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.
Rusney or no Rusney? CBT is the issue
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 25, 2017 11:46:04 GMT -5
Castillo is the previous regimes mistake. If they could move him for a bucket of used baseballs they would. Brentz seems to offer more for much less. I think Santana can help solve our 1st base problem. I just don't get the Brentz love. Have you looked at Castillo and the season he just had? He played less games, but I bet his per game war numbers would be higher than Brentz. He is very good defensively, Brentz is not at his level and there OPS numbers were almost the same. |
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Oct 25, 2017 11:51:26 GMT -5
Castillo is the previous regimes mistake. If they could move him for a bucket of used baseballs they would. Brentz seems to offer more for much less. I think Santana can help solve our 1st base problem. I just don't get the Brentz love. Have you looked at Castillo and the season he just had? He played less games, but I bet his per game war numbers would be higher than Brentz. He is very good defensively, Brentz is not at his level and there OPS numbers were almost the same. Not saying I think they are equal talents but I think it has a lot to do with the $10+ million ramifications it would have on the luxury tax to have Castillo instead of Brentz. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 25, 2017 12:16:08 GMT -5
I just don't get the Brentz love. Have you looked at Castillo and the season he just had? He played less games, but I bet his per game war numbers would be higher than Brentz. He is very good defensively, Brentz is not at his level and there OPS numbers were almost the same. Not saying I think they are equal talents but I think it has a lot to do with the $10+ million ramifications it would have on the luxury tax to have Castillo instead of Brentz. We reset the tax and his salary is a sunken cost. Unless DD is going to start trading guys, it looks like we will go past the 237 million mark. So Castillo adds extra tax, but he seems like a perfect fit as a 4th OF. After last year we need to build the best team, with great depth. If we are going to worry about money so much we shouldn't have made the Sale trade. That was us going all in to win now. So let's spend the money needed. This is why you reset the tax, to spend a bunch of money. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 25, 2017 12:20:20 GMT -5
Not saying I think they are equal talents but I think it has a lot to do with the $10+ million ramifications it would have on the luxury tax to have Castillo instead of Brentz. We reset the tax and his salary is a sunken cost. Unless DD is going to start trading guys, it looks like we will go past the 237 million mark. So Castillo adds extra tax, but he seems like a perfect fit as a 4th OF. After last year we need to build the best team, with great depth. If we are going to worry about money so much we shouldn't have made the Sale trade. That was us going all in to win now. So let's spend the money needed. This is why you reset the tax, to spend a bunch of money. Are you really comparing taking on the salary for one of the three best pitchers in baseball to spending $10 million to upgrade from Bryce Brentz to Rusney Castillo? I am pro-Castillo myself, but spending money on one massive upgrade for an elite player doesn't mean they should break the bank for every single marginal upgrade. And, bringing it back so it is applicable to the thread, if the difference between the price of Castillo and Brentz (or whatever fourth outfielder they decide on) precludes a more significant upgrade at first base, then it is a problem. The resources are finite and therefore need to be allocated correctly. It's very, very easy to say "The Red Sox should just spend all of John Henry's money!" when it isn't your money to spend. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 25, 2017 12:38:06 GMT -5
Also Sale's contract is perhaps the most team-friendly in the game for a player who isn't pre-arb or arb. He's being paid less than half of what he's worth. Saying that they should add Castillo at $10M because they traded for Sale at $13M is like saying because you got a new sportscar for the price of a new sedan, they should also buy a used Ford Pinto for the same amount. Acquiring Sale is smart because it SAVES money relative to his value.
The $237M mark is not nearly as close as you're saying it is, umassgrad. They're at roughly $208M after the arb guys - even adding JD Martinez, a SP at the level they'd be likely to add a guy (in other words, not Alex Cobb), and a RP, they're not at $237M.
Rusney Castillo is not such a great 4th outfielder that it's worth pushing your first rounder back 10 spots so that you can have him instead of random 4th OF number 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 25, 2017 12:44:16 GMT -5
We reset the tax and his salary is a sunken cost. Unless DD is going to start trading guys, it looks like we will go past the 237 million mark. So Castillo adds extra tax, but he seems like a perfect fit as a 4th OF. After last year we need to build the best team, with great depth. If we are going to worry about money so much we shouldn't have made the Sale trade. That was us going all in to win now. So let's spend the money needed. This is why you reset the tax, to spend a bunch of money. Are you really comparing taking on the salary for one of the three best pitchers in baseball to spending $10 million to upgrade from Bryce Brentz to Rusney Castillo? I am pro-Castillo myself, but spending money on one massive upgrade for an elite player doesn't mean they should break the bank for every single marginal upgrade. And, bringing it back so it is applicable to the thread, if the difference between the price of Castillo and Brentz (or whatever fourth outfielder they decide on) precludes a more significant upgrade at first base, then it is a problem. The resources are finite and therefore need to be allocated correctly. It's very, very easy to say "The Red Sox should just spend all of John Henry's money!" when it isn't your money to spend. How are you spending 10 million? You have to pay him anyway, the difference is the tax amount. I said it last year after getting Sale, that they should spend big for the next 3 years. If you were worried about payroll you should have just kept the young guys. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 25, 2017 12:49:38 GMT -5
Castillo is the previous regimes mistake. If they could move him for a bucket of used baseballs they would. Brentz seems to offer more for much less. I think Santana can help solve our 1st base problem. I just don't get the Brentz love. Have you looked at Castillo and the season he just had? He played less games, but I bet his per game war numbers would be higher than Brentz. He is very good defensively, Brentz is not at his level and there OPS numbers were almost the same. Have you read the scouting report that discusses the changes Brentz made at the plate? His numbers since May 19th give him an OPS of 1027. He has made an adjustment that has worked for him and he doesn't cost a thing. news.soxprospects.com/2017/08/scouting-scratch-potential-sept-call.html That is why there is Brentz love. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 25, 2017 12:52:14 GMT -5
Also Sale's contract is perhaps the most team-friendly in the game for a player who isn't pre-arb or arb. He's being paid less than half of what he's worth. Saying that they should add Castillo at $10M because they traded for Sale at $13M is like saying because you got a new sportscar for the price of a new sedan, they should also buy a used Ford Pinto for the same amount. Acquiring Sale is smart because it SAVES money relative to his value. The $237M mark is not nearly as close as you're saying it is, umassgrad. They're at roughly $208M after the arb guys - even adding JD Martinez, a SP at the level they'd be likely to add a guy (in other words, not Alex Cobb), and a RP, they're not at $237M. Rusney Castillo is not such a great 4th outfielder that it's worth pushing your first rounder back 10 spots so that you can have him instead of random 4th OF number 2. You already own the Pinto though Chris, you don't have to buy it. More like pay to use it. Adding Martinez, Nunez and a starter should push you over 237 million. Never mind in season moves, which we spent 10 million on last year. If you set 237 as your mark. You are going to limit yourself again. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 25, 2017 13:21:05 GMT -5
Are you really comparing taking on the salary for one of the three best pitchers in baseball to spending $10 million to upgrade from Bryce Brentz to Rusney Castillo? I am pro-Castillo myself, but spending money on one massive upgrade for an elite player doesn't mean they should break the bank for every single marginal upgrade. And, bringing it back so it is applicable to the thread, if the difference between the price of Castillo and Brentz (or whatever fourth outfielder they decide on) precludes a more significant upgrade at first base, then it is a problem. The resources are finite and therefore need to be allocated correctly. It's very, very easy to say "The Red Sox should just spend all of John Henry's money!" when it isn't your money to spend. How are you spending 10 million? You have to pay him anyway, the difference is the tax amount. I said it last year after getting Sale, that they should spend big for the next 3 years. If you were worried about payroll you should have just kept the young guys. Yes, which is important, since if they pass thresholds there are penalties. There's a 20% tax on going over $197 million, an additional 12% for going over $217 million, and their draft status drops if they surpass $237 million (which is, my guess, the realistic cap if there are no other budgetary concerns I don't know about). |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 25, 2017 14:41:58 GMT -5
How are you spending 10 million? You have to pay him anyway, the difference is the tax amount. I said it last year after getting Sale, that they should spend big for the next 3 years. If you were worried about payroll you should have just kept the young guys. Yes, which is important, since if they pass thresholds there are penalties. There's a 20% tax on going over $197 million, an additional 12% for going over $217 million, and their draft status drops if they surpass $237 million (which is, my guess, the realistic cap if there are no other budgetary concerns I don't know about). My Google search on the new CBA didn't mention the draft pick penalty for $237. That's a good reason to stay under it. It makes my plan iffy; if you sign Martinez and trade for Bour and eat Tazawa's contract, keeping Castillo might well leave you too close to $237 to make necessary moves at the deadline. But I've always regarded keeping Rusney in the system as a luxury. And there's a decent chance that Barfield can be the guy you can call up for 10 days and have him not embarrass you as the last man on the bench. No one will take him in the Rule 5 because you can't keep a platoon corner OF on an MLB roster unless he's really good, as I think Brentz will be. But he may well be a solid up-and-down AAAA guy. Get another guy like that coming put of AA for Castillo (or Hembree), and you should have sufficient depth. |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 25, 2017 15:14:02 GMT -5
How are you spending 10 million? You have to pay him anyway, the difference is the tax amount. I said it last year after getting Sale, that they should spend big for the next 3 years. If you were worried about payroll you should have just kept the young guys. Yes, which is important, since if they pass thresholds there are penalties. There's a 20% tax on going over $197 million, an additional 12% for going over $217 million, and their draft status drops if they surpass $237 million (which is, my guess, the realistic cap if there are no other budgetary concerns I don't know about). I get the process, that's why we should spend now. It's the best time to go above the 237 million mark. We reset the tax so for us it's 62.5% over 237 million, for the Dodgers it's 95% next year. In 2019 it would be 75% and in 2020 it would be the 95% for us. There won't be a better time to go for it. We have the talent and the lowest tax possible. Unless you just think 237 million is a hard cap for a big market team like the Red Sox. I don't. The moving down 10 spots isn't a death sentence either. Not something you do all the time, but the time sure does seem right to go for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 25, 2017 19:01:36 GMT -5
umassgrad, moving down 10 spots isn't a death sentence. Agreed. But doing so in order to upgrade your fourth outfielder to Rusney Castillo is almost certainly not worth it. That's my point. And I was responding to the nonsense point about Sale in particular that you've now dropped.
If an outfielder tears an ACL in Spring Training and Castillo is going to start, and he's the best option available? Sure. Giddyup. If he's going to get the 276 plate appearances Chris Young got? Screw that.
Also how the hell is this in the 1B thread? I'm splitting this out.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,988 
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 25, 2017 19:45:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Oct 25, 2017 20:19:15 GMT -5
umassgrad, moving down 10 spots isn't a death sentence. Agreed. But doing so in order to upgrade your fourth outfielder to Rusney Castillo is almost certainly not worth it. That's my point. And I was responding to the nonsense point about Sale in particular that you've now dropped. If an outfielder tears an ACL in Spring Training and Castillo is going to start, and he's the best option available? Sure. Giddyup. If he's going to get the 276 plate appearances Chris Young got? Screw that. Also how the hell is this in the 1B thread? I'm splitting this out. Exactly. If they're already going over 237, then there's little reason NOT to have Castillo at least on the 40 mean. But unless something drastically changes between now and opening day, he's not going to be the contract that puts them over the initial tax limit or the 237 mark |
|
|
|
Post by soxfando on Oct 25, 2017 20:38:28 GMT -5
umassgrad, moving down 10 spots isn't a death sentence. Agreed. But doing so in order to upgrade your fourth outfielder to Rusney Castillo is almost certainly not worth it. That's my point. And I was responding to the nonsense point about Sale in particular that you've now dropped.If an outfielder tears an ACL in Spring Training and Castillo is going to start, and he's the best option available? Sure. Giddyup. If he's going to get the 276 plate appearances Chris Young got? Screw that. Also how the hell is this in the 1B thread? I'm splitting this out. I think the point being made about Sale was that the Sox traded massive amounts of future talent for this "win a WS in a 3 yr window mode", so the team should be willing to spend the money to make sure that happens. Not so much about Sale's team friendly contract or taking that on towards the cap. Though could be misinterpreting. |
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 25, 2017 21:41:37 GMT -5
I can't see him on the 25 man unless there's a JBJ trade. Even then we would probably leave some wiggle room up against the $237. I'd guess we try to keep things around $225-230 and give ourselves more flexibility around the deadline. I just don't see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 25, 2017 21:45:47 GMT -5
Allright, crazy talk time. Castillo was an infielder his first couple seasons down in Cuba. I very much down he can play second anymore, but could he split time as part of a first base platoon while also serving as the backup outfielder? If they can get him 400 to 450 plate appearances and also maximize his versatility, that $10 million feels like a more reasonable cost.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 25, 2017 22:20:30 GMT -5
I can't see him on the 25 man unless there's a JBJ trade. Even then we would probably leave some wiggle room up against the $237. I'd guess we try to keep things around $225-230 and give ourselves more flexibility around the deadline. I just don't see it. A lot of people either think or imply that we will trade Bradley. Do we really feel like teams are that desperate that they are going to give up value for him? |
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 25, 2017 22:25:57 GMT -5
umassgrad, moving down 10 spots isn't a death sentence. Agreed. But doing so in order to upgrade your fourth outfielder to Rusney Castillo is almost certainly not worth it. That's my point. And I was responding to the nonsense point about Sale in particular that you've now dropped.If an outfielder tears an ACL in Spring Training and Castillo is going to start, and he's the best option available? Sure. Giddyup. If he's going to get the 276 plate appearances Chris Young got? Screw that. Also how the hell is this in the 1B thread? I'm splitting this out. I think the point being made about Sale was that the Sox traded massive amounts of future talent for this "win a WS in a 3 yr window mode", so the team should be willing to spend the money to make sure that happens. Not so much about Sale's team friendly contract or taking that on towards the cap. Though could be misinterpreting. That's exactly my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Coreno on Oct 25, 2017 22:26:24 GMT -5
Allright, crazy talk time. Castillo was an infielder his first couple seasons down in Cuba. I very much down he can play second anymore, but could he split time as part of a first base platoon while also serving as the backup outfielder? If they can get him 400 to 450 plate appearances and also maximize his versatility, that $10 million feels like a more reasonable cost. Isn’t Rusney about as tall as Pedroia? |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 25, 2017 22:29:40 GMT -5
They're listed the same, but Castillo is easily two inches taller. Not ideal by a long shot, but neither is the Red Sox current first base situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 25, 2017 22:35:04 GMT -5
Let's make one thing clear,I wouldn't have Castillo contract be the one that brings you over the 237 limit. It's if your over it make sense to add him if you want to. I think Martinez, Nunez and in season moves take you over the 237 million. Nevermind finding another starter. Unless DD moves some money, but those bring up other issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Oct 25, 2017 22:45:17 GMT -5
I can't see him on the 25 man unless there's a JBJ trade. Even then we would probably leave some wiggle room up against the $237. I'd guess we try to keep things around $225-230 and give ourselves more flexibility around the deadline. I just don't see it. A lot of people either think or imply that we will trade Bradley. Do we really feel like teams are that desperate that they are going to give up value for him? You get he plays CF right ? He just posted like 5.3 war and 2.8 war seasons the last two years. There will be a lot of teams in on him if we trade him. You act like he sucks. |
|
|
|
Post by jackiebradleyjrjr on Oct 25, 2017 23:34:53 GMT -5
umassgrad, moving down 10 spots isn't a death sentence. Agreed. But doing so in order to upgrade your fourth outfielder to Rusney Castillo is almost certainly not worth it. That's my point. And I was responding to the nonsense point about Sale in particular that you've now dropped. If an outfielder tears an ACL in Spring Training and Castillo is going to start, and he's the best option available? Sure. Giddyup. If he's going to get the 276 plate appearances Chris Young got? Screw that. Also how the hell is this in the 1B thread? I'm splitting this out. While I disagree with his point, it isn't a nonsense point. If you're going all in, there's a defendable logic to say "let's really go all in... money be damn." That's the point he's making and it's quite clear. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 26, 2017 7:15:28 GMT -5
So, keeping with the poker analogy, the argument is "well, you made one aggressive bet, you might as well only bet aggressively on a totally different hand in a totally different situation?" That sounds like the best way to lose at poker. Like "oh, I spent extra money on the best possible shingling for my roof, so I might as well spend $2,500 to upgrade my already capable washer/dryer." Being willing to spend on a major upgrade, or even several major upgrades, doesn't mean that they should be willing to pay for every marginal gain without regard to cost.
"Castillo's value is worth the price" is a legitimate argument - one that several people have made and one that I'm actually on board with. The Sale trade, and the Kimbrel trade, and the Price signing, those aren't relevant to this particular decision.
|
|
|
