trouble this year  May provide some hope that his offense can be better next year (though he may also simply be a player who gets injuted a lot...)

 

[grimshaw]

an article in the Globe reports on Hanley's injury trouble this year  May provide some hope that his offense can be better next year (though he may also simply be a player who gets injuted a lot...)

I hope that's the case - but it is baffling why he was never once DL'd or why the team hasn't made much of a defense on his lack of production.
The cynical part of me thinks this could just be him trying to save face since he really hasn't hit up to his capabilities for a few months now.  I don't doubt he's hurting, but wonder how much can be attributed to his lack of production.

 

[hellborn]

I hope that's the case - but it is baffling why he was never once DL'd or why the team hasn't made much of a defense on his lack of production.
The cynical part of me thinks this could just be him trying to save face since he really hasn't hit up to his capabilities for a few months now.  I don't doubt he's hurting, but wonder how much can be attributed to his lack of production.

Pre-shoulder injury Hanley had an OPS of .949 with 10 home runs and was on a pace for 40+. He has zero home runs in his last 109 at bats. He's been a very good (.849 OPS) hitter his entire career. I think it's safe to say there's a causal relationship here. I agree that he was never DL'd is baffling. 

 

[The Gray Eagle]

He should be on the DL right now, and then on a rehab assignment in the minors by the end of this week so he can have a few games playing first base down there. 
 
Pawtucket has 6 games left after tonight. He could play in the last few and get some experience at first without the spotlight being on him like it will be in Boston.

 

[chrisfont9]

Pre-shoulder injury Hanley had an OPS of .949 with 10 home runs and was on a pace for 40+. He has zero home runs in his last 109 at bats. He's been a very good (.849 OPS) hitter his entire career. I think it's safe to say there's a causal relationship here. I agree that he was never DL'd is baffling. 

It's baffling. If we were being open-minded about the guy we might even say it speaks to him trying to stay in the lineup. Which is a good thing (in terms of his mentality; not so much for the lineup). He says all the right things, and while I guess we can't know what's in his heart, his track record and his explanations strongly suggest that we have to try to keep him. If he's a bad fit, period, then start him (1b?) in spring, watch him mash his trade value up past zero, and make a deal then. The 1b thing is huge, obviously, particularly w/r/t whether he can actually succeed in Boston. A Shaw/Hanley duo, with Hanley getting ABs at DH too, could be just crazy enough to work. In any event, it seems like the team is best served by seeing how he goes when healthy and making a decision from there. Before he gets hurt again.

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

It's baffling. If we were being open-minded about the guy we might even say it speaks to him trying to stay in the lineup. Which is a good thing (in terms of his mentality; not so much for the lineup). He says all the right things, and while I guess we can't know what's in his heart, his track record and his explanations strongly suggest that we have to try to keep him. If he's a bad fit, period, then start him (1b?) in spring, watch him mash his trade value up past zero, and make a deal then. The 1b thing is huge, obviously, particularly w/r/t whether he can actually succeed in Boston. A Shaw/Hanley duo, with Hanley getting ABs at DH too, could be just crazy enough to work. In any event, it seems like the team is best served by seeing how he goes when healthy and making a decision from there. Before he gets hurt again.

I remember in May I couldn't understand why he was still in the lineup.  He said something about having to stay in there--the team needed him, something like that.  I would disagree--the team needed him to get rest and return to his April form.  But this would support what you're saying.  I'd still prefer he get DL'd in those circumstances, but it does speak to his commitment, I suppose.
 
I hope we get to see healthy Hanley next year, and also of course that he can fit in at 1B at least part of the time (in the way you suggest).

 

[chrisfont9]

I remember in May I couldn't understand why he was still in the lineup.  He said something about having to stay in there--the team needed him, something like that.  I would disagree--the team needed him to get rest and return to his April form.  But this would support what you're saying.  I'd still prefer he get DL'd in those circumstances, but it does speak to his commitment, I suppose.
 
I hope we get to see healthy Hanley next year, and also of course that he can fit in at 1B at least part of the time (in the way you suggest).

In May the lineup was so broken that maybe they did need him. It's hard to even think back to a time before JBJ, Rusney and Shaw, when Napoli was the key to our offense.

 

[canderson]

@PeteAbe Lovullo says Hanley Ramirez will not play OF again this season. Will he play at all before season ends? "I'm hopeful," Luvullo said. #RedSox
 
The case against moving him wasn't apparently strong enough.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Hanley and Sandoval have the teams lowest BA and OBPs of anyone on the active roster as of 8/31/15.
 
Hanley is 10th in OPS, Sandoval is 14th in OPS.  Out of 14.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Wow. Lovullo now saying Hanley will not play OF again this year. 
 
Things move fast in the Dombrowski administration. 
 
Edit: Bah, read the thread, dipshit.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Wow. Lovullo now saying Hanley will not play OF again this year. 
 
Things move fast in the Dombrowski administration. 
 
Edit: Bah, read the thread, dipshit.

 
I think it has more to do with his bum shoulder (and the fact that JBJ and Castillo are killing it) than anything else.  It's entirely possible the same thing would have happened sans Dombrowski, except maybe the caveat of hoping he gets into some games at 1B before the end of the year.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Not sure how I feel about this, but Pete Abe is attributing to DD regime. 
 
It's definitely impossible to know what would have happened had no change been made, but it seems like there was zero momentum for Hanley at 1B until DD came on board, and now the ball is rolling downhill quickly. 
 
I feel like Ben had a bit of "stay the course" about him, while Dombrowski isn't wasting any time trying to get better.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Not sure how I feel about this, but Pete Abe is attributing to DD regime. 
 
It's definitely impossible to know what would have happened had no change been made, but it seems like there was zero momentum for Hanley at 1B until DD came on board, and now the ball is rolling downhill quickly. 
 
I feel like Ben had a bit of "stay the course" about him, while Dombrowski isn't wasting any time trying to get better.

 
Aside from the agitation here and in the media, zero momentum for Hanley at 1B made perfect sense prior to DD's arrival.
 
First, there was the big ol' unanswered question of who would play LF if Hanley didn't.  Then there was the not so little snag of Mike Napoli still residing on the roster (and Hanley's previously stated reluctance to push an incumbent out).  Napoli was traded on 8/7, Hanley was out with injury from 8/8 to 8/17, and Dombrowski was hired 8/18, and during that period is when JBJ and Castillo both seemed to catch fire.  All of a sudden, there was an opening at 1B and seemingly competent options for the outfield.  Add in the apparently nagging shoulder issue for Hanley and it all comes together.
 
No doubt Dombrowski lit that particularly fire officially, but it's certainly something that could have come up organically no matter who was in charge.

 

[Sampo Gida]

The hand and shoulder certainly seem to be the main reasons for Hanleys offensive woes, so while there is some hope of a rebound next year (assuming he does not have a torn labrum in that shoulder), the question is where does he play?.  Last night Bradley made at least 3 plays that Hanley could not dream of making and the runs saved  gave them a W.  He simply can't be allowed to play LF again, and looks like he won't this year.  Manny looked like a GG'er compared to Hanley.
 
1B?  I just can't imagine Hanley playing well there . Contrary to the what the defensive metrics tell us, I feel 1B is an important position and they get more touches than any position except C.   Requires a certain agility that I don't see Hanley having at his current muscled up weight.   The push to get Hanley some reps at 1B may be to enhance his trade value
 
3B?  Maybe.  Pablo isn't exactly a GG'er this year.  But which one is easier to move in a trade (both would require eating substantial dollars)?  A healthy Hanley certainly has some value for a team with a position open for him at DH or 3B (or 1B if they can sell it).   Pablo, not so much unless he drops 30-40 pounds.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Contrary to the what the defensive metrics tell us, I feel 1B is an important position and they get more touches than any position except C.   

 
I don't think it's exactly "defensive metrics" that tell us 1B isn't an important position; it's more like "wisdom of the market." Because this is where the least athletically capable players have historically been stashed, the standard a player has to meet to be adequate at the position isn't that high compared to other positions. So the pool of potential candidates is larger, and you can afford to be choosier about offense; hence a given level of offensive production isn't as valuable in a 1B as it is elsewhere. 
 
The reason why teams do this is that 1B doesn't make the athletic demands that other positions make. You don't need to be fast; you don't need to have a good arm; and you don't need the kind of Fred Astaire coordination that middle infielders do. What you need are basically the same things third basemen need--quick reactions and soft hands--minus the arm, plus the size and/or flexibility to present a wide target, plus above-average skill at picking balls out of the dirt.   
 
Because he's involved in so many plays, a 1B also needs, IMO (and it sounds like in yours too), a certain mental solidity and engagement that isn't usually given much attention because most people have at least a modicum of it. But a few don't. Imagine Manny Ramirez at 1B, for instance. Or Rube Waddell, or Mark Fidrych. I seriously doubt that Hanley is in the same league with any of those guys, but I feel like we've seen enough to suspect that he's at least a little bit deficient in this area, and that's basically the grounds for concern about putting him at 1B. It certainly isn't a question of athletic ability.

 

[Erik Hanson's Hook]

Hanley and Sandoval have the teams lowest BA and OBPs of anyone on the active roster as of 8/31/15.
 
Hanley is 10th in OPS, Sandoval is 14th in OPS.  Out of 14.

 
$183 million dollars.
 
That is embarrassing.

 

[Wake's knuckle]

... in fact, Hanley might even pay more attention if he has a responsibility on every play. He might be the type who spaces out when nothing happens for a long time.

 

[Drek717]

1B?  I just can't imagine Hanley playing well there . Contrary to the what the defensive metrics tell us, I feel 1B is an important position and they get more touches than any position except C.   Requires a certain agility that I don't see Hanley having at his current muscled up weight.   The push to get Hanley some reps at 1B may be to enhance his trade value

It isn't just defensive metrics that tell us 1B is the least important/difficult position.  It is defensive metrics, decades of conventional baseball wisdom and practices, and naked eye observation.  Literally every way of looking at the diamond says 1B is the least important position because 85% of the work consists of "keep foot on bag, catch ball being thrown to you".
 
Hanley had the focus to play SS for years.  If you look at his metrics from SS he was only a little below average at turning double plays (footwork, heads up play, and knowing responsibilities/assignments).  His errors have generally been at or greater than 50% throwing errors, something that goes away with playing 1B.  Even then his runs cost due to errors was only below average, not horrible.  His range at SS was always his greatest failing.  His range was generally in the bad (-4.0 RAA) to incredibly bad (-8.00 twice and -16.0 once) range.  That is greatly reduced when moved to 1B.
 
In LF he clearly was uncomfortable with the walls and didn't look good at reading fly balls at all.  The fly ball issue is probably an inability to adjust from how an infielder reads balls off the bat to how outfielders read balls off the bat.  Getting back to 1B would let him get back to a more comfortable read/react approach.  He also would have far less work around walls and then only on a smattering of fly balls that are borderline plays for any 1B to make in the first place.
 
Personally, I think we're going to see Hanley move to 1B, come to ST a bit slimmed up but still bigger than prior years, and then spend the whole first half remarking at how well he's picked up 1B and reading puff pieces about how Papi gave him tips on playing the position through ST that really made a difference.  If Kevin Millar can be a passable 1B, Mike Napoli with two bad hips can be an above average 1B, and Daniel Nava who was a mediocre at best corner OF can pick the position up mid-season and not suck at it then Hanley Ramirez, a former ML SS and 3B, can handle the job at least adequately.