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.
What Can Be Done to Fix the Sox?
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Nov 10, 2015 14:47:01 GMT -5
That would really open the door to trade an even subsidized Castillo. Then sign Parra or De Aza as your 4th OF.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Nov 10, 2015 15:54:15 GMT -5
I don't get the interest in Chris Young. I don't see him improving the OF.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 10, 2015 16:18:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 10, 2015 16:27:12 GMT -5
The comments section is out of control.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 10, 2015 17:32:31 GMT -5
Jen McCaffrey @jcmccaffrey 15s15 seconds ago Christian Vazquez's winter ball team folded, switched teams but he won't get as many ABs. DD unsure if he'll be ready for start of season...
Jen McCaffrey @jcmccaffrey 1m1 minute ago ...with lack of playing time and recovery.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 10, 2015 17:32:47 GMT -5
The comments section is out of control. Why are you reading the comments!??!?!?!
|
|
|
Post by greenmonsterwhalers on Nov 10, 2015 17:35:46 GMT -5
Question about Allen Craig and how contracts are counted for luxury tax purposes: if we trade Craig and agree to pay his salary in full, couldn't that be an asset to a team looking to stay under the luxury tax?
Craig's contract is for $31 million over 5 years, which averages out to 6.2 million per year, meaning that for luxury tax purposes, he is counted as a 6.2m per year player. If we pay his full 9m salary this year, doesn't that mean a team will actually be able to shave 2.8m off its "luxury tax" payroll? If I remember correctly, Theo made a trade like this once. Maybe they have changed the rules since. Does anyone have an answer as to whether this would work?
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 10, 2015 17:55:04 GMT -5
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 9 sec. Dombrowski characterized #RedSox' pursuit of outfield help as backburner thing. "I'd say we've had more conversations for pitching."
Brian MacPherson @brianmacp Dombrowski on No. 12 overall pick: "It's a valuable pick for us, ... but I'm not averse to giving it up if you're in the right scenario."
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Nov 10, 2015 17:57:38 GMT -5
Scott Lauber @scottlauber 2m2 minutes ago At moment, #RedSox can't guarantee playing time for free-agent outfielders. Dombrowski comfortable with JBJ, Castillo playing 140-plus games
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 10, 2015 18:06:33 GMT -5
Question about Allen Craig and how contracts are counted for luxury tax purposes: if we trade Craig and agree to pay his salary in full, couldn't that be an asset to a team looking to stay under the luxury tax? Craig's contract is for $31 million over 5 years, which averages out to 6.2 million per year, meaning that for luxury tax purposes, he is counted as a 6.2m per year player. If we pay his full 9m salary this year, doesn't that mean a team will actually be able to shave 2.8m off its "luxury tax" payroll? If I remember correctly, Theo made a trade like this once. Maybe they have changed the rules since. Does anyone have an answer as to whether this would work? Because Craig is not on the 40-man roster right now, his contract does not count toward the CBT. Even assuming that what you suggest is how it would work (I'm honestly unsure), I sincerely doubt a team would add him to its 40-man just to save $3M. The only reason that would make sense is if the team is close enough to the CBT, and insistent enough on not going over, that the $3M would help, right? And even more, I'm not sure why the Sox would add his money to their CBT calculation - there's no way the return would be worth it considering it'd only be worth 1/3 of that to the other franchise. Unless Craig suddenly remembers how to hit this season in Pawtucket, he's not going anywhere, I don't think.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 10, 2015 18:25:56 GMT -5
Question about Allen Craig and how contracts are counted for luxury tax purposes: if we trade Craig and agree to pay his salary in full, couldn't that be an asset to a team looking to stay under the luxury tax? Craig's contract is for $31 million over 5 years, which averages out to 6.2 million per year, meaning that for luxury tax purposes, he is counted as a 6.2m per year player. If we pay his full 9m salary this year, doesn't that mean a team will actually be able to shave 2.8m off its "luxury tax" payroll? If I remember correctly, Theo made a trade like this once. Maybe they have changed the rules since. Does anyone have an answer as to whether this would work? Because Craig is not on the 40-man roster right now, his contract does not count toward the CBT. Even assuming that what you suggest is how it would work (I'm honestly unsure), I sincerely doubt a team would add him to its 40-man just to save $3M. The only reason that would make sense is if the team is close enough to the CBT, and insistent enough on not going over, that the $3M would help, right? And even more, I'm not sure why the Sox would add his money to their CBT calculation - there's no way the return would be worth it considering it'd only be worth 1/3 of that to the other franchise. Unless Craig suddenly remembers how to hit this season in Pawtucket, he's not going anywhere, I don't think. Adding on to what Chris said, I vaguely recall reading that the loophole you described (the possibility of acquiring a player plus cash that adds up to a negative AAV) was eliminated in the latest CBA and is no longer possible. The issue came up after the Red Sox acquired Bill Hall + cash (which summed up to a negative number).
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,838
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 10, 2015 20:35:10 GMT -5
I don't get the interest in Chris Young. I don't see him improving the OF. Surprised there are not many more reactions to us considering Chris Young. Yes he hit lefties last year, but he has really regressed over the last several years, has a real poor OBP, K's a lot, and is now really only an average outfielder. Danr has a great question here. Why are we wasting our time with him, if he is wanting to play a lot? He is not an above average player! I see us needing a 4th outfielder. I don't see us giving Chris Young a full time job.
|
|
|
Post by heisenberg on Nov 10, 2015 20:41:07 GMT -5
Agreed, I like his approach more that the previous regime. On the Castillo debate. I think one of the issues we're wrestling with is his value on a corner, as opposed to in CF. After being a huge proponent of it, I've come around to seeing we're doing ourselves a disservice by forcing 3 CFs into the outfield. Mookies value remains strong in a RF move because of his offense, JBJ a little less, but the Fenway RF does add some increased value. Castillo in LF seems a misuse of his talent. Playing CF, or RF for another team will allow more of his game to shine. He's the guy who should be dealt. I know it only takes one team. Just seems these days most teams have real quality center fielders. I don't think we'd be able to "sell" another team on Castillo as their CF unless the salary is heavily subsidized. I think we value him more as a good LF with the capability to be better, especially with a full season under his belt. He has the tools, just needs polishing. I could see the Giants being interested in Castillo - But, there would have to be money changing hands. The Red Sox outfield acquisitions of 2014 have to be one of the most poorly thought out series of events in recent general managerial history. Hanley, Castillo and Craig collectively piled $188 million into the liability column, with very little to show for that investment.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Nov 10, 2015 20:56:48 GMT -5
Question about Allen Craig and how contracts are counted for luxury tax purposes: if we trade Craig and agree to pay his salary in full, couldn't that be an asset to a team looking to stay under the luxury tax? Craig's contract is for $31 million over 5 years, which averages out to 6.2 million per year, meaning that for luxury tax purposes, he is counted as a 6.2m per year player. If we pay his full 9m salary this year, doesn't that mean a team will actually be able to shave 2.8m off its "luxury tax" payroll? If I remember correctly, Theo made a trade like this once. Maybe they have changed the rules since. Does anyone have an answer as to whether this would work? As Chris mentioned - it's probably a non-starter. The amount paid by the Red Sox would count vs the luxury tax, which is a concern for them more than most teams. But I made a post a while back about luxury tax loopholes (trying to catch them all). Believe that most/all are still relevant (not as familiar with recent CBA changes): forum.soxprospects.com/thread/1392/luxury-tax-loopholes
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 10, 2015 21:39:48 GMT -5
I don't get the interest in Chris Young. I don't see him improving the OF. Surprised there are not many more reactions to us considering Chris Young. Yes he hit lefties last year, but he has really regressed over the last several years, has a real poor OBP, K's a lot, and is now really only an average outfielder. Danr has a great question here. Why are we wasting our time with him, if he is wanting to play a lot? He is not an above average player! I see us needing a 4th outfielder. I don't see us giving Chris Young a full time job. The only thing that would make sense to me would be that it would free DDo to deal JBJ if he thinks he has an impactful deal for pitching that depends on JBJ's availability in a deal. He could be thinking that Young is a low average hitter with some base on ball abilities and some pop, not that dissimilar to what JBJ gave the Sox last year. Betts would play CF and Young would be in either LF or RF, not the outfield JBJ is but decent for the corners and his presence would buy a couple of years until Margot is ready - in this scenario that would tell me that he'd rather have a stopgap in Young short-term and Margot long-term if he can convert JBJ into part of deal that brings back a top notch pitcher. Otherwise it makes very little sense to me. JBJ is on the upswing of his career and Young is on the downside. On its face it makes little sense unless Young is there as insurance or JBJ is prime trade bait.
|
|
|
Post by tonyc on Nov 10, 2015 21:53:41 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly sox champs.. something like JBJ, Owens and Guerra for a good starter.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 10, 2015 23:46:30 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly sox champs.. something like JBJ, Owens and Guerra for a good starter. The mariners do not currently have a major league center fielder on their 40 man roster. Not sure a trade with Seattle would be enough to fix our roster, but a minor deal is there if Seattle wants Bradley or Castillo.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Nov 11, 2015 0:30:17 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly sox champs.. something like JBJ, Owens and Guerra for a good starter. I figure the Sox are likely to lose either (most likely) Margot or JBJ and I figure Guerra is likely to be gone as well. Those will be two key parts in a deal for a top starter. Buchholz could be a chip as well. Devers is a possibility to be moved, although I hope they don't deal him. And yes, if not Buchholz, then certainly Owens could be a chip as well. When the word surplus is used, I think CF and SS, which are two positions teams are always looking to acquire.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 11, 2015 1:45:46 GMT -5
I don't really see the point of having Young and Castillo. I think Castillo will be traded though. To be clear, that's just my opinion/feeling. There's too much risk in starting JBJ, Castillo, and Hanley at 1B. Too many leaps of faith to take. Castillo's ceiling is lower than JBJ's, and we're looking at Chris Young, so I'm going out on a limb and predicting a Castillo trade. Castillo needs to be in CF next year IMO if a team wants to start him without worrying about his bat. Maybe it's me, but I just can't see any logical basis for factoring in total risk, as long as you have depth to cover worst-case scenarios at better than replacement level. (Which, thanks to Holt and Shaw, we will have, once we sign a solid 4th OFer.) Each of those guys has a mean projection. That they have large variance around their means means there's unusual downside risk, but by definition it also means there's equal and opposite upside. We reached a pretty clear consensus earlier that the smartest thing to do with Castillo, rather than selling very low on him, was to give him a half-season on a medium leash to see if the bat lives up to original scouting impressions. His LF defense in Fenway has been so good that it boosts his floor up to the point where it's very unlikely that he costs you a post-season berth in a half-season (before you decide to replace him). If you trade him now (to protect yourself against half of a 1-WAR season), you are also running the risk of giving away a very affordable 2.5 WAR player. That's why we reached that above consensus. Adding JBJ and Hanley to the mix doesn't change a thing. The same logic applies. If you dump Hanley to protect yourself against another season like last year's only with bad 1B defense instead of awful LF defense, you also eliminate the possibility that he fields 1B perfectly adequately while having a vintage Hanley season at the plate (or put another way, you replace that risk with the risk that you pay him to do that for someone else).
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Nov 11, 2015 8:39:03 GMT -5
I don't really see the point of having Young and Castillo. I think Castillo will be traded though. To be clear, that's just my opinion/feeling. There's too much risk in starting JBJ, Castillo, and Hanley at 1B. Too many leaps of faith to take. Castillo's ceiling is lower than JBJ's, and we're looking at Chris Young, so I'm going out on a limb and predicting a Castillo trade. Castillo needs to be in CF next year IMO if a team wants to start him without worrying about his bat. Maybe it's me, but I just can't see any logical basis for factoring in total risk, as long as you have depth to cover worst-case scenarios at better than replacement level. (Which, thanks to Holt and Shaw, we will have, once we sign a solid 4th OFer.) Each of those guys has a mean projection. That they have large variance around their means means there's unusual downside risk, but by definition it also means there's equal and opposite upside. We reached a pretty clear consensus earlier that the smartest thing to do with Castillo, rather than selling very low on him, was to give him a half-season on a medium leash to see if the bat lives up to original scouting impressions. His LF defense in Fenway has been so good that it boosts his floor up to the point where it's very unlikely that he costs you a post-season berth in a half-season (before you decide to replace him). If you trade him now (to protect yourself against half of a 1-WAR season), you are also running the risk of giving away a very affordable 2.5 WAR player. That's why we reached that above consensus. Adding JBJ and Hanley to the mix doesn't change a thing. The same logic applies. If you dump Hanley to protect yourself against another season like last year's only with bad 1B defense instead of awful LF defense, you also eliminate the possibility that he fields 1B perfectly adequately while having a vintage Hanley season at the plate (or put another way, you replace that risk with the risk that you pay him to do that for someone else). I guess what it comes down to is that I don't see Castillo as even an average hitter, and I'd prefer to not have to fall back on Holt, which I think we'll have to do at some point if Castillo starts. I don't think we can just extrapolate his dWAR in LF based on how small of a sample we got out there from Castillo either. I'm just low on the guy in general really. I still wouldn't trade him if the given team didn't value him as a 2-2.5 WAR player though, so I agree that I wouldn't sell low. I love having Shaw behind Hanley, and you're right that it mitigates a great deal of risk associated with Hanley.
|
|
|
Post by justinp123 on Nov 11, 2015 9:28:15 GMT -5
I honestly don't think Castillo has had enough playing time to accurately judge his talent/potential talent yet. In my opinion, i think he's a way better value than you are going get in FA. I don't think there's a need to panic just because he didn't explode in his first season. Panic moves are what's been getting the redsox in trouble in the first place. Trading Castillo and signing another outfielder isn't going to push the redsox to the next level.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Nov 11, 2015 9:37:34 GMT -5
If only we can dump Sandoval... The Reds are reportedly listening on Frazier. I get giddy thinking about his power bat in Fenway.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 11,501
|
Post by nomar on Nov 11, 2015 10:13:23 GMT -5
If only we can dump Sandoval... The Reds are reportedly listening on Frazier. I get giddy thinking about his power bat in Fenway. He was crazy bad in the second half of the year, I wonder why. Too bad Votto's contract is so long. He's so damn good. If the Reds would trade Votto and subsidize his contract a bit, I would give up a good package for him. Margot + Owens + Guerra would do a lot for their rebuild. I honestly don't think Castillo has had enough playing time to accurately judge his talent/potential talent yet. In my opinion, i think he's a way better value than you are going get in FA. I don't think there's a need to panic just because he didn't explode in his first season. Panic moves are what's been getting the redsox in trouble in the first place. Trading Castillo and signing another outfielder isn't going to push the redsox to the next level. That's fair. I just have no faith in him correcting his GB% problem. No need to panic though, and in a scenario where we trade him I'd want us to sign Heyward/Cespedes not just replace him with a platoon.
|
|
|
Post by xanderdu on Nov 11, 2015 10:30:21 GMT -5
With so many closers on the market, is that a market inefficiency DD could/should exploit? If he were to obtain two closer level arms (in order of preference; Giles, Allen, Storen, Chapman, Kimbrel, Melancon) then add another through FA, he'd be able to add the starter and in the end have minimal impact to the farm system.
Use Kelly, and lesser prospects, as bait for 1; and one top prospect, with fliers for bait on the other. Assuming they could pull this off with my top 2 targets, they'd have, Allen, Giles, Koji, Taz, O'Day and Ross as 1 through 6, with Wright to cover long relief. These moves would only add about $5M in cost as O'Day (or Soria) is the only one making money, and his cost is offset by Kelly's arb cost departing. They'd still have $30M+ to go after Price /Greinke, or use $5M to $7M less AAV on the Cueto choice.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,016
|
Post by ericmvan on Nov 11, 2015 12:20:21 GMT -5
With so many closers on the market, is that a market inefficiency DD could/should exploit? If he were to obtain two closer level arms (in order of preference; Giles, Allen, Storen, Chapman, Kimbrel, Melancon) then add another through FA, he'd be able to add the starter and in the end have minimal impact to the farm system. Use Kelly, and lesser prospects, as bait for 1; and one top prospect, with fliers for bait on the other. Assuming they could pull this off with my top 2 targets, they'd have, Allen, Giles, Koji, Taz, O'Day and Ross as 1 through 6, with Wright to cover long relief. These moves would only add about $5M in cost as O'Day (or Soria) is the only one making money, and his cost is offset by Kelly's arb cost departing. They'd still have $30M+ to go after Price /Greinke, or use $5M to $7M less AAV on the Cueto choice. If you can trade for two of your targets, you have four guys who can pitch at the end of the game, and I see no need to jettison a deathly-good LOOGY in Tommy Layne in order to spend $ on O'Day or (especially) Soria. With four quality guys at the top of the pen, Wright or Kelly as a long man good enough to pitch high-leverage if needed, and Ross or Barnes as a mop-up guy who can go multiple innings, you can use Layne as a strict LOOGY, facing at most 1 RHB for outing (if you being him in to face LRL where the RHB can be walked, i.e., bases are empty or 1B is open). That ability to hold the best LHH in the game to a sub-.400 OPS, when leveraged correctly, is not to be sneezed at.
|
|
|