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.
Mike Napoli traded to Texas Rangers
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Aug 7, 2015 20:55:56 GMT -5
“@jonheymancbs: rangers will pay $1.5M of napoli’s salary, reds sox pay the rest” Christmas come early.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 7, 2015 20:56:19 GMT -5
Ok, so it's to save the team from Farrell. They could also tell Farrell who to play or fire him. Fair or not, other players (especially other veteran players) care about this stuff. It's tough to just bench veteran players like that (likely costing them on their next contract) and not breed resentment, especially in a season where they have nothing to play for. And yet he's going to be the short end of a platoon in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Aug 7, 2015 21:01:33 GMT -5
Ok, so it's to save the team from Farrell. They could also tell Farrell who to play or fire him. No. jmei explained it. It's not the manager. A MLB player of Nap's status has to play some. You can't bury him or risk turning off the team and future players. Reports are Texas will pay 1.5 mi. I wish amfox was around. I think the sox can still get under the cap. Almost all of the big contracts the sox have will get through waivers. Deals can be done.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Aug 7, 2015 21:05:20 GMT -5
Fair or not, other players (especially other veteran players) care about this stuff. It's tough to just bench veteran players like that (likely costing them on their next contract) and not breed resentment, especially in a season where they have nothing to play for. And yet he's going to be the short end of a platoon in Texas. Yes, part-time play for a pseudo-contender is better than no playing time for a last-place team.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 7, 2015 22:11:25 GMT -5
Reports are Texas will pay 1.5 mi. I wish amfox was around. I think the sox can still get under the cap. Almost all of the big contracts the sox have will get through waivers. Deals can be done. Numbers are rounded, but I currently estimate that the Red Sox are over the luxury tax threshold by approx. $3.50mm. All amounts are AAV. *** Pitchers (55.50) - RP 12.50, JM 9.50, KU 9.00, CB 7.50, WM 6.42, EM 4.75, JT 2.25, CB 2.10, AO 1.50, everyone else min Position players (122.75) - HR 22.00, PS 19.00, MN 16.00, DO 16.00, DP 13.30, SV 13.00, RC 10.36, AC 6.66, RH 3.59, DN 1.85, ADA 1.00, everyone else min Min player cost (3.60 est.) LAD payment (3.90) Benefits/40-man roster (17.00 est.) Savings (DN (0.60)/SV (1.10)/MN (1.50)/AC (5.05)/EM (1.00 est.)) (-10.25 est) *** It may be possible to restructure the LAD payment into future years in order to get closer to the threshold, assuming the commissioner's office approves. Also, the benefits/40-man roster/min player cost numbers are estimates, as is the savings from the Mujica trade. Therefore, my estimates may be high or low. However, assuming my numbers are correct, I don't see much way for the Red Sox to get below the threshold without trading another significant contract (Koji, if healthy?). EDIT: fixed AC savings number
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 7, 2015 22:25:01 GMT -5
Save a million in cash, open up playing time for Shaw. A lot of people seem to want to give him a serious look, which had me puzzled for a while. Admittedly I've had my mind on other things, but I was unaware that we had two different guys with the same name. Taking a long look at the other Travis Shaw, the one who put up a 96 wRC+ in AAA (which made him below average offensively as a 3B in AAA, let alone at 1B) wouldn't make much sense. Seriously, I really like him as an up-and-down guy until he runs out of options, and maybe he blooms late like Moss, but he's really not a viable option for the MLB roster next year.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Aug 7, 2015 22:35:43 GMT -5
Save a million in cash, open up playing time for Shaw. A lot of people seem to want to give him a serious look, which had me puzzled for a while. Admittedly I've had my mind on other things, but I was unaware that we had two different guys with the same name. Taking a long look at the other Travis Shaw, the one who put up a 96 wRC+ in AAA (which made him below average offensively as a 3B in AAA, let alone at 1B) wouldn't make much sense. Seriously, I really like him as an up-and-down guy until he runs out of options, and maybe he blooms late like Moss, but he's really not a viable option for the MLB roster next year. Before the season Steamer actually projected him to be able to hit 99 wRC+ in the bigs. Obviously, half a season of disappointment in Pawtucket has moved that estimate downward - but it's perhaps not completely surprising, because he was concentrating on other aspects of his game, and that has certainly born fruit. Obviously his 50% projection at this point must be as an up-and-down player, but I would claim there is a top-quartile outcome where Shaw is actually a serviceable MLB 3rd baseman and, you know, why not take the opportunity to find out about that rather than reiterating things we already know (Craig is toast, Napoli is too old, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Aug 7, 2015 22:42:34 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 26m26 minutes ago A week ago, Napoli announced to Red Sox were going to go 40-18 and make playoffs. Wrote goal on inside of locker, putting mark for each win
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,830
|
Post by nomar on Aug 7, 2015 22:49:17 GMT -5
Rob Bradford @bradfo 26m26 minutes ago A week ago, Napoli announced to Red Sox were going to go 40-18 and make playoffs. Wrote goal on inside of locker, putting mark for each win I'll always have a soft spot for Nap. Great guy
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Aug 8, 2015 0:16:40 GMT -5
He'll be a big upgrade to Adam Rosales as Moreland's platoon partner. Great move for all involved, provided they now try Hanley at 1B, allowing Castillo and JBJ extra PT. Otherwise, pointless. I'm usually on the ericmvan fanclub bandwagon but I don't see the desire to involve Hanley Ramirez, defensive butcher extraordinaire, in like 1000 defensive plays.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Aug 8, 2015 0:19:48 GMT -5
Good luck to Mike Napoli. Like Shane Victorino, when they have a 10 year anniversary or something like that and they bring back the 2013 Red Sox, he will be remembered fondly. Of course he and Victorino will get the Orlando Cabrera treatment if they play against the Sox at Fenway in the future.
If the Sox really intend to play Hanley at 1b, as Sean McAdam, thinks they're going to, then I think they're foolish for not converting him now, during garbage time with nobody to really block him.
While Travis Shaw has gotten off to a strong start I really don't take that any more seriously than Rudy Pemberton in 1996.
Shaw might make a decent backup at the major league level or might play regularly for a bad ballclub (which the Sox currently are), but ultimately I don't think he's going to be good enough to be a serious contender for the 1b job next year. His numbers in AAA aren't that good. Given more ABs, I think he'll be exposed.
If they're not giving Hanley 1b, then I'm fine with Shaw getting ABs. Perhaps it could help increase his trade value.
I'm totally puzzled and disappointed if the Sox put Allen Craig back on the roster and waste money and time with him. He has been very unimpressive at AAA and I hope the Sox don't seriously view him as a 1b candidate in 2017.
Either they move Hanley to 1b next year and acquire an OF, because they can't rely on Bradley hitting well enough to hold down a regular job, or Hanley stinks up LF again next year and the Sox get a 1b that can hit. I suspect Park would be that guy. Despite his K rate, he might be a guy who can hold down a 1b job. He has power. Perhaps he's a mediocre to low BA guy who clubs 25 - 30 homers. I'd prefer that to seeing Craig get 1b.
The other option is a rental to hold 1b or maybe even Shaw until they feel Sam Travis is ready, and of all the lower level prospects from the beginning of the year, it looks like Sam Travis will be the first one to get to the majors. He might be ready by midseason next year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 8, 2015 2:00:41 GMT -5
He'll be a big upgrade to Adam Rosales as Moreland's platoon partner. Great move for all involved, provided they now try Hanley at 1B, allowing Castillo and JBJ extra PT. Otherwise, pointless. I'm usually on the ericmvan fanclub bandwagon but I don't see the desire to involve Hanley Ramirez, defensive butcher extraordinaire, in like 1000 defensive plays. Because he's not a defensive butcher at all, just below average. Over his 3 previous seasons he averaged -7 runs per 150 games (using DRS; UZR has him at -2), when you include the degree of difficulty of his position. Last year the average 1B was -10 or worse. The previous 3 years he averaged -8 R/150 at SS, DRS. SS requires hugely more range and much more throwing than 1B. If he can pick throws in the dirt, or learn to, he will almost certainly be of more value than as a LF. And in fact, the chief rationale for moving him off of SS was not ineptitude, but that he kept getting hurt there (both costing him PT and hurting is performance when he was out there). 1B should be way safer than LF -- far less running, no walls in fair territory. There's also the line of thought that he's less involved in the game in LF and more prone to lapses of concentration thereby.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mobaz on Aug 8, 2015 7:37:43 GMT -5
I subscribe to the school of thought that there is no reason not to try HanRam at 1b in the tail end of a lost season, thus helping the team refine its shopping list for the winter.
On the other side, it's not entirely unreasonable for the team to say it's unfair to a high profile and sensitive player to move mid season with no prep or notice and after building his body for the OF. He's already probably embarrassed at how LF transition has been and the attention it has received. This means they need to have a backup option (Holt? Shaw?) in case off-season prep shows it untenable. Not ideal but I think there's justification given personality.
If the team just plans to trot Hanley out to LF next year and have no contingency then they are incompetent and should all be fired.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Aug 8, 2015 7:41:34 GMT -5
I would rather that Hanley's first mlb game at 1b come after a winter and spring of knowing he's going to be the 1b so that he can both learn the position and tailor his winter lifting so that he is not s big as a house
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 8, 2015 8:05:45 GMT -5
Reports are Texas will pay 1.5 mi. I wish amfox was around. I think the sox can still get under the cap. Almost all of the big contracts the sox have will get through waivers. Deals can be done. Numbers are rounded, but I currently estimate that the Red Sox are over the luxury tax threshold by approx. $3.50mm. All amounts are AAV. *** Pitchers (55.50) - RP 12.50, JM 9.50, KU 9.00, CB 7.50, WM 6.42, EM 4.75, JT 2.25, CB 2.10, AO 1.50, everyone else min Position players (122.75) - HR 22.00, PS 19.00, MN 16.00, DO 16.00, DP 13.30, SV 13.00, RC 10.36, AC 6.66, RH 3.59, DN 1.85, ADA 1.00, everyone else min Min player cost (3.60 est.) LAD payment (3.90) Benefits/40-man roster (17.00 est.) Savings (DN (0.60)/SV (1.10)/MN (1.50)/AC (5.05)/EM (1.00 est.)) (-10.25 est) *** It may be possible to restructure the LAD payment into future years in order to get closer to the threshold, assuming the commissioner's office approves. Also, the benefits/40-man roster/min player cost numbers are estimates, as is the savings from the Mujica trade. Therefore, my estimates may be high or low. However, assuming my numbers are correct, I don't see much way for the Red Sox to get below the threshold without trading another significant contract (Koji, if healthy?). EDIT: fixed AC savings number Trying to tie down the benefits/40-man roster/min player cost numbers: Benefits (12.50 est.) Minors (1.20 est.) Min player cost (7.50 est - 2.75 full year players (Betts/Bogaerts/Holt/Varvaro/Workman), 4.75 partial year players (1000 days to 8/7, est 580 days from 8/8 to end)) I get 21.20 vs. 20.60 est above, so I now have the Red Sox over the luxury tax threshold by approx. $4.10mm
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 8, 2015 10:31:58 GMT -5
Trying to tie down the benefits/40-man roster/min player cost numbers: Benefits (12.50 est.) Minors (1.20 est.) Min player cost (7.50 est - 2.75 full year players (Betts/Bogaerts/Holt/Varvaro/Workman), 4.75 partial year players (1000 days to 8/7, est 580 days from 8/8 to end)) I get 21.20 vs. 20.60 est above, so I now have the Red Sox over the luxury tax threshold by approx. $4.10mm Thanks for the breakdown. How are you accounting for AC? Are you assuming he remains on the 40 man for the rest of the year after the call up?
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Aug 8, 2015 11:09:09 GMT -5
I am assuming he remains OFF the 40-man for the rest of the season. If he is added back on, his AAV will begin prorating based on days on roster divided by 182 days. Adding him back on the roster is a sure sign that ownership has conceded going over the luxury tax threshold this year.
Note that I currently estimate that the Red Sox are at $154.4mm in AAV for 2016, leaving them $34.6mm under the luxury tax threshold. I doubt, however, that the Red Sox will seriously look to stay under the threshold in 2016, given the recent performance of the club. Details are in the first post of the 2016 roster construction thread.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Aug 8, 2015 11:36:05 GMT -5
Giving Craig another shot this year, to me, is almost certainly to try and get someone to take him after the season when he is designated again, It had no chance to work during the season when budgets are mostly set, but might in Nov/ Dec if he shows a little something in September.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Aug 8, 2015 11:42:11 GMT -5
I really don't understand why benefits are included in the luxury tax. Aren't they the same for every team? It's always a mystery.
|
|
sdl
Rookie
Who the hell is Stan Papi?
Posts: 135
|
Post by sdl on Aug 8, 2015 13:17:46 GMT -5
OK...so if there is no PTBNL, we have traded Napoli AND cash considerations FOR cash considerations? And the second question...who gets added to the 25-man roster? 1. That's right. I guess we'll send $2 million or so and get $25,000 back. 2. Mookie Betts? Looks like Marrero has been called up to take Nap's place on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Aug 8, 2015 13:35:35 GMT -5
The thought of Panda throwing across the diamond to Hanley will, no doubt, give me some sleepless nights this winter.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 8, 2015 14:02:03 GMT -5
Thanks Nap.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Aug 8, 2015 14:02:37 GMT -5
The thought of Panda throwing across the diamond to Hanley will, no doubt, give me some sleepless nights this winter. I'd actually sleep better if it was Hanley at 3rd and Panda at first.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Aug 8, 2015 17:53:22 GMT -5
I subscribe to the school of thought that there is no reason not to try HanRam at 1b in the tail end of a lost season, thus helping the team refine its shopping list for the winter. On the other side, it's not entirely unreasonable for the team to say it's unfair to a high profile and sensitive player to move mid season with no prep or notice and after building his body for the OF. He's already probably embarrassed at how LF transition has been and the attention it has received. This means they need to have a backup option (Holt? Shaw?) in case off-season prep shows it untenable. Not ideal but I think there's justification given personality. If the team just plans to trot Hanley out to LF next year and have no contingency then they are incompetent and should all be fired. I'm sure your second paragraph is the thinking -- I had worked out the same rationale but without the added body-building element, which is a good insight. I can see it as reasonable. If they give Hanley lots of days off in order to give Mookie, JBJ and Rusney as much collective PT as possible, I'm OK with belaying the 1B conversion until the winter. But every day that one of JBJ or Rusney is out of the lineup versus a RHP, but Shaw is playing, is just going to an annoyance. (However, they have to take a look at him there in infield practice to see if he projects to be OK at catching throws in the dirt. He should be, given that SS get a lot of balls on one hop that have trickier spin than an infielder's throw, but a couple of weeks of work there for 15 minutes a day would go a long way to making a transition plan trustworthy.) Meanwhile, I had advocated bringing Craig back, because he has hit LHP real well in Pawtucket (.364 / .407 / .481), and he perfectly fits a roster need next year -- RHB who can play 1B, LF, and a little 3B, and hence can platoon with Ortiz. Those numbers are probably a fluke, but, hey, take a look at him in exactly the role he would play (i.e., platoon him with Shaw), and see how he looks and how he does.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Aug 8, 2015 22:51:38 GMT -5
I'm sure your second paragraph is the thinking -- I had worked out the same rationale but without the added body-building element, which is a good insight. I can see it as reasonable. If they give Hanley lots of days off in order to give Mookie, JBJ and Rusney as much collective PT as possible, I'm OK with belaying the 1B conversion until the winter. But every day that one of JBJ or Rusney is out of the lineup versus a RHP, but Shaw is playing, is just going to an annoyance. (However, they have to take a look at him there in infield practice to see if he projects to be OK at catching throws in the dirt. He should be, given that SS get a lot of balls on one hop that have trickier spin than an infielder's throw, but a couple of weeks of work there for 15 minutes a day would go a long way to making a transition plan trustworthy.) Meanwhile, I had advocated bringing Craig back, because he has hit LHP real well in Pawtucket (.364 / .407 / .481), and he perfectly fits a roster need next year -- RHB who can play 1B, LF, and a little 3B, and hence can platoon with Ortiz. Those numbers are probably a fluke, but, hey, take a look at him in exactly the role he would play (i.e., platoon him with Shaw), and see how he looks and how he does. I agree that a RHH off the bench is one of the most glaring holes and it's 'possible' Craig could fill that hole perfectly. The question is 'is it worth giving Craig a look at the major in that role now and pay the extra luxury tax charges associated with having him on the 40-man roster?'. Right now it looks like the Red Sox will be unable to get under the luxury tax this year. If they can't, then the point at which the decide the throw in the towel on getting under the cap should be when we find out the answer to this question. But if they can get under, then we probably won't have any incite into this until next year. That's my guess as to why they are still waiting to call him up.
|
|
|