I said AFTER the loafing on the field incident. I doubt they'd be interested now.......

 

What difference does it make?

 

Reread my posts and you'll see why it makes a difference.

From 2006 to 2009, the Red Sox basically had a revolving door of pretty mediocre, weak-hitting shortstops. They tried Alex Gonzalez, Julio Lugo, and Nick Green and none of them really worked. Undoubtedly the Red Sox would have loved Hanley Ramirez manning the position during those years even if he was the second coming of Manny Ramirez. Performance trumps work ethic.

 

 

But its been SINCE 2009 that Hanley has been a problem here. A proposed March 2009 trade is well before the problems & bad attitude of the last two seasons appeared.

I said AFTER the loafing on the field incident. I doubt they'd be interested now.......

 

What difference does it make?

 

Reread my posts and you'll see why it makes a difference.

I did. They don't really answer the question. It's bizarre to focus on that one incident.

 

If the Red Sox are less interested, it probably has more to do with Hanley's injury status and/or diminished production since 2009 and not his attitude. Or the fact that they have Scutaro locked up through 2012.

For the ten millionth time, Boston tried to trade for Hanley at least once over the last few years. Those claims about them wanting to deal him because of his personality are......well.......disconnected.

 

 

Well lets get connected then, find a link that says that Boston tried to trade for him. AN INDEPENDENT source, not a Marlins hack or employee - someone credible. Otherwise it sounds like just another urban myth, to make Hanley supporters feel good about their man.

 

And it has to be after 2009, when he did the "loafing on the field" incident. I will get off his back if that proposed trade has happened since then.

Your opinion is worth less than my dogs currenlty worm infested sh*t, but here you go! http://www.nydailyne...rticle-1.419578 page 2 #7 under david samson. Youre a special kind of dumbass because no digging is needed to understand that boston has tried to get hanley back for YEARS. Its all over page one of my google search. There are even rumors of them trying to get him back now.

 

Hanley supporters? Lol I'm one of the few in miami. Most people feel the same way you do. Im calling whatever nursing home you're in to make sure they limit your access to the internet.

 

Again that is a link to an article BEFORE "Lollygag gate". I want to see something since then......c'mon smart guys give me those links.

 

And your personal shots are really unnecessary.

From 2006 to 2009, the Red Sox basically had a revolving door of pretty mediocre, weak-hitting shortstops. They tried Alex Gonzalez, Julio Lugo, and Nick Green and none of them really worked. Undoubtedly the Red Sox would have loved Hanley Ramirez manning the position during those years even if he was the second coming of Manny Ramirez. Performance trumps work ethic.

 

 

But its been SINCE 2009 that Hanley has been a problem here. A proposed March 2009 trade is well before the problems & bad attitude of the last two seasons appeared.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that the Red Sox traded him to the Marlins in the first because of his attitude problems. So by your very own account, Hanley has been a "problem" long before the incident you are talking about even took place.

Hanley on the other hand, has been a prima donna his whole career, and it has most definitely affected his play. His pouting & sulking, and attitude are one reason that Boston was willing to part with him for Beckett. They knew he had potential MVP ability, but could see the "Manny Junior" brewing inside and decided to get rid of him before he became a potential problem. If they do indeed land Reyes, and give Reyes $ 2-3 or more million a year more than Hanley, and then also ask Hanley to move positions, I am telling you now, that I believe (just my opinion) that Hanley will rebel more than ever and be more of a pain in the ass than ever.

 

You can't just change your argument. That's crap.

I said AFTER the loafing on the field incident. I doubt they'd be interested now.......

 

What difference does it make?

 

Reread my posts and you'll see why it makes a difference.

I did. They don't really answer the question. It's bizarre to focus on that one incident.

 

If the Red Sox are less interested, it probably has more to do with Hanley's injury status and/or diminished production since 2009 and not his attitude. Or the fact that they have Scutaro locked up through 2012.

 

I believe that incident is where a lot of Hanley's continued bad attitude has come from. It was the 1st time he had been publicly lam basted and I don't think he has ever gotten over it. He still carries resentment to this day.

From 2006 to 2009, the Red Sox basically had a revolving door of pretty mediocre, weak-hitting shortstops. They tried Alex Gonzalez, Julio Lugo, and Nick Green and none of them really worked. Undoubtedly the Red Sox would have loved Hanley Ramirez manning the position during those years even if he was the second coming of Manny Ramirez. Performance trumps work ethic.

 

 

But its been SINCE 2009 that Hanley has been a problem here. A proposed March 2009 trade is well before the problems & bad attitude of the last two seasons appeared.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that the Red Sox traded him to the Marlins in the first because of his attitude problems. So by your very own account, Hanley has been a "problem" long before the incident you are talking about even took place.

 

Not really, there have been rumors his whole career of attitude. The "Lollygag" incident is just when the problem came to the forefront for all to see.

Hanley on the other hand, has been a prima donna his whole career, and it has most definitely affected his play. His pouting & sulking, and attitude are one reason that Boston was willing to part with him for Beckett. They knew he had potential MVP ability, but could see the "Manny Junior" brewing inside and decided to get rid of him before he became a potential problem. If they do indeed land Reyes, and give Reyes $ 2-3 or more million a year more than Hanley, and then also ask Hanley to move positions, I am telling you now, that I believe (just my opinion) that Hanley will rebel more than ever and be more of a pain in the ass than ever.

 

You can't just change your argument. That's crap.

Yeah, he's being really inconsistent and contradicting himself. His whole argument has been that Hanley's been a headcase since his minor league days with Boston. In that case, I don't see why the lollygagging incident really makes a difference in terms of trade interest.

From 2006 to 2009, the Red Sox basically had a revolving door of pretty mediocre, weak-hitting shortstops. They tried Alex Gonzalez, Julio Lugo, and Nick Green and none of them really worked. Undoubtedly the Red Sox would have loved Hanley Ramirez manning the position during those years even if he was the second coming of Manny Ramirez. Performance trumps work ethic.

 

 

But its been SINCE 2009 that Hanley has been a problem here. A proposed March 2009 trade is well before the problems & bad attitude of the last two seasons appeared.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that the Red Sox traded him to the Marlins in the first because of his attitude problems. So by your very own account, Hanley has been a "problem" long before the incident you are talking about even took place.

 

Not really, there have been rumors his whole career of attitude. The "Lollygag" incident is just when the problem came to the forefront for all to see.

So again, the Red Sox who by your own words traded him because of his attitude were not aware of Hanley's attitude problems until the Lollygag incident?

 

You can't have it both ways.

Hanley on the other hand, has been a prima donna his whole career, and it has most definitely affected his play. His pouting & sulking, and attitude are one reason that Boston was willing to part with him for Beckett. They knew he had potential MVP ability, but could see the "Manny Junior" brewing inside and decided to get rid of him before he became a potential problem. If they do indeed land Reyes, and give Reyes $ 2-3 or more million a year more than Hanley, and then also ask Hanley to move positions, I am telling you now, that I believe (just my opinion) that Hanley will rebel more than ever and be more of a pain in the ass than ever.

 

You can't just change your argument. That's crap.

 

Haven't changed my argument. Not at all. He has had an attitude problem for years, and when Boston wanted to get rid of someone with so much potential it has to raise an eyebrow. I think Hanley was contented for a while, especially after Miggy was gone and then he was "the Man" with his new contract. Then "Lollygag Gate" happened and he's been a headache since then, off the field with attitude, and on the field with subpar play. Bringing Reyes here, and paying Reyes more and on top of that asking Hanley to move positions, I am not sure that even a "raise" on his contract will make him happy.

Hanley on the other hand, has been a prima donna his whole career, and it has most definitely affected his play. His pouting & sulking, and attitude are one reason that Boston was willing to part with him for Beckett. They knew he had potential MVP ability, but could see the "Manny Junior" brewing inside and decided to get rid of him before he became a potential problem. If they do indeed land Reyes, and give Reyes $ 2-3 or more million a year more than Hanley, and then also ask Hanley to move positions, I am telling you now, that I believe (just my opinion) that Hanley will rebel more than ever and be more of a pain in the ass than ever.

 

You can't just change your argument. That's crap.

Yeah, he's being really inconsistent and contradicting himself. His whole argument has been that Hanley's been a headcase since his minor league days with Boston. In that case, I don't see why the lollygagging incident really makes a difference in terms of trade interest.

 

People can grow up, and many thought he had "turned the corner", but Lollygag brought all of it back. His rep from the old days he just could not, and seemingly cannot now shed.

The article squall posted said that the Red Sox were trying to trade for Hanley in November 2009. Please try again. Or don't.

From 2006 to 2009, the Red Sox basically had a revolving door of pretty mediocre, weak-hitting shortstops. They tried Alex Gonzalez, Julio Lugo, and Nick Green and none of them really worked. Undoubtedly the Red Sox would have loved Hanley Ramirez manning the position during those years even if he was the second coming of Manny Ramirez. Performance trumps work ethic.

 

 

But its been SINCE 2009 that Hanley has been a problem here. A proposed March 2009 trade is well before the problems & bad attitude of the last two seasons appeared.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that the Red Sox traded him to the Marlins in the first because of his attitude problems. So by your very own account, Hanley has been a "problem" long before the incident you are talking about even took place.

 

Not really, there have been rumors his whole career of attitude. The "Lollygag" incident is just when the problem came to the forefront for all to see.

So again, the Red Sox who by your own words traded him because of his attitude were not aware of Hanley's attitude problems until the Lollygag incident?

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

People can grow up......many thought Hanley had grown up. Lollygag just proved he hadn't.

The article squall posted said that the Red Sox were trying to trade for Hanley in November 2009. Please try again. Or don't.

 

 

Lollygag was in May of 2010

Hanley on the other hand, has been a prima donna his whole career, and it has most definitely affected his play. His pouting & sulking, and attitude are one reason that Boston was willing to part with him for Beckett. They knew he had potential MVP ability, but could see the "Manny Junior" brewing inside and decided to get rid of him before he became a potential problem. If they do indeed land Reyes, and give Reyes $ 2-3 or more million a year more than Hanley, and then also ask Hanley to move positions, I am telling you now, that I believe (just my opinion) that Hanley will rebel more than ever and be more of a pain in the ass than ever.

 

You can't just change your argument. That's crap.

Yeah, he's being really inconsistent and contradicting himself. His whole argument has been that Hanley's been a headcase since his minor league days with Boston. In that case, I don't see why the lollygagging incident really makes a difference in terms of trade interest.

 

People can grow up, and many thought he had "turned the corner", but Lollygag brought all of it back. His rep from the old days he just could not, and seemingly cannot now shed.

In that case, the burden of proof is on you to show us that the Red Sox thought he "turned the corner" after he became a member of the Marlins and were no longer concerned about his attitude again until 2010, because that's a lofty claim to be making.

Hanley on the other hand, has been a prima donna his whole career, and it has most definitely affected his play. His pouting & sulking, and attitude are one reason that Boston was willing to part with him for Beckett. They knew he had potential MVP ability, but could see the "Manny Junior" brewing inside and decided to get rid of him before he became a potential problem. If they do indeed land Reyes, and give Reyes $ 2-3 or more million a year more than Hanley, and then also ask Hanley to move positions, I am telling you now, that I believe (just my opinion) that Hanley will rebel more than ever and be more of a pain in the ass than ever.

 

You can't just change your argument. That's crap.

Yeah, he's being really inconsistent and contradicting himself. His whole argument has been that Hanley's been a headcase since his minor league days with Boston. In that case, I don't see why the lollygagging incident really makes a difference in terms of trade interest.

 

People can grow up, and many thought he had "turned the corner", but Lollygag brought all of it back. His rep from the old days he just could not, and seemingly cannot now shed.

In that case, the burden of proof is on you to show us that the Red Sox thought he "turned the corner" after he became a member of the Marlins and were no longer concerned about his attitude again until 2010, because that's a lofty claim to be making.

 

Why do I have to prove anything ? All I am giving is an opinion. And its an opinion given on many more years of experience dealing with people than you have.

It sounds like to me that you realized you were caught saying something stupid and then you made a Google search to find the last reported rumor about a trade interest and then jumped on board with this Lollygag-gate stuff to try to brush off the multiple rumors reported before 2010. And then you created this loaded question that makes no sense to try to "prove" whatever point it is you are trying to make.

The article squall posted said that the Red Sox were trying to trade for Hanley in November 2009. Please try again. Or don't.

 

 

Lollygag was in May of 2010

You asked for after the 2009 season...

 

I had the year wrong, so show me one from after Lollygag in May of 2010. Show me a link that someone, ANYONE is trying to trade for Hanley.

The article squall posted said that the Red Sox were trying to trade for Hanley in November 2009. Please try again. Or don't.

 

 

Lollygag was in May of 2010

 

Well lets get connected then, find a link that says that Boston tried to trade for him. AN INDEPENDENT source, not a Marlins hack or employee - someone credible. Otherwise it sounds like just another urban myth, to make Hanley supporters feel good about their man.

 

And it has to be after 2009, when he did the "loafing on the field" incident. I will get off his back if that proposed trade has happened since then.

 

It was 2010, but at least admit you posted wrong here.

 

And even if the Red Sox haven't asked about Hanley in the last 2 offseasons, that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prove anything else you said. In fact, it shows that they were willing to have him back even though they "knew" what he was all about.

 

Hanley might be a diva, but your arguments are just incredible (and I don't mean the shade of meaning that's a synonym for awesome).

It sounds like to me that you realized you were caught saying something stupid and then you made a Google search to find the last reported rumor about a trade interest and then jumped on board with this Lollygag-gate stuff to try to brush off the multiple rumors reported before 2010. And then you created this loaded question that makes no sense to try to "prove" whatever point it is you are trying to make.

 

 

Can you please give me a link to a trade for Hanley FOLLOWING Lollygag Gate or not ? Please do.

Why do I have to prove anything ? All I am giving is an opinion. And its an opinion given on many more years of experience dealing with people than you have.

 

You are insinuating that the Red Sox thought Hanley "turned a corner" in terms of his attitude from 2006-2009. That requires some proof.

 

Oh, and it finally comes out. When all else fails, drop the "I'm older, so I know more" line. I didn't see that one coming. You can join the likes of Marlins2003 and Bronco with that remark.

Why do I have to prove anything ? All I am giving is an opinion. And its an opinion given on many more years of experience dealing with people than you have.

 

 

Wow..........I........this is just............a whole other level.........

of cereal?

The article squall posted said that the Red Sox were trying to trade for Hanley in November 2009. Please try again. Or don't.

 

 

Lollygag was in May of 2010

 

Well lets get connected then, find a link that says that Boston tried to trade for him. AN INDEPENDENT source, not a Marlins hack or employee - someone credible. Otherwise it sounds like just another urban myth, to make Hanley supporters feel good about their man.

 

And it has to be after 2009, when he did the "loafing on the field" incident. I will get off his back if that proposed trade has happened since then.

 

It was 2010, but at least admit you posted wrong here.

 

And even if the Red Sox haven't asked about Hanley in the last 2 offseasons, that does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prove anything else you said. In fact, it shows that they were willing to have him back even though they "knew" what he was all about.

 

Hanley might be a diva, but your arguments are just incredible (and I don't mean the shade of meaning that's a synonym for awesome).

 

Because before Lollygag Gate Hanley had showed signs that his old troublesome personality traits had maybe been conquered, as he had possibly grown up. But that whole incident and his downward spiral since then I don't think are unrelated. You can be injured and not play well, but it was his behavior while injured that got him called out by at least one present Marlin, and of course we know a former Marlin (now in Atlanta) also called him out.