|
Post by jrffam05 on May 18, 2015 13:38:40 GMT -5
This was sort of a no-brainer right? Either Craig gets claimed and we are off the hook for his salary, Craig doesn't get claimed and refuses his assignment forfeiting his money, or he accepts his assignment (as he will do/has done) and we free up a 40 man roster spot, which we could always add him back to if needed. Please correct me if I got that wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2015 13:38:54 GMT -5
Wow, didn't think that was coming.
Outrighted for release? Or just off the 40? They have 2 40 spots available so it's not just being done for that spot.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on May 18, 2015 13:41:50 GMT -5
Didn't like the trade at the time, but I didn't think it would go this bad.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on May 18, 2015 13:48:02 GMT -5
Craig clears waivers and is outrighted, now off the 40-man. “@peteabe: #RedSox 40-man roster is at 37 now.”
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 18, 2015 13:59:20 GMT -5
Wow, didn't think that was coming. Outrighted for release? Or just off the 40? They have 2 40 spots available so it's not just being done for that spot. Just to get him off the 40. If you think both that he'll likely go unclaimed and that he will not likely be worth the rest of his contract, there's no downside to doing it, and where the other options get you off the hook for his money. This frees up another 40-man spot for a trade or a call-up. In theory, one of those 40-man spots is going to Johnson this season, so you may as well clear another if it's free, like this just was.
|
|
|
Post by michael on May 18, 2015 14:03:07 GMT -5
Craig clears waivers and is outrighted, now off the 40-man. “@peteabe: #RedSox 40-man roster is at 37 now.” Question. As Craig is now officially a PawSox does his salary count against the LT? I'm more interested in the amounts for the next 3 years. If not, other than the $ what's not to like about this development?
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on May 18, 2015 14:15:45 GMT -5
“@peteabe: #RedSox 40-man roster is at 37 now.” Question. As Craig is now officially a PawSox does his salary count against the LT? Nope - it is excluded.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 18, 2015 14:15:58 GMT -5
“@peteabe: #RedSox 40-man roster is at 37 now.” Question. As Craig is now officially a PawSox does his salary count against the LT? I'm more interested in the amounts for the next 3 years. If not, other than the $ what's not to like about this development? Wow, great call. Article XXIII(C)(2)(F) of the CBA:
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 18, 2015 14:35:07 GMT -5
The question remains, if the Red Sox realized Craig was this worthless, why didn't they option him earlier...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2015 14:36:47 GMT -5
The question remains, if the Red Sox realized Craig was this worthless, why didn't they option him earlier... They were waiting for him to lose some games. Meanwhile, Rusney Castillo only has 3 years left of development to work through.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on May 18, 2015 14:41:16 GMT -5
I think the Craig situation is very rare.
Most guys with his service time aren't making the big money. And few his age with solid play in the past fall off the cliff this fast.
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on May 18, 2015 14:41:44 GMT -5
Whoa, so now his salary doesn't even count against the tax? Now that would go down as a brilliant turn of events for a pitiful situation.
I mean it's still a major disappointment that it got to this point, but I still feel there's at least a half decent chance he does recover and can become a serviceable bat, but at this point, the chances of it being with the Sox are pretty slim
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2015 14:56:29 GMT -5
Whoa, so now his salary doesn't even count against the tax? Now that would go down as a brilliant turn of events for a pitiful situation. I mean it's still a major disappointment that it got to this point, but I still feel there's at least a half decent chance he does recover and can become a serviceable bat, but at this point, the chances of it being with the Sox are pretty slim I don't think brilliant is the right word. Maybe slightly less painful.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on May 18, 2015 15:07:35 GMT -5
Wow thank the lord. Enough is enough. Regarding the lineup I really thought Farrell would turn loose some of these guys if they get on base and be more aggressive. When I watch Mookie get on base I few times he faked like he was gonna steal but he isn't aggressive.
Also it's time for Castillo ,Craig is down there bring up this kid. Also Farrell needs to tinker with the lineup.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 15:08:45 GMT -5
So, going forward, Allen Craig gains the dubious distinction of being the minor leaguer with the highest twice monthly paycheck and the Red Sox keep him locked up in an Al Gore like lock box, since they have zero incentive to ever again add him to the 40 man roster. As purgatory goes, it's not bad I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 18, 2015 15:13:29 GMT -5
So, going forward, Allen Craig gains the dubious distinction of being the minor leaguer with the highest twice monthly paycheck and the Red Sox keep him locked up in an Al Gore like lock box, since they have zero incentive to ever again add him to the 40 man roster. As purgatory goes, it's not bad I suppose. Nope, that's still Castillo with the highest paycheck.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 18, 2015 15:36:41 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.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on May 18, 2015 15:39:22 GMT -5
Brilliant is too strong a word, but the fact that Craig's contract was basically non-guaranteed (at least for tax purposes) totally changes the risk/reward calculation of the Lackey trade.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on May 18, 2015 15:42:15 GMT -5
Brilliant is too strong a word, but the fact that Craig's contract was basically non-guaranteed (at least for tax purposes) totally changes the risk/reward calculation of the Lackey trade. It's reasonable to think that he was thrown-in by ST. Louis because of his surgery. I don't think that changes the risk/reward at all.
|
|
|
Post by DesignatedForAssignment on May 18, 2015 15:42:59 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. I think everyone understands that Craig becomes a minor league free agent at the end of the year, if not added back to the 40-man by then. Sox responsible for remaining years of salary.
If he doesn't get traded, I would not expect Sox to just let him walk.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on May 18, 2015 15:44:04 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. If the Sox wanted to call Craig up they can just re add him to the 40 man and nothing really changes. They could try to pass him through waivers again if need be. I'm pretty sure that is how this works, but could someone with better knowledge confirm?
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on May 18, 2015 15:46:05 GMT -5
Brilliant is too strong a word, but the fact that Craig's contract was basically non-guaranteed (at least for tax purposes) totally changes the risk/reward calculation of the Lackey trade. I don't think it changes risk reward. I think it's lucky .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 15:53:37 GMT -5
Allen Craig can now officially take his place between Bobby Jenks and Dice-K in the Red Sox Hall of Shameful Acquisitions.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 18, 2015 16:03:20 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.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 18, 2015 16:09:36 GMT -5
Brilliant is too strong a word, but the fact that Craig's contract was basically non-guaranteed (at least for tax purposes) totally changes the risk/reward calculation of the Lackey trade. 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).
|
|