SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Allen Craig outrighted off 40 man roster
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by nomar on May 18, 2015 16:10:12 GMT -5
The question remains, if the Red Sox realized Craig was this worthless, why didn't they option him earlier... I think the front office legitimately thought there was a significant likelihood that he would prove to be at least a useful part-time player. That projection isn't looking so great. Same with Masterson so far.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 18, 2015 16:12:13 GMT -5
I don't think it changes risk reward. I think it's lucky . On one hand, I'm pretty confident that the front office knew, at the time of the trade, that in the worst-case scenario, they would be able to outright Craig off the 40-man roster and prevent his salary from hitting the luxury tax threshold, and that this fact factored into their willingness to complete that deal. On the other hand, even knowing the above, the Lackey trade still looks like a disaster (and I thought so at the time). even with the reports that he hated BOS and would sit out this year?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2015 16:15:07 GMT -5
The question remains, if the Red Sox realized Craig was this worthless, why didn't they option him earlier... I think the front office legitimately thought there was a significant likelihood that he would prove to be at least a useful part-time player. That projection isn't looking so great. And he couldn't prove that before playing below replacement level in the majors? Can anyone at all explain the extreme babying of Castillo? He's 27 years old. He's a big boy. He could not possibly be worse in RF than anyone else they have put out there. Why can't he adjust in the majors instead of staying in AAA for "significant work because he's not ready for the majors"?
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,438
|
Post by nomar on May 18, 2015 16:15:13 GMT -5
On one hand, I'm pretty confident that the front office knew, at the time of the trade, that in the worst-case scenario, they would be able to outright Craig off the 40-man roster and prevent his salary from hitting the luxury tax threshold, and that this fact factored into their willingness to complete that deal. On the other hand, even knowing the above, the Lackey trade still looks like a disaster (and I thought so at the time). even with the reports that he hated BOS and would sit out this year? What reports?
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on May 18, 2015 16:16:33 GMT -5
I think the odds are better than even that the same thing happens to Masterson, sooner or later.
In terms of using the open roster spots, Hanigan hopefully comes off the 60-day list at some point, and Johnson and Marrero both seem very likely to be additions. Pat Light seems like a possibility before year's end. Spruill seems like the one disposable guy on the current roster.
When you add in the possibility of non-40-man guys being traded for a catcher like Maldonado or Corporan and/or a reliever, these spots probably won't get wasted. Craig may want to do so tonight, though.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 18, 2015 16:18:36 GMT -5
On one hand, I'm pretty confident that the front office knew, at the time of the trade, that in the worst-case scenario, they would be able to outright Craig off the 40-man roster and prevent his salary from hitting the luxury tax threshold, and that this fact factored into their willingness to complete that deal. On the other hand, even knowing the above, the Lackey trade still looks like a disaster (and I thought so at the time). even with the reports that he hated BOS and would sit out this year? I never saw anything more than sportswriter conjecture-casting on this. And he's playing now on the same contract, so you have to go on that evidence, speculation from whomever to the contrary.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 18, 2015 16:18:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 18, 2015 16:23:41 GMT -5
On one hand, I'm pretty confident that the front office knew, at the time of the trade, that in the worst-case scenario, they would be able to outright Craig off the 40-man roster and prevent his salary from hitting the luxury tax threshold, and that this fact factored into their willingness to complete that deal. On the other hand, even knowing the above, the Lackey trade still looks like a disaster (and I thought so at the time). even with the reports that he hated BOS and would sit out this year? Maybe he would have been willing if we had given him the $25m we're giving Allen Craig?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 18, 2015 16:23:45 GMT -5
Yeah, this is just post-hoc posturing. The Red Sox could have called his bluff, like St. Louis was willing to do. As well as he was pitching, he was unlikely to be willing to just sit out an entire year. At the very least, he was likely amenable to discussing an extension that would add a year or two and smooth out his salary.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2015 16:25:33 GMT -5
They could have traded Lackey for a prospect package of guys like Ranaudo, Workman and Webster and Joe Kelly is still worth more than that.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on May 18, 2015 16:31:50 GMT -5
I don't think it changes risk reward. I think it's lucky . On one hand, I'm pretty confident that the front office knew, at the time of the trade, that in the worst-case scenario, they would be able to outright Craig off the 40-man roster and prevent his salary from hitting the luxury tax threshold, and that this fact factored into their willingness to complete that deal. On the other hand, even knowing the above, the Lackey trade still looks like a disaster (and I thought so at the time). I don't give management that much credit. But if they did see this as worse case ,they gave him too much time before making a move.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 18, 2015 16:36:39 GMT -5
The question remains, if the Red Sox realized Craig was this worthless, why didn't they option him earlier... I think the front office legitimately thought there was a significant likelihood that he would prove to be at least a useful part-time player. That projection isn't looking so great. Also, he had 59 total AB's and we are a quarter way into the season. How are going to option him any earlier? It seems to me the the outfield "depth" that we supposedly had has been grossly mismanaged or really wasn't "depth" to begin with
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 18, 2015 16:40:34 GMT -5
I posted last year, when the trade was made, that Craig was just a lottery ticket with Kelly the guy they wanted. A (losing) lottery ticket he was, and the team's willingness to eat the salary confirmed. Kelly's age, potential, and years of control were apparently worth the risk. For Craig, who admitted being surprised at the trade, the come-down continues.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 18, 2015 16:44:00 GMT -5
Red Sox since they have zero incentive to ever again add him to the 40 man roster. As purgatory goes, it's not bad I suppose. I think the Sox would still rather trade him at some point, right. He has incentive to show up and increase his value to keep his career going. Personally, I don't like it for the player or the union at all. It's within the rules of course, but that doesn't make it cool. The Sox should want the guy to succeed, since they are still responsible for the freight, albeit not for luxury tax purposes. Craig could have refused the outright assignment. He chose to keep the money. There's nothing to be outraged about from the player or union's part. Every single MLB team chose to pass on claiming him and his contract. If the player doesn't like it, play better. There is nothing to suggest that the Red Sox are doing this to spite Craig, and there is no indication that they do not want him to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 18, 2015 16:49:37 GMT -5
Craig could have refused the outright assignment. He chose to keep the money. There's nothing to be outraged about from the player or union's part. Every single MLB team chose to pass on claiming him and his contract. If the player doesn't like it, play better. There is nothing to suggest that the Red Sox are doing this to spite Craig, and there is no indication that they do not want him to succeed. I am reading on other sites that he couldn't refuse because he doesn't have 5 years service time...and that is the stench from a players/union perspective....but I agree with everything else here.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 18, 2015 16:51:38 GMT -5
Craig could have refused the outright assignment. He chose to keep the money. There's nothing to be outraged about from the player or union's part. Every single MLB team chose to pass on claiming him and his contract. If the player doesn't like it, play better. There is nothing to suggest that the Red Sox are doing this to spite Craig, and there is no indication that they do not want him to succeed. I am reading on other sites that he couldn't refuse because he doesn't have 5 years service time...and that is the stench from a players/union perspective....but I agree with everything else here. Other sites are wrong. It's three years. He has four.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 18, 2015 17:04:27 GMT -5
I posted last year, when the trade was made, that Craig was just a lottery ticket with Kelly the guy they wanted. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the Sox knew Kelly would be as good as he has been this year (minus his last two starts where he lost his feel for the strike zone). Again, he's picked up more than 1 mph of average velocity on his fastball and suddenly discovered a plus slider. That's just not something you can project with certainty. No, it seems clear to me that they thought Craig would bounce back and be a valuable player. And they were very wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 18, 2015 17:16:53 GMT -5
I posted last year, when the trade was made, that Craig was just a lottery ticket with Kelly the guy they wanted. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the Sox knew Kelly would be as good as he has been this year (minus his last two starts where he lost his feel for the strike zone). Again, he's picked up more than 1 mph of average velocity on his fastball and suddenly discovered a plus slider. That's just not something you can project with certainty. No, it seems clear to me that they thought Craig would bounce back and be a valuable player. And they were very wrong. This seems like trying to have it both ways. You either evaluate it ex ante and try to retroactively decide what was reasonable at the time or evaluate it based on what we know today. You can't split it up so you retroactively look at what Kelly projected to be back then but look at how Craig tentatively turned out now and give the front office no credit.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on May 18, 2015 17:31:41 GMT -5
I posted last year, when the trade was made, that Craig was just a lottery ticket with Kelly the guy they wanted. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the Sox knew Kelly would be as good as he has been this year (minus his last two starts where he lost his feel for the strike zone). Again, he's picked up more than 1 mph of average velocity on his fastball and suddenly discovered a plus slider. That's just not something you can project with certainty. No, it seems clear to me that they thought Craig would bounce back and be a valuable player. And they were very wrong. Nah...what Norm said.
|
|
|
Post by Smittyw on May 18, 2015 17:34:28 GMT -5
It seems to me that Kelly and Craig were both "lottery tickets." It's not like we took on Craig's contract but got a top notch prospect or an established star out of it. We all know what Kelly could be, but in the here and now he's very much a question mark still.
It's pretty fair to wonder whether this is really the best we could do for a #2 starter who was set to make pennies this year.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 18, 2015 17:50:41 GMT -5
It seems to me that Kelly and Craig were both "lottery tickets." It's not like we took on Craig's contract but got a top notch prospect or an established star out of it. We all know what Kelly could be, but in the here and now he's very much a question mark still. It's pretty fair to wonder whether this is really the best we could do for a #2 starter who was set to make pennies this year. The pennies he's making, this year, are hardly less than the pennies Kelly is making this year - and next. They also don't begin to make up for Kelly's arbitration years, when in all likelihood, Lackey will be be out of the game. Kelly didn't just discover a 97+ mph fastball, either. He's had the stuff since he came up from the minors, that's been no secret. Command and sequencing have been the issues. They still are until he can show consistency game-to-game. I like Lackey as much as anyone and thought it was a travesty that he was savaged by the media idiots. That said, he's worth less going forward than Kelly, and probably quite a bit less. One year of control does not make up for 4+ years of control and the upside.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 17:54:27 GMT -5
And you don't see any leap in logic between "I don't know about that" and "No, I would not have honored my contract with the Red Sox?"
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2015 17:56:09 GMT -5
Lackey could easily fall apart this year also, which I'm sure every team knew when thinking about trading for a 36 year old.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2015 17:57:11 GMT -5
And you don't see any leap in logic between "I don't know about that" and "No, I would not have honored my contract with the Red Sox?" Yes, that's a leap in logic. But the idea that he wasn't very happy in Boston isn't a stretch and why would you keep a guy who doesn't want to be here?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 18, 2015 17:58:19 GMT -5
And you don't see any leap in logic between "I don't know about that" and "No, I would not have honored my contract with the Red Sox?" Yes, that's a leap in logic. But the idea that he wasn't very happy in Boston isn't a stretch and why would you keep a guy who doesn't want to be here? this
|
|
|