Who plays 1B next year?

[Al Zarilla]

You just kicked Xander's dog...and probably Mookie's too
 
 

Not to mention Ortiz. I would put Sandoval down at 7th or 8th in the order and move him up if he hits like he did at or near his best. Because of that sometimes history of success as a hitter, and salary (latter should have no bearing) Farrell will most likely bat him higher. No way he should crack 1 through 5 at the start of the season though.
 
Betts
Pedroia
Bogaerts
Ortiz
Ramirez
Sandoval
Castillo
Swihart
Bradley
 
Edit, somewhat off topic. 

 

[BaseballJones]

In terms of a role as CI (3b or 1b), I cannot see the argument for Marrero over Shaw. Marrero doesn't play 1b, and while he could probably learn it, Shaw already plays there. Shaw's bat is far superior. Just. Much better fit for CI. The only edge for Marrero would be defensively at third. Which is not remotely enough to favor him over Shaw, IMO. Not for the CI spot anyway.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

My question has nothing to do with fantasy baseball. It's very simple. Which player is likely to provide more value off the bench? The answer is Shaw because of the fact that the number of opportunities for Marrero's superior athleticism to actually save a run over what they would have gotten out of Shaw in the same play will be extremely small even before considering how much Shaw's superior reach would mitigate that advantage.

You are massively overestimating the value of any defensive advantage Marrero might have based on range and athleticism.

I'm talking about a 25th man getting perhaps 30 plate appearances and maybe 100 defensive chances at 1B between actual balls hit to him and putouts caught.

Neither Shaw nor Marrero is even remotely likely to prove of any materially significant value to the 2016 Red Sox in any statistical model, unless one of Ortiz or Hanley gets hurt and needs a long-term sub. And I've already said, at least twice, that Shaw should get the nod in that case.

But, if Marrero's lateral quickness and smooth glovework make him more likely to stab a hot shot down the line and keep it from becoming a double or triple, when the Sox are trying to close out a win, then I think he should be that 25th man.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I think Marrero only fits on the big league bench next year if Holt is slated to be the primary substitute outfielder.  A bench of Holt (OF), Marrero (MI), Shaw (CI, maybe LF) and whoever turns out to be the back-up catcher is solid and versatile.  If it has any disadvantage at all, there's no strong RH bat given the general reluctance to use the second catcher at all other than emergencies.
 
But if Dombrowski is telling the truth and is seeking a true 4th OF in free agency or trade, then Marrero is the odd man out.  Which is fine since he has options and would be the first guy to get the call if an injury pressed Holt into a starting position.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

But, if Marrero's lateral quickness and smooth glovework make him more likely to stab a hot shot down the line and keep it from becoming a double or triple, when the Sox are trying to close out a win, then I think he should be that 25th man.

For every ball Marrero gets to that Shaw wouldn't there is just as likely to be an errant throw that Shaw can reach that Marrero can't. The advantage you are envisioning is minimal if it exists at all. And it certainly doesn't make up for the gap between them at the plate.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

5. Marrero is 6'1", right handed, and has never played 1B.  Travis Shaw is 6'4", left handed, and has played 1B for his entire career.  Travis Shaw has exhibited enough range at 1B for the club to give him more starts at 3B in 2015 than he had seen in his entire mL career since he was fully transitioned to a 1B after a half season in the NYPL shortly after being drafted.
 
So Marrero might have more range but the club at least thinks Shaw has pretty impressive range for a 1B.  Shaw has far more experience at 1B.  Shaw is taller (longer stretch) and has the preferred handedness for 1B (the only position other than pitcher where being LH is a distinct advantage).  Why is Marrero a lock to be such an amazing defensive sub at 1B that all of this and the offensive gap between them doesn't matter?

 
In an otherwise excellent post, this part isn't making sense to me. Shaw is only lefthanded at the plate, and of course that's of no relevance to his 1B defense. He throws from the same side as Marrero. (If he were a lefthanded thrower, we'd probably already have a thread about the fact he's been playing some third base.)

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

For every ball Marrero gets to that Shaw wouldn't there is just as likely to be an errant throw that Shaw can reach that Marrero can't. The advantage you are envisioning is minimal if it exists at all. And it certainly doesn't make up for the gap between them at the plate.

Scaled down to a 30 PA sample size over two months, how much do you really think the gap between them at the plate matters?

Here's the answer according to their ZIPs projection for 2015, which is the most recent thing I could find out there now: 1 BB.

Marrero: 30 PA, 6 H, 1 2B, 2 BB, 7 K
Shaw: 30 PA, 6 H, 1 2B, 3 BB, 7 K

Congrats, man. I guess you got me to prove your point for you. The Sox should totally go with Shaw over Marrero, so they can reap the benefits of that one key extra base-on-balls over the first two montths of the season. Kudos to you for sticking to your guns.

 

[iayork]

For every ball Marrero gets to that Shaw wouldn't there is just as likely to be an errant throw that Shaw can reach that Marrero can't. The advantage you are envisioning is minimal if it exists at all. And it certainly doesn't make up for the gap between them at the plate.

 
It's not clear to me that there will be a big gap between them at the plate. Certainly Shaw has done better in the majors, but I don't think anyone is convinced it's not a fluke.  Neither of them has a minor-league pedigree that suggests a gigantic difference.  Their most recent Pawtucket OPSes are .660 and .674; Shaw has somewhat better numbers but also an extra year of age.  
 
If there's little or no gap between them offensively, does Marrero have the edge?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Scaled down to a 30 PA sample size over two months, how much do you really think the gap between them at the plate matters?

Here's the answer according to their ZIPs projection for 2015, which is the most recent thing I could find out there now: 1 BB.

Marrero: 30 PA, 6 H, 1 2B, 2 BB, 7 K
Shaw: 30 PA, 6 H, 1 2B, 3 BB, 7 K

Congrats, man. I guess you got me to prove your point for you. The Sox should totally go with Shaw over Marrero, so they can reap the benefits of that one key extra base-on-balls over the first two montths of the season. Kudos to you for sticking to your guns.

 
But do you really think that is what the gap would actually be? ZIPs are great and all, but I'm guessing when the 2016 version comes out, there might be a more sizable gap between the two. Real or imagined, I would prefer not to give away ABs late in games that might end up going to extra innings and I think it's a safe bet there's less of a chance that happens with Shaw than it does with Marrero. Which is to say nothing of the fact that Marrero has never even played 1B. Projecting him to be a plus defensive player there might seem logical, but it's less than guaranteed that he has a sizable edge on Shaw to begin with. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
It's not clear to me that there will be a big gap between them at the plate. Certainly Shaw has done better in the majors, but I don't think anyone is convinced it's not a fluke.  Neither of them has a minor-league pedigree that suggests a gigantic difference.  Their most recent Pawtucket OPSes are .660 and .674; Shaw has somewhat better numbers but also an extra year of age.  
 
If there's little or no gap between them offensively, does Marrero have the edge?

 
Shaw has struggled a bit in Pawtucket, it's true--but his career minor league OPS is still over 100 points higher than Marrero's. Basically Shaw has shown slightly better discipline, pretty similar contact, and a lot more power.
 
Also, saying Shaw is a year older is stretching a point; his nominal age is a year older, because their birthdays straddle the July 1 mark, but in fact it's a matter of just four months.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

 
But do you really think that is what the gap would actually be? ZIPs are great and all, but I'm guessing when the 2016 version comes out, there might be a more sizable gap between the two. Real or imagined, I would prefer not to give away ABs late in games that might end up going to extra innings and I think it's a safe bet there's less of a chance that happens with Shaw than it does with Marrero. Which is to say nothing of the fact that Marrero has never even played 1B. Projecting him to be a plus defensive player there might seem logical, but it's less than guaranteed that he has a sizable edge on Shaw to begin with. 

I believe this is now the fourth time I've stated clearly that if either Ortiz or Hanley were to need to miss more than one game, the logical and appropriate thing to do is to play Shaw during the absence.

Any talk about "giving away at-bats" completely misses the point that the job of a defensive specialist is only to play the best defense possible, and if he's coming to bat at all, it probably means something else has gone wrong. But it's probably not something gone wrong that would be likely require the Sox just keep throwing Marrero into the batter's box game after game, while a superior option is readily available.

All I'm suggesting, is that the Sox should break camp next spring with Marrero as the 25th man on the bench, who can be expected to get about 30 PA over the course of the first 50 games, in his limited role as Hanley's defensive replacement.

Hitting-wise I don't expect there to be any relevant gap at all, as it impacts to the Sox' early record. And I say that even though I really do think Shaw would easily prove to be a better hitter than Marrero over 500 AB.

But 30 PA over two months is entirely statistically meaningless. Anything could happen (see JBJ, Aug. 2015). Either Shaw or Marrero could hit 5 HR over those at bats, and either of them could go 0-30.

But chances are, neither of them would do either of those things, and instead each guy would collect a few singles, take a few walks, strike out a few times, and maybe hit a double or home run.

The Sox will staff the bench with a pinch-hitter for JBJ, but to start the season that will probably be the acquired RHH vet. The Sox will staff the bench with a utility player, but to start the season that will probably be Holt (who can also PH for Castillo). The Sox will staff the bench with a second catcher, whomever it is. So the only remaining "job" to be done that reasonably foreseeable, at least to me, is Hanley's caddy.

Marrero is a great glove SS and played really well at 3B down the stretch. He certainly looked smoother than Shaw in the field to me. And should any events such as injuries or trades or extended suckitude occur, it's not like I'm suggesting the roster be carved from stone. I expect the bench to evolve along with the Sox' needs.

I'm just suggesting this move because I think it would help the Sox build the best team, and not just trying to fill the roster with the best group of individual players, regardless whether the different parts fit together.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

30 PA over two months is less than a game a week.  I think your primary reserve for 1B/3B is going to see a bit more action than that, especially given who the incumbent starters are at each spot.
 
The Red Sox have a habit (and it's not just them) of letting guys who get nicked up have a day or two or three off rather than immediately rush them to the DL for two weeks.  I doubt that suddenly changes in 2016.  No matter who the player is, it's generally not a situation where you're going to be able to call up a guy from Pawtucket to fill in, you're simply going to go with the best fit from the roster at hand.  So if it's Hanley that gets a tweak that forces him out for a few days but not long enough to justify a DL stint, Marrero starting at 1B for a 3 game series is going to be okay?  I'm just not seeing it.  Shaw is more superior at the plate than Marrero might be with the glove.  I'd rather have him be on the roster to fill in for those spots.

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

30 PA over two months is less than a game a week.  I think your primary reserve for 1B/3B is going to see a bit more action than that, especially given who the incumbent starters are at each spot.
 
The Red Sox have a habit (and it's not just them) of letting guys who get nicked up have a day or two or three off rather than immediately rush them to the DL for two weeks.  I doubt that suddenly changes in 2016.  No matter who the player is, it's generally not a situation where you're going to be able to call up a guy from Pawtucket to fill in, you're simply going to go with the best fit from the roster at hand.  So if it's Hanley that gets a tweak that forces him out for a few days but not long enough to justify a DL stint, Marrero starting at 1B for a 3 game series is going to be okay?  I'm just not seeing it.  Shaw is more superior at the plate than Marrero might be with the glove.  I'd rather have him be on the roster to fill in for those spots.

In 2015, Hanley, Sandoval, and Ortiz combined to miss 15 games over the first 8 weeks of the season. That's already less than 2 games per week right there, and ignores the fact that Holt (3B option) and the new RHH bench vet (DH option) will be looking to get at-bats, too.

Barring injury, I just don't see where all these at-bats are going to come from for the last guy on the bench. Allen Craig only got 59 PA through May last year, and that was with Farrell foregoing other, better options in order to find him as many starts as possible. There aren't even any obvious platoons that need to be implemented.

And regarding your question about Marrero starting each day of a 3-game series being okay..are you really asking me to repeat myself a fifth time? I've covered that one.

 

[Rasputin]

Why the hell are people talking about Marrero playing first? The only way you need someone other than Ramirez or Shaw to play first is if both of them are injured. That's something that's rare enough that you don't plan for it. I don't even understand how it becomes a subject of discussion.
 
There's basically two options for the bench next year. Hanigan, Holt, Shaw, Marrero, or Hanigan, Holt, Shaw, and an OF. With our middle infielders being pretty good defensively, it basically becomes a question of which you think is more important, being able to replace Sandoval late in close games, or being able to pinch hit for one of the outfielders with someone who isn't Holt. Considering the likelihood that Sandoval is actually a pretty decent defender, and that Holt is pretty good everywhere, I really don't give a good goddamn which it is.
 
I rather suspect it's going to come down to options and that means Marrero gets to stay at AAA.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

And regarding your question about Marrero starting each day of a 3-game series being okay..are you really asking me to repeat myself a fifth time? I've covered that one.

 
No, you've side stepped it by ignoring the far more likely scenario where Hanley is banged up but not worth DLing and they don't have the option of calling Shaw up without also optioning Marrero, which lowers his value both to the team and in a trade. You keep pointing to a highly specific set of circumstances in trying to argue that Marrero is the better choice while ignoring the pile of more likely scenarios in which Shaw is the more valuable player.
 
Yes, Marrero is more athletic and has better range but if we're talking about 30 innings in the field, there might be 2 or 3 plays in which that range advantage actually has a chance to bear fruit. A difference of 100 points of OPS over the same span of time (the difference between their minor league OPS's is .121) is going to require a whole lot more run prevention to even out. Now add in the balls Shaw might scoop or stretch for that Marrero can't reach or doesn't make a play on because of his lack of experience or stature and we're very likely looking at no real advantage with the glove in the first place.
 
I appreciate thinking outside the box, but this idea has no practical merit.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I don't understand the logic that says what a waste and risk it is to move Hanley to 1B and then counters with using Marrero at 1B as a backup. Both are SS's. One is an elite hitter, the other a better than average left side fielder. A backup 1B exists in Shaw, who can also be a LH pinch hitter. I just don't understand any argument that's otherwise.
 
The assumption that Ramirez will suck at 1B is also a leap of bad faith. He's done all his career reps as a SS. He's slowed down, but to assume he can't catch a poor throw or scoop a ground ball is unwishful thinking. What he needs to do (apparently, from what I've read about others moving to 1B) is to train himself on footwork around the bag. He's not spastic. He's an ex-shortstop.
 
I raise this because some of the arguments against Hanley involve movinh him way down on the defensive spectrum - and what a waste that is. No. The waste would be to pay him to play for someone else, to not play him, or to put him in a defensive situation he's no longer suited for. He's our Hanley and, if he remains injury-free, will extend and improve a potent lineup.
 
It worked out well with an ex-catcher and will work out with Ramirez.
 
But back to Marrero. Here's hoping he'll find a breakthrough in Pawtucket next year and display a value that makes it a good move to push someone else off the roster.
 
Or, we could trade him straight up for Sonny Gray.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

What he needs to do (apparently, from what I've read about others moving to 1B) is to train himself on footwork around the bag.

Hanley didn't fail in left because it's hard for shortstops to move to the outfield. He failed because he refused to put in the work to learn the position.

 

[Plympton91]

I don't understand the logic that says what a waste and risk it is to move Hanley to 1B and then counters with using Marrero at 1B as a backup. Both are SS's. One is an elite hitter, the other a better than average left side fielder. A backup 1B exists in Shaw, who can also be a LH pinch hitter. I just don't understand any argument that's otherwise.
 
The assumption that Ramirez will suck at 1B is also a leap of bad faith. He's done all his career reps as a SS. He's slowed down, but to assume he can't catch a poor throw or scoop a ground ball is unwishful thinking. What he needs to do (apparently, from what I've read about others moving to 1B) is to train himself on footwork around the bag. He's not spastic. He's an ex-shortstop.
 
I raise this because some of the arguments against Hanley involve movinh him way down on the defensive spectrum - and what a waste that is. No. The waste would be to pay him to play for someone else, to not play him, or to put him in a defensive situation he's no longer suited for. He's our Hanley and, if he remains injury-free, will extend and improve a potent lineup.
 
It worked out well with an ex-catcher and will work out with Ramirez.
 
But back to Marrero. Here's hoping he'll find a breakthrough in Pawtucket next year and display a value that makes it a good move to push someone else off the roster.
 
Or, we could trade him straight up for Sonny Gray.

 
The problem with Hanley, and I've said this before but I'll repeat it, is that they paid him as if he was still a 4-tool shortstop (not a good defender), in the hopes that he could be a 5-tool leftfielder (would become a good defender), and they are apparently getting, at best, a 3-tool first baseman (even if he plays good defense there, he's not running anymore, and his arm doesn't matter much).
 
So, in a best case scenario, they're paying $22 million for 3 more years plus an easily reached 4th year option of Mike Napoli circa 2013.  That's an o.k. use of resources, if he can stay healthy and pay defense, but it's probably 50% more than you'd pay for the same skills on the first base market.  In fact, it's roughly the same degree of "overpay" that would normally cause the Board to laugh at other organizations that made such a mistake, or gleefully kick a Red Sox veteran to the curb over.
 
I'd still prefer to see them find a sucker for Pablo's deal, and tell Ramirez to get himself in shape to play 3B.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Hanley didn't fail in left because it's hard for shortstops to move to the outfield. He failed because he refused to put in the work to learn the position.

 
He failed because he bulked up too much and extra work on off days was causing him physical strain that was threatening his ability to stay healthy. Which he couldn't do anyway because when already injury prone players add 20-30 pounds in one offseason, to the point a former SS and 50 base stealer looked like he could barely run the bases. Repeating the narrative that he was a lazy malcontent doesn't make it true. 

 

[Rasputin]

Hanley didn't fail in left because it's hard for shortstops to move to the outfield. He failed because he refused to put in the work to learn the position.

 
You're just making an assumption. It could be true. Or it could be that he really just has a harder time than most learning how to track fly balls.

 

[Plympton91]

 
You're just making an assumption. It could be true. Or it could be that he really just has a harder time than most learning how to track fly balls.

 
Sure it could, what do you think the distribution of probabilities is over that space?  As PapsPoutine said, we do know for a fact that he WAS NOT working on his defense, and the reason given was that he couldn't do pregame work and play in a game on the same day.  So, even if it wasn't bad faith or laziness, it is absolutely true to say that at some point early in the season he stopped putting in the work to learn the position.  We'll have to now assume that he will put in the work to learn 1B, having observed him not do so in LF. 
 
As the saying goes, fool me once...

 

[Rasputin]

 
As PapsPoutine said, we do know for a fact that he WAS NOT working on his defense, and the reason given was that he couldn't do pregame work and play in a game on the same day.  

 

 
He failed because he bulked up too much and extra work on off days was causing him physical strain that was threatening his ability to stay healthy. Which he couldn't do anyway because when already injury prone players add 20-30 pounds in one offseason, to the point a former SS and 50 base stealer looked like he could barely run the bases. Repeating the narrative that he was a lazy malcontent doesn't make it true. 

 
Observing reality is obviously not your strong point. 
 
Here's something we know. The skills required to play first base are a hell of a lot more like the skills required to play short than are the skills required to play left. There are differences, of course, footwork and knowing which balls to go after and which ones to leave to others and all that. We also know that an enormous percentage of the plays made by first basemen are made even if the first baseman is terrible.
 
I'm not saying he's going to be good, I haven't seen him play so much as a single play, but it's really hard to be a really bad first baseman if you put in even the slightest effort.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Well that must be the first time in history a 1B has dropped a throw. Obviously since Ramirez and Rodriguez both end in Z, this experiment will never work. Just release him.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

Sorry, I figured posting some amusing photos of ARod failing would be enough to remind you of a similarly athletic left side infielder trying and immediately failing at first base, but I guess you're too literal minded or weren't paying attention to this season to get it. Yeah, chances are Hanley will be a mediocre first baseman. There's also a chance he could fail miserably, and it would behoove the Red Sox to have some backup plans.

 

[Rasputin]

Sorry, I figured posting some amusing photos of ARod failing would be enough to remind you of a similarly athletic left side infielder trying and immediately failing at first base, but I guess you're too literal minded or weren't paying attention to this season to get it. Yeah, chances are Hanley will be a mediocre first baseman. There's also a chance he could fail miserably, and it would behoove the Red Sox to have some backup plans.

 
They have backup plans already named Travis Shaw and Sam Travis. How many backup plans do you want?

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Sorry, I figured posting some amusing photos of ARod failing would be enough to remind you of a similarly athletic left side infielder trying and immediately failing at first base, but I guess you're too literal minded or weren't paying attention to this season to get it. Yeah, chances are Hanley will be a mediocre first baseman. There's also a chance he could fail miserably, and it would behoove the Red Sox to have some backup plans.

Sorry if I'm 'too literal minded' to appreciate your generic comparison or assumption that the two are equivalents, I was more focused on the nine year difference in age which leads me to believe it's not a forgone conclusion that they will make comparable transitions. ARod hasn't been athletic in about a decade, but sure, assume it's analogous.

Edit: and notice the guy crossing first in that second pick. Not the most athletic guy in the world and he did pretty well moving to 1B after being shitty at another position and he did it with necrotic hips.

 

[nvalvo]

Hanley didn't fail in left because it's hard for shortstops to move to the outfield. He failed because he refused to put in the work to learn the position.

How does his putative laziness/bad attitude ("refused") square with the work he obviously put in in the gym last off-season? Unfortunately that was a misapplication of effort, because now he moves like Adam Dunn, but it's hard to call it lazy.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

How does his putative laziness/bad attitude ("refused") square with the work he obviously put in in the gym last off-season? Unfortunately that was a misapplication of effort, because now he moves like Adam Dunn, but it's hard to call it lazy.

I never called him lazy. In the Hanley thread I posted all of the articles I could find about how much work he put in on defense. After a few articles on how he showed up early for spring training, it was mostly quote from the coaches saying he couldn't put much time into his defense before games.

 

[nvalvo]

I never called him lazy. In the Hanley thread I posted all of the articles I could find about how much work he put in on defense. After a few articles on how he showed up early for spring training, it was mostly quote from the coaches saying he couldn't put much time into his defense before games.

 
Apologies, then. Others have, and I must have gotten you mixed up. 

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I never called him lazy. In the Hanley thread I posted all of the articles I could find about how much work he put in on defense. After a few articles on how he showed up early for spring training, it was mostly quote from the coaches saying he couldn't put much time into his defense before games.

 
 

Hanley didn't fail in left because it's hard for shortstops to move to the outfield. He failed because he refused to put in the work to learn the position.

 
Just for clarity, why did he refuse then? I'l grant you benefit of the doubt that it was sloppy wording and you meant that he couldn't for health reasons, but I don't find it crazy to see why someone would assume you meant lazy. Generally when people use the word "refuse" it has a tad of a negative implication. 

 

[threecy]

How does his putative laziness/bad attitude ("refused") square with the work he obviously put in in the gym last off-season? Unfortunately that was a misapplication of effort, because now he moves like Adam Dunn, but it's hard to call it lazy.

 
I don't know if we can necessarily accept this notion that he 'bulked up' from the wrong type of conditioning in the off season, or that he can somehow magically undo it this off season.
 
I think it's important to note that he's turning 32 in a matter of weeks, and that it's not out of the realm of possibility that his injuries, loss of speed, etc. are a function of aging (natural or otherwise) and may not be easily reversed.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
I don't know if we can necessarily accept this notion that he 'bulked up' from the wrong type of conditioning in the off season, or that he can somehow magically undo it this off season.
 
I think it's important to note that he's turning 32 in a matter of weeks, and that it's not out of the realm of possibility that his injuries, loss of speed, etc. are a function of aging (natural or otherwise) and may not be easily reversed.

 
Why can't we accept those things?  He bulked up with intent, and the intended results were what we saw in April before he jammed his shoulder.  He did it to gain more power at the plate.  The trade-off, whether he anticipated it or not (I'd say not), was the lack of flexibility and mobility defensively.  I'd guess he didn't think it would have the effect it did.  After all, there have been other "bulky" sluggers who have gotten by playing left field in Fenway Park (and elsewhere).
 
It will take the same type of effort that he undertook to bulk up as it will to slim down and regain some of his flexibility.  We're talking about a multi-millionaire with access to the best nutritionists and trainers and facilities in the world.  No reason that he can't do it.  Whether it will have the desired effect is a different story, but he's not a lost cause.

 

[threecy]

It will take the same type of effort that he undertook to bulk up as it will to slim down and regain some of his flexibility.  We're talking about a multi-millionaire with access to the best nutritionists and trainers and facilities in the world.

If the latter sentence is true, then why did he lose flexibility and mobility, and end up battling injuries?

I think it's possible that, regardless of the bulking up narrative, he was already in a decline in terms of speed, flexibility, etc., as evidenced by his stats and age.

I'm starting to wonder if there are any parallels between Hanley and another shortstop who was moved to first base at age 32, Nomar Garciaparra.  Nomar's #5 similar batting score on BBRef?  Hanley Ramirez.

 

[strek1]

How does his putative laziness/bad attitude ("refused") square with the work he obviously put in in the gym last off-season? Unfortunately that was a misapplication of effort, because now he moves like Adam Dunn, but it's hard to call it lazy.

 I know your comparison is exaggeration to make a point but his speed on the bases is still not bad.  It's only defensively he moves like Adam Dunn :lol:

 

[InsideTheParker]

Somewhere there is a discussion of how nuts it would be to let Ramirez go along with paying a sizable portion of the monies owed him. I can't find that thread right now. But it interesting to look at the recent history of the World-Series-bound Mets:

 
It was a vision conceived and executed by General Manager Sandy Alderson, who was hired by the Mets from the commissioner’s office after the 2010 season and inherited a team with significant promise in the minors but a roster of bloated salaries in the majors.
 
His opening day payroll for 2011 included $18.25 million for players released in spring training (Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez), $22.5 million for an injured pitching star (Johan Santana), and almost $40 million for two veteran outfielders — one a severe disappointment (Jason Bay), and the other, Carlos Beltran, a player who would be traded that summer.
 
 
“I was here, and we did it for certain reasons,” said John Ricco, the assistant general manager, who has worked for the Mets since 2004, was part of the team’s spending binge before Alderson arrived and knew the club needed to take a different approach.“When you’re trying to just get out from under it,” Ricco said in reference to the bad contracts the Mets had saddled themselves with, “it’s so fresh in your memory you’re not going back there too quickly.” So for the next three seasons — 2012 through 2014 — the Mets operated with a payroll of under $100 million. Teams in much smaller markets, like Cincinnati, Milwaukee and Minneapolis, sometimes spent more on player salaries than the big-market Mets did. The crosstown Yankees routinely spent more than twice as much as the Mets, who began this season with a payroll of just over $100 million.
 
For the Mets, Alderson said, spending lavishly on free-agent talent was simply not an option in those seasons anyway, not with the Madoff issue lurking in the background. But it may have been wise all along. Across the baseball landscape, teams pay premium prices for faded, injury-prone veterans. That problem no longer plagues the Mets.

Alderson said that acquiring “marquee players who’ve performed well in the past is always a temptation and a potential solution to whatever problems a team may have.” But, he said, “history tells us that it doesn’t always work out.”
 
“In fact,” he added, “it works out rarely.”

 

There's a lot more here, including the charming fact that the Dodgers didn't even start Carl Crawford, owed $21 million per season through 2017, in the final two games of the ALDS.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

And yet they spent $21M and a high draft pick on Michael Cuddyer...

 

[InsideTheParker]

And yet they spent $21M and a high draft pick on Michael Cuddyer...

Yes, that was a mistake. And you could also argue that they were going nowhere until they got Cespedes and Clippard, etc. at the deadline. But they had the money for that and for the Cuddyer overpay, which I am sure they regret, because they dumped those big salaries earlier.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Yes, that was a mistake. And you could also argue that they were going nowhere until they got Cespedes and Clippard, etc. at the deadline. But they had the money for that and for the Cuddyer overpay, which I am sure they regret, because they dumped those big salaries earlier.

 
I'm just not sure the FO and Alerson deserve a ton of credit in this respect. I think the owners' finances played a much bigger part than any kind of new mindset. They didn't "dump" anyone, unless I'm missing something. They just bought them out or let them expire. Beltran was in the last year of his deal and they got Wheeler for him.
 
The Wright deal doesn't exactly look great. Cuddyer was just mind blowingly awful - people were scratching their heads that the Rockies even offered the QO, let alone someone giving up that much money and the #15 pick. They've done a great job with their scouting, drafting and trades, but I'm just skeptical that their FO is a model with regards to FA signings or financial management, which is pretty much what the theme of that seems to be. I think they did a great job with the farm through draft and trade, got their hands tied in FA because the owner fell victim to a Ponzi scheme and it worked out well for them. There's credit to be given, I just think FA spending isn't probably the place to give it. I think it's more likely they fell ass backwards into that, as opposed to some paradigm shift that Alderson brought in. 

 

[Fireball Fred]

If the Sox had the Mets' pitching, they wouldn't have to worry about first base.
 
My feeling is that Hanley may work out at first. Sure, he'll need some flexibility, but a lot of bulky guys have been fine at that position. Also (as others have noted) his infield experience is a big plus because he knows something about footwork. The worst-fielding Sox 1B I have ever seen (and I saw Dick Stuart) was Brian Daubach in '02, a converted OF who just had no idea -- don't think Hanley will be like that. The thing about Ramirez is that he might be able to play 1B or DH, whereas Sandoval is the starting third baseman or nothing. 

 

[nvalvo]

Byung-ho Park has been posted by the Nexen Heroes.
 
Park is a RHH first baseman who will be 29 next season. He's posted a .950+ OPS for four straight seasons in KBO, where he was a teammate of the Pirates' middle infielder Jung-ho Kang. Strike outs are a concern, but power shouldn't be: his last four season HR totals are 31, 37, 52, 53, and he has the healthy walk rate that you'd expect of that sort of slugger. The old-school (Matsuzaka-style) auction style still governs postings from KBO. 
 
I'm on record that I don't think it's feasible to move Ramirez or Sandoval at this juncture in a manner that improves the team, but if I'm wrong about that, Park would be an intriguing replacement who's actually a first baseman. 

 

[soxhop411]

We have been connected to him for like three years. I believe we also scouted him heavily last season. And we met with his agent

 

[absintheofmalaise]

We have been connected to him for like three years. I believe we also scouted him heavily last season. And we met with his agent

Dave?

 

[soxhop411]

Dave?

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/04/korean-slugger-byung-ho-park-hoping-to-jump-to-mlb-in-2016.html

I thought we knew this?



Yoo adds that Parks agents at Octagon had contact with the Red Sox and As during Spring Training when the Heroes were training in Arizona.

 

[soxhop411]

https://twitter.com/MyKBO/status/560237096862875648

 

[Spelunker]

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/04/korean-slugger-byung-ho-park-hoping-to-jump-to-mlb-in-2016.html

I thought we knew this?



Yoo adds that Parks agents at Octagon had contact with the Red Sox and As during Spring Training when the Heroes were training in Arizona.

Is his point that those were the previous administration, i.e. *not* Dave? While there was plenty before- which is meaningful, as we have basically the same structure beneath the GM- has there been any indication of interest since DD took over?

 

[Byrdbrain]

I think his point was the way he responded like he was part of the group that was actually scouting Park.
 
The Red Sox have been connected to him for quite some time, not 3 years.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Byung-ho Park has been posted by the Nexen Heroes.
 
Park is a RHH first baseman who will be 29 next season. He's posted a .950+ OPS for four straight seasons in KBO, where he was a teammate of the Pirates' middle infielder Jung-ho Kang. Strike outs are a concern, but power shouldn't be: his last four season HR totals are 31, 37, 52, 53, and he has the healthy walk rate that you'd expect of that sort of slugger. The old-school (Matsuzaka-style) auction style still governs postings from KBO. 
 
I'm on record that I don't think it's feasible to move Ramirez or Sandoval at this juncture in a manner that improves the team, but if I'm wrong about that, Park would be an intriguing replacement who's actually a first baseman. 

Park is interesting but I'd still rather see them spend their free agent dollars on pitching.  That assumes they can't spend at first and on pitching, which might be a wrong assumption.  But I define pitching as one starter and a few pen guys, as I think they need all of that to turn the corner.  Now maybe they can address those needs in other ways.  Maybe they can trade for Sonny Gray, for example.
 
But if the question is Park versus trying the Hanley/Shaw/Travis plan at first AND being able to acquire some pitching with the free agent cash, I would rather the latter. 
 
The Sox problem last year was not scoring runs.  I know that some (Nicky, among them) worry about power at first, but run prevention was the issue last season, not run scoring.
 
And the other factor is that players who come from Korea and other markets not the US are still something of a crapshoot.  Big successes and big failures and big mediocres are all part of the mix.

 

[nvalvo]

Park is interesting but I'd still rather see them spend their free agent dollars on pitching.  That assumes they can't spend at first and on pitching, which might be a wrong assumption.  But I define pitching as one starter and a few pen guys, as I think they need all of that to turn the corner.  Now maybe they can address those needs in other ways.  Maybe they can trade for Sonny Gray, for example.
 
But if the question is Park versus trying the Hanley/Shaw/Travis plan at first AND being able to acquire some pitching with the free agent cash, I would rather the latter. 
 
The Sox problem last year was not scoring runs.  I know that some (Nicky, among them) worry about power at first, but run prevention was the issue last season, not run scoring.
 
And the other factor is that players who come from Korea and other markets not the US are still something of a crapshoot.  Big successes and big failures and big mediocres are all part of the mix.

 
I think a scenario in which Park ends up in Boston is one in which we win a posting fee, move Hanley for a better deal than I would have predicted was out there, and spend the savings on pitching. Kang is on a four-year deal with a $2.75m AAV, and the pirates paid the Heroes $5m. A Park deal would probably be more expensive, but I wouldn't want to have to predict how much more. 
 
Again, I think all of this is unlikely. Hanley is also almost certainly a better hitter than Park, unless Park's numbers translate as well as Kang's have and Hanley's shoulders are more seriously injured than we knew. But if we can save, say, $16m AAV at 1B, that goes a ways towards signing a top-tier SP.