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
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2015 12:31:10 GMT -5
But he's not owed either of those, not even close. No? Half of Craig's 2014 salary, plus his 2015 to 2017 salary, plus his 2018 option buyout is $27.9m. Additionally, it was reported at the time of the trade that cash also changed hands to balance out the 2014 salaries. Lackey was making about $15m and Craig and Kelly about $2m in 2014, so the Red Sox probably sent along another $4m or so. $32m is close enough to $50m that it certainly needn't change your analysis which doesn't mention salary numbers at all. Oh, so I do all the work while you lean back and think up strange analogies, I get it now. The key variable we don't know is how willing the Red Sox are to go above the Luxury Tax threshold in the future (not to mention what's going to happen with that in the next CBA). If we assume, for instance, that they're willing to go over for 2 years in a row but not 3, then it would be fair to apply a 16% markup (average of 0%, 17.5% and 30%) to the cost of money on the major league payroll, and discount the $26m owed Craig from 2015 onwards to about $22.5m of major league salary equivalent. This isn't going to change the analysis much. I don't think you can assume anything. Look at Moncada for an example of a willingness to throw obscene money around when it doesn't count vs. the LT. All we can do is guess and wait for them to stop spending.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 19, 2015 12:50:55 GMT -5
... Oh, so I do all the work while you lean back and think up strange analogies, I get it now. ... But I'm not the one who feels it's necessary to stick a value on this thing just yet, you are. Feel free to do so, but make sure to include all the risk calculations, those probabilities I mentioned, and the resulting valuations. I'll help where I can.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2015 12:53:38 GMT -5
FYI, Alex Speier writes the following in his newsletter today, which I believe is the right answer re: Craig's ability to opt for free agency while not on the 40-man roster: I really don't see any chance at all that happens unless he's a very unusual person and would give up $21 million for a chance to play in the majors for maybe $1 million for 1 year if he's lucky enough to get a major league deal. I'd guess Japan would be more likely.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 19, 2015 13:08:07 GMT -5
I really don't see any chance at all that happens unless he's a very unusual person and would give up $21 million for a chance to play in the majors for maybe $1 million for 1 year if he's lucky enough to get a major league deal. I'd guess Japan would be more likely. If he really wanted out he could probably just go to the Red Sox and say, "hey guys, give me $15m of that $21m and you can be rid of me forever."
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2015 13:17:09 GMT -5
I really don't see any chance at all that happens unless he's a very unusual person and would give up $21 million for a chance to play in the majors for maybe $1 million for 1 year if he's lucky enough to get a major league deal. I'd guess Japan would be more likely. If he really wanted out he could probably just go to the Red Sox and say, "hey guys, give me $15m of that $21m and you can be rid of me forever." The players' association would probably not allow him to agree to do this. They have consistently been against the idea of players voluntarily giving up guaranteed contracts (see, e.g., the vetoed ARod-to-Boston deal). Only in truly extraordinary circumstances, like the recent Josh Hamilton transaction (in which Hamilton gave up $6m in salary) has the union agreed to this sort of thing. Even then, the union only allowed it because the team agreed to add an opt-out clause and because of the differential in state income tax between TX and CA means he's not giving up much post-tax income.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2015 13:31:55 GMT -5
OK, I guess that's true in hindsight, but I'm just trying to remember - we'd been hearing that he might not play for the minimum for a while, no? It just seems really weird for that to have been floated out there, and then just be completely false. Perhaps the better #3 would've been that we don't know for certain whether the Red Sox thought he would play for the league minimum, or if he would be a problem if he did. You can evaluate and judge based on their being off on that, but at least you can see why they'd be willing to take what they did. He and his agent have every incentive to float the idea that he's not happy about/would refuse to play for the minimum in 2015 even if this was not in fact true, because it would likely push the Red Sox towards negotiating with them about an extension (something else that was heavily rumored this offseason). Even if he was unhappy about his salary, it's unlikely that he would have actually been willing to go through with sitting out the year, for reasons previously discussed. If the Red Sox thought that Lackey sitting out the year was a real possibility, they misread the situation (something I've been saying ever since Lackey was traded). This is negotiating 101-- you have to know how much leverage each side has (including their BATNA) and act accordingly. If the Red Sox didn't think that was a real possibility, they didn't get enough in return for him. Either way, this reflects negatively on the front office.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2015 13:35:12 GMT -5
$/WAR is a price in the market. Just because the Red Sox might be willing to pay 11 million or something per WAR because of the Boston media market doesn't mean they have to, and if they do, they're losing out on money they could be spending more wisely elsewhere in the market. That is true only when the Red Sox indicate that they have an overall spending limit, which they have not indicated to this point. They do absolutely have an overall spending limit, even if it's a flexible one that allows the front office to go over or under as needed in special circumstances (e.g., Moncada). Non-LT expenditures still matter-- for instance, under the old CBA, when there were no limits on draft/IFA spending, they nonetheless failed to sign amateur players or corner the IFA market, and they failed to win the posting fee bidding on Darvish or Tanaka. ADD: I will say, though, that the fact that Craig's salary doesn't count for LT purposes does matter beyond just the marginal tax rate they would otherwise pay on his salary. Because of the harsh repeater penalties, they may particularly value the ability to duck below the luxury tax limit this year or next year because it might reduce their tax rate three or four years down the line if they ever intend to blow past the limit for multiple-year stretches (as Henry has suggested is a possibility). Because of the multiple unknown variables involved, it's really difficult to value that, however.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 19, 2015 14:03:15 GMT -5
I've been a pretty big critic of this trade since the beginning, but if the Red Sox felt they needed to move Lackey, and this was the best offer? I dunno. Lackey would also have gained 10-5 rights following the season, so the team would've had less leverage in trading him. There were a lot of considerations going on here. That's begging the question, though. They reportedly insisted on major league talent, which presumably pushed some teams out of the running, and less than a year after the trade, one of the two major leaguers they received in return looks like a significant net negative. There's obviously still a lot of uncertainty involved, perhaps enough that the criticism can't be too strongly-worded, but, as stevedillard and other suggest above, I believe there's a strong possibility that the front office could have traded Lackey for a prospect-based package (or even another major-leaguer-based package) that we would be happier with looking back on it. Yeah, I mean I pretty much agree with all of that. I didn't like the trade at the time, either in terms of a straight-ahead talent swap or in terms of the context of their other deadline moves. My stance on the overall picture hasn't shifted much - I thought Craig had some chance to bounce back and he didn't, but I like Kelly more now than I did then. There are really two discussions going on here, though. The first is whether the Red Sox needed* to trade Lackey. The second is whether the trade they got for him was sufficient. Frankly I think we all lack the necessary information to discuss the first. I dont' know what was going on in Lackey's head, whether he'd been approached for an extension, whether he was a problem or potential problem in the clubhouse, etc. That's really the part I'm pushing back against - I think you and mgoetze are taking it for granted that having Lackey on the 2015 team was possible/palatable. The second part, about the return they got for him, I've been critical of since day one. There has obviously been a lot of talk about how they were insistent on major league talent, so I feel like there is something to that, but I'm always skeptical when I hear descriptions so broad. Was it that they wanted to get major leaguer talent back for Lackey, or was it simply that the player(s) they were targeting in a Lackey deal happened to be major leaguers? It seems pretty clear that the Red Sox liked Kelly specifically. It's too early to evaluate that, but I just wonder why they went this way to go about it. I feel like they could've gotten more for Lackey, and I also feel like they had/have plenty of talent in the organization to trade for a player like Kelly. That worries me more. A failure in scouting here or there I can live with. Sometimes you get great reports on a player who doesn't end up living up to expectations. In the trade, though, it sort of feels like an error in the process. Like, they liked Kelly, they felt they needed to trade Lackey, so they pulled off a trade without regard to their relative values. If they really did go into a Lackey deal with a laser focus on MLB-ready talent then they screwed up. If there's a situation with a player a team feels it needs to trade, then they have to be as open to all proposals. "We're open to trading Lackey, but only for MLB talent" is ok. Saying "we need to trade Lackey, let's get the best we can for him" is fine too. But "we need to trade Lackey and we only want MLB talent back" is far too limiting for the situation.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on May 19, 2015 14:07:59 GMT -5
What's bizarre to me is how Cherington is so quick to hand-out extensions. Sometimes, when not needed. This Craig contract should have been a warning. We trade for Miley. Why did we extend him before seeing him throw a pitch? Same with Porcello. Both would have had to have been awesome to out-perform the deals we handed them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2015 14:10:43 GMT -5
That is true only when the Red Sox indicate that they have an overall spending limit, which they have not indicated to this point. They do absolutely have an overall spending limit, even if it's a flexible one that allows the front office to go over or under as needed in special circumstances (e.g., Moncada). Non-LT expenditures still matter-- for instance, under the old CBA, when there were no limits on draft/IFA spending, they nonetheless failed to sign amateur players or corner the IFA market, and they failed to win the posting fee bidding on Darvish or Tanaka. ADD: I will say, though, that the fact that Craig's salary doesn't count for LT purposes does matter beyond just the marginal tax rate they would otherwise pay on his salary. Because of the harsh repeater penalties, they may particularly value the ability to duck below the luxury tax limit this year or next year because it might reduce their tax rate three or four years down the line if they ever intend to blow past the limit for multiple-year stretches (as Henry has suggested is a possibility). Because of the multiple unknown variables involved, it's really difficult to value that, however. They may just have individual limits and also an overall limit which we don't know what it is. It doesn't look like they reached it yet.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2015 14:11:13 GMT -5
What's bizarre to me is how Cherington is so quick to hand-out extensions. Sometimes, when not needed. This Craig contract should have been a warning. We trade for Miley. Why did we extend him before seeing him throw a pitch? Same with Porcello. Both would have had to have been awesome to out-perform the deals we handed them. Because they might cost more later - like Lester.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on May 19, 2015 14:25:59 GMT -5
What's bizarre to me is how Cherington is so quick to hand-out extensions. Sometimes, when not needed. This Craig contract should have been a warning. We trade for Miley. Why did we extend him before seeing him throw a pitch? Same with Porcello. Both would have had to have been awesome to out-perform the deals we handed them. Because they might cost more later - like Lester. Or, you get stuck with a contract you can't move.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on May 19, 2015 14:28:20 GMT -5
I really don't see any chance at all that happens unless he's a very unusual person and would give up $21 million for a chance to play in the majors for maybe $1 million for 1 year if he's lucky enough to get a major league deal. I'd guess Japan would be more likely. If he really wanted out he could probably just go to the Red Sox and say, "hey guys, give me $15m of that $21m and you can be rid of me forever." Are we sure at 6M for 3 years of control, some team like Oakland or Pittsburgh who thrive off buy low deals wouldn't take a chance on Craig? To me the trade was a player evaluation error. I can't see Craig being viewed as a net negative at the acquisition date, he was one of the better players in the league with the stick the previous three years, and his troubles could be linked (incorrectly) to his injury that year. His past performances suggested he was on a cost effective contract, and the Red Sox were obviously prioritizing MLB ready players. I'm also not buying that this dude is cooked yet. The 139 wRC+ player we saw from 2011-13 (17th in the league for that time frame) is likely gone, but since he's been a Red Sox he has been playing with a nagging injury issue and limited playing time. Not the ideal situation to get your groove back. The consistency of playing every day should serve him well.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 19, 2015 14:38:34 GMT -5
Because they might cost more later - like Lester. Or, you get stuck with a contract you can't move. Right, that's the risk-reward balance with extensions. Sometimes you overpay because the player doesn't pan out, a la Ricky Romero or Allen Craig. Sometimes you get a hugely valuable asset at way under-market prices, like Lester or Pedroia or Youkilis' first contracts. Not all of them work out in the team's favor, but the record generally suggests that more often than not, pre-free-agent extensions have been team-friendly.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 19, 2015 14:57:10 GMT -5
If he really wanted out he could probably just go to the Red Sox and say, "hey guys, give me $15m of that $21m and you can be rid of me forever." Are we sure at 6M for 3 years of control, some team like Oakland or Pittsburgh who thrive off buy low deals wouldn't take a chance on Craig? To me the trade was a player evaluation error. I can't see Craig being viewed as a net negative at the acquisition date, he was one of the better players in the league with the stick the previous three years, and his troubles could be linked (incorrectly) to his injury that year. His past performances suggested he was on a cost effective contract, and the Red Sox were obviously prioritizing MLB ready players. I'm also not buying that this dude is cooked yet. The 139 wRC+ player we saw from 2011-13 (17th in the league for that time frame) is likely gone, but since he's been a Red Sox he has been playing with a nagging injury issue and limited playing time. Not the ideal situation to get your groove back. The consistency of playing every day should serve him well. Until he is pulling 92+ mph fastballs on the inside part of the plate over the LF wall in the minors, he should be done in the majors. No one can survive their biggest strength turning into their biggest weakness.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 19, 2015 15:11:28 GMT -5
What's bizarre to me is how Cherington is so quick to hand-out extensions. Sometimes, when not needed. This Craig contract should have been a warning. We trade for Miley. Why did we extend him before seeing him throw a pitch? Same with Porcello. What are you saying, noone from the Red Sox organisation has ever been to a Diamondbacks/Tigers game? Wrong.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on May 19, 2015 15:51:49 GMT -5
FWIW, I remember reading contemporaneously that the Red Sox wanted Shelby Miller but settled on Kelly when the Redbirds wouldn't budge
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2015 16:51:33 GMT -5
FWIW, I remember reading contemporaneously that the Red Sox wanted Shelby Miller but settled on Kelly when the Redbirds wouldn't budge It's safe to say that everyone wanted Shelby Miller instead of Joe Kelly. But, Miller ended up going for Jason Heyward. How were the Red Sox supposed to beat that offer?
|
|
sdl
Rookie
Who the hell is Stan Papi?
Posts: 135
|
Post by sdl on May 24, 2015 13:04:34 GMT -5
I'm confused. Why did Nava have to go through revocable waivers last year to be optioned? OK sorry, optional assignment waivers, which there is a gentleman's agreement that nobody will ever be claimed from. Different than waivers he'd need to pass through after being DFA. I remember when I was a kid that Jim Lonborg had to go thru those waivers as well in 1970 before he was optioned to Louisville.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 31, 2015 23:43:08 GMT -5
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 18s18 seconds ago Allen Craig also will join #RedSox tomorrow, team announces.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Aug 31, 2015 23:48:54 GMT -5
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 18s18 seconds ago Allen Craig also will join #RedSox tomorrow, team announces. I get that there's not much downside when they can just outright him again later, but what's the point? He's a bad defender with a .077 ISO in AAA who hasn't hit major league pitching in years. He's never going to hit again. I guess he can't do much harm sitting on the bench, but if he gets a single start...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2015 0:56:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxfan06 on Sept 1, 2015 1:14:16 GMT -5
Just stupid.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,923
|
Post by ericmvan on Sept 1, 2015 2:05:51 GMT -5
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 18s18 seconds ago Allen Craig also will join #RedSox tomorrow, team announces. I get that there's not much downside when they can just outright him again later, but what's the point? He's a bad defender with a .077 ISO in AAA who hasn't hit major league pitching in years. He's never going to hit again. I guess he can't do much harm sitting on the bench, but if he gets a single start... You platoon him with Shaw at 1B and see how he hits in that role, all the time using the aids that would be unavailable in Pawtucket: detailed video analysis of swings, looking at how the opposing pitcher handled him in the past, perhaps a novel suggestion to fix his swing. The reason to do this is that the only missing position on the 2016 roster is the good version of Craig-- a RHH 1B / OF. It would be silly to go and acquire someone to fill that role while paying Craig to do it just as well for another team. There is no downside in assuring yourself that the odds of that happening are actually 0% rather than, say, 5%. At the same time, you'll find out how Shaw hits when he's not playing every day, which is his likely role next year. We're not trying to win games (except against the Yankees, perhaps), we're trying to find out useful information for next year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Sept 1, 2015 6:39:37 GMT -5
I get that there's not much downside when they can just outright him again later, but what's the point? He's a bad defender with a .077 ISO in AAA who hasn't hit major league pitching in years. He's never going to hit again. I guess he can't do much harm sitting on the bench, but if he gets a single start... You platoon him with Shaw at 1B and see how he hits in that role, all the time using the aids that would be unavailable in Pawtucket: detailed video analysis of swings, looking at how the opposing pitcher handled him in the past, perhaps a novel suggestion to fix his swing. The reason to do this is that the only missing position on the 2016 roster is the good version of Craig-- a RHH 1B / OF. It would be silly to go and acquire someone to fill that role while paying Craig to do it just as well for another team. There is no downside in assuring yourself that the odds of that happening are actually 0% rather than, say, 5%. At the same time, you'll find out how Shaw hits when he's not playing every day, which is his likely role next year. We're not trying to win games (except against the Yankees, perhaps), we're trying to find out useful information for next year. And what about Hanley at 1B? Spoiler alert. Craig isn't going to do a damn thing. Yeah, that's my irrational disgust with the Red Sox wasting time on Craig speaking... The only guy ever to make close to $40 million for 5 career fWAR which is about to go even lower.
|
|
|