Just How Bad Was the Rusney Deal?

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,721
And re Baird: Almost every bad deal is assigned to him and he still has a job. From what I've heard, he is a really nice guy so maybe he's the designated fall guy and takes one for the team while cashing a check. It used to be Larry. The Dentist was a popular guy for awhile too.
It's actually the opposite of that. When Crawford and Castillo were first signed, Baird was publicly noted for being the go-to evaluator on them to give him credit, because at the time the team thought those were good deals. Baird was credited for spending half a season evaluating Crawford in great detail, and was noted as the key man in evaluating Castillo.

He was given public credit by the team in the very brief time that the deals looked like they might be good, and no one from the team said a word about him publicly when the players cratered. It's the opposite of being a fall guy, he only gets mentioned when it might make him look good.

And there's certainly been no accountability for him when the team wastes loads of money on players he specifically was in charge of evaluating. So many smart people have left the organization since Baird joined, but he stays. He's even been promoted a couple of times.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It's actually the opposite of that. When Crawford and Castillo were first signed, Baird was publicly noted for being the go-to evaluator on them to give him credit, because at the time the team thought those were good deals. Baird was credited for spending half a season evaluating Crawford in great detail, and was noted as the key man in evaluating Castillo.
This is all true but I meant more in the sense everything is assigned to him from the start even if he had nothing to do with it. Plus, even if he is to blame for all the crap moves, he isn't the one who signed off on them or the only person in the FO to have those opinions. If they are signing anyone off of one man's opinion alone, the Sox FO has some huge problems. They have checks and balances and Crawford/Castillo checked out.

If Baird is truly that awful, it would almost be worth keeping him around to see which of your employees listens to a word he has to say and then fire said employees. I'm sure almost anyone in baseball has a pretty checkered history anyway. Theo looks like roses but he's made a lot of shit moves too. I wonder if Baird is really any worse than the rest of them.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
If Baird is truly that awful, it would almost be worth keeping him around to see which of your employees listens to a word he has to say and then fire said employees. I'm sure almost anyone in baseball has a pretty checkered history anyway. Theo looks like roses but he's made a lot of shit moves too. I wonder if Baird is really any worse than the rest of them.
I think this is worth remembering - Theo looks fantastic in CHI, and was fantastic most of his career in BOS, but the last couple of years in BOS were a mess. People like to blame Luchinno for most of that, but considering Theo's past, I have to think that he would have put up a public stink if he was getting overridden.

Nobody makes the right decision every time.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
I think this is worth remembering - Theo looks fantastic in CHI, and was fantastic most of his career in BOS, but the last couple of years in BOS were a mess. People like to blame Luchinno for most of that, but considering Theo's past, I have to think that he would have put up a public stink if he was getting overridden.

Nobody makes the right decision every time.
I mean, ok, but Theo has rings with two separate orgs and even his teams' "bad" years were still above average. Allard Baird gutted the Royals' roster and plunged them into the depths of their worst stretch in franchise history. His winning percentage as a GM is under .400! I know KC is different from Boston or Chicago, but that's bad! And since joining the Sox, most of the biggest errors the team has made are in his area of responsibility, including several huge errors for which he was publicly lauded before they were recognized as such. I'm all for recognizing that there is variance and luck in being an exec, and we don't know all the details of how teams run, but in what universe do we look at Theo and Baird side by side and go, "eh... who knows?"
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
But Baird isn't in charge and doesn't make any of the moves or have any of the final say. So why are we attributing moves to him as if he were the GM and had final say in the matter? Those signings ultimately fall on Theo and Ben and trying to excuse them from it and place the blame on Baird seems stupid to me. What did his research say about Crawford? Was he given certain things to scout for by Theo? Was he asked if Crawford met certain criteria and said yes? Baird didn't sign anyone.

Plus we don't know what Baird's role is. Maybe he plays a bigger part in the off the field stuff.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
I mean, ok, but Theo has rings with two separate orgs and even his teams' "bad" years were still above average. Allard Baird gutted the Royals' roster and plunged them into the depths of their worst stretch in franchise history. His winning percentage as a GM is under .400! I know KC is different from Boston or Chicago, but that's bad!
No, Theo's worst years weren't 'above average' - the Red Sox are only now recovered from the mess of the 2010 offseason (and that's largely because Cherrington fleeced the dodgers). He made a ton of decisions in the last 2 years here that were bad for the franchise long-term, and didn't really help short term.

Maybe ownership was pushing to win now, and that's why he made those decisions (and why he left), but those decisions are absolutely on him.

They got really lucky that so much was washed away with the Punto trade.


but in what universe do we look at Theo and Baird side by side and go, "eh... who knows?"
who is doing this?
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
No, Theo's worst years weren't 'above average' - the Red Sox are only now recovered from the mess of the 2010 offseason (and that's largely because Cherrington fleeced the dodgers). He made a ton of decisions in the last 2 years here that were bad for the franchise long-term, and didn't really help short term.

Maybe ownership was pushing to win now, and that's why he made those decisions (and why he left), but those decisions are absolutely on him.

They got really lucky that so much was washed away with the Punto trade.




who is doing this?
When I say above average, I just mean above .500. Yeah, some of those contracts worked out pretty badly. We don't know whether he was forced by mgmt, and we also don't know if he could have engineered a similar escape hatch to Cherington if he had stayed. Given Ben's weak record on major league trades other than the Punto trade, I have to suspect that he isn't the only one who could have pulled it off.

In terms of who is doing this, bosox79 was doing it in the post you quoted.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
When I say above average, I just mean above .500. Yeah, some of those contracts worked out pretty badly. We don't know whether he was forced by mgmt, and we also don't know if he could have engineered a similar escape hatch to Cherington if he had stayed. Given Ben's weak record on major league trades other than the Punto trade, I have to suspect that he isn't the only one who could have pulled it off.

In terms of who is doing this, bosox79 was doing it in the post you quoted.
The "escape hatch" was engineered at the Ownership level. Ben's task was to work out the prospects coming back. Something Theo could have done equally well one assumes.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
When I say above average, I just mean above .500. Yeah, some of those contracts worked out pretty badly. We don't know whether he was forced by mgmt, and we also don't know if he could have engineered a similar escape hatch to Cherington if he had stayed. Given Ben's weak record on major league trades other than the Punto trade, I have to suspect that he isn't the only one who could have pulled it off.

In terms of who is doing this, bosox79 was doing it in the post you quoted.
The rest of them being every other person in baseball front offices, not Theo in particular. Especially since we have no clue what Baird actually does or doesn't do. He could be a terrible gm/baseball evaluator but bring other strengths to the table. It's funny the only person we ever hear evaluating talent is Baird though. Never heard a deal attributed to Josh Byrnes or Jed Hoyer. Allard Baird is not the Redsox GM and has never been the Redsox GM. Blaming him for the signings of any FA is stupid and I'm pretty sure the only reason people do it is because of his time with the Royals.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I guess I'll judge Ruben Amaro's job as a 1b coach on how he handled the GM job in Philly though.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
Farrell absolutely hates this guy:

NOTES: After catching a flyball with runners on first and second with no outs, left fielder Andrew Benintendi threw to second base instead of third, which meant that the base-runner tagged and advanced to third. John Farrell said not to blame Benintendi.

“That's a communication issue that's got to be ironed out,” said Farrell. “He's tracking the ball, so you're relying on your other outfielder. Ideally, should be going to third base but with that in mind there was a call to go into second base and he was listening to his teammate who was watching the play unfold in front of him.” Farrell was presumably referring to center fielder Rusney Castillo as the outfielder who was watching the play unfold in front of him
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/clubhouse_insider/2017/03/allen_craig_continues_to_impress_for_red_sox#.WMEqfrpc8r0.twitter
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
That was 24 hours after Farrell commended Castillo for the work he's put in this spring after the base running incident.

I don't believe Farrell hates Castillo; it's just that he's not going to cover for his mental mistakes. I would argue that's not Farrell's job to cover for a non-roster player that has really shown nothing in either MLB or AAA so far.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Just grabbing some rough numbers...$72M and 3M attendance is an average of $24 per attendee. The Red Sox raised ticket prices for upper bleachers and the first five rows of field boxes by $5. Nineteen of the 26 sections will have prices increased by at least $1. Maybe there was a better use for the money the gave Castillo and the league for the penalty. (Flaherty remarked that Benintendi threw to the wrong base in yesterday's game because of Castillo's call):

"After catching a fly ball with runners at first and second and no outs, left fielder Andrew Benintendi threw to second base instead of third, which allowed the runner at second to tag and take third. Farrell said not to blame the rookie.

“That’s a communication issue that’s got to be ironed out,” Farrell said. “He’s tracking the ball, so you’re relying on your other outfielder. Ideally, (he) should be going to third base, but with that in mind, there was a call to go into second base and he was listening to his teammate who was watching the play unfold in front of him.”

Farrell was referring to center fielder Rusney Castillo." -- Silverman in the Herald
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
Just grabbing some rough numbers...$72M and 3M attendance is an average of $24 per attendee. The Red Sox raised ticket prices for upper bleachers and the first five rows of field boxes by $5. Nineteen of the 26 sections will have prices increased by at least $1. Maybe there was a better use for the money the gave Castillo and the league for the penalty. (Flaherty remarked that Benintendi threw to the wrong base in yesterday's game because of Castillo's call):

"After catching a fly ball with runners at first and second and no outs, left fielder Andrew Benintendi threw to second base instead of third, which allowed the runner at second to tag and take third. Farrell said not to blame the rookie.

“That’s a communication issue that’s got to be ironed out,” Farrell said. “He’s tracking the ball, so you’re relying on your other outfielder. Ideally, (he) should be going to third base, but with that in mind, there was a call to go into second base and he was listening to his teammate who was watching the play unfold in front of him.”

Farrell was referring to center fielder Rusney Castillo." -- Silverman in the Herald
I agree that the money they gave Castillo has been pretty much thrown down the drain, but I don't think its fair to equate Castillo's contract with rising ticket prices. This isn't some small market like Oakland where the budget is as much constrained by the ballclub's revenue as anything else. Odds are those ticket prices were going to go up no matter, even if they could have gone back in a time machine and not signed Castillo.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
I agree that the money they gave Castillo has been pretty much thrown down the drain, but I don't think its fair to equate Castillo's contract with rising ticket prices. This isn't some small market like Oakland where the budget is as much constrained by the ballclub's revenue as anything else. Odds are those ticket prices were going to go up no matter, even if they could have gone back in a time machine and not signed Castillo.
With general revenue from so much more than game ticket prices now, we are pretty much at a point where ticket revenue and player salaries are completely decoupled. They are both market determined, they don't have to raise prices to cover salaries or vice versa.
 

Gubanich Plague

New Member
Jul 14, 2005
63
Just grabbing some rough numbers...$72M and 3M attendance is an average of $24 per attendee.
One thing to consider here is that the $72M is over the 7 years (actually 6+) of the contract, but the 3M is attendance per year. Spread over 6+ years, that works out to $4 per attendee.

As others pointed out, there are other revenue streams as well, but the high salaries (not just Castillo') are a major reason why ticket prices are so high.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,618
Springfield, VA
Yeah, it's the ticket prices that drive the payroll, not the other way around. A team like the Red Sox will charge whatever the market will bear. No one player will affect the team's revenue (unless you're talking about marketable superstars like Pedro or Ortiz).
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
Who see the Majors first, Allen Craig or Rusney Castillo?
You'd have to say Craig. Assuming — and it's an extremely safe assumption — that we buy out his option, he's a FA after this season. Then he can sign a cheap ml deal elsewhere, and has a decent chance to make a team as a 5th OF/1B/DH/PH type.

Castillo would have to play well enough in AAA that the Sox could trade him without sending money, because any money sent with him would count against the CBT. I think we can all agree that makes a deal unlikely.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I think people are reading too much into what I aid about Castillo's contract and ticket prices. I was simply pointing out that there may have been better uses for the money. There may have been some players formerly on the roster they could have afforded to keep. Of course, the owners could have just pocketed the money. And I didn't even bring up Craig and Moncada, and Sandoval playing in the minors.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Who see the Majors first, Allen Craig or Rusney Castillo?
Castillo without question.

With one year left on Craig I really just can't see a legitimate desire existing anymore to " take one last look at what we have". Plus too much would have to go both wrong and right before a positional fit on the 25 man ( that already has 2 first baseman in the starting lineup) would make much sense.

Castillo on the other hand is signed through 2020, and has the fact he can cover all 3 OF spots going for him. If he shows serious promise with the bat in AAA there is probably even a better chance then not that we'll be seeing him up at some point (and no, a potential luxury tax hit isn't going to stop them from taking that look either).
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,810
Castillo 3/4 today, now with a .368 average and .911 OPS. His OBP isn't great, but I think everyone kind of accepts that he's not an OBP guy. True, it's only spring training, but he's looking promising, except for the mental lapse or two.
 

Georgy Zhukov

New Member
Aug 19, 2016
481
It sticks out like a sore thumb because he hasn't contributed at all to the major league roster but in terms of a pure gross overpay I don't think it's the worst of all time. Off the top of my head, Jose Offerman's deal seemed worse.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Was it his first (1999) season, when Offerman was an all star that seemed worse? Or was it that his signing came with ridiculous claims by the Red Sox that he was going to replace Mo Vaughn in all ways that made him seem like an overpay? Offerman was what he was, but the hype that ownership provided with his signing is what sank him in most fans' view.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
Doesn't seem like a good comp - was never a big Awfulman fan myself, but the dude did play in 465 games for the Sox, and the first year of his deal at age 30 he was actually very good - 146 games, 108 OPS+ (.294/.391/.435) leading the league in triples and seemingly more than justifying his $5M salary with his 2.8 WAR contribution. Kinda went down hill from there admittedly, but still, the guy had a 15 year MLB career, which Rusney is a lonnngggggg way from having at this point....
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,421
Not here
Was it his first (1999) season, when Offerman was an all star that seemed worse? Or was it that his signing came with ridiculous claims by the Red Sox that he was going to replace Mo Vaughn in all ways that made him seem like an overpay? Offerman was what he was, but the hype that ownership provided with his signing is what sank him in most fans' view.
Yeah, no. It was fan stupidity. Management said he was going to replace Vaughn's OBP, not his power. He did that, at least until he got hurt. Fans didn't understand or care.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Offerman came in in 1999 as a high-value 2B replacing the little-lamented Mike Benjamin (despite MBs killer sideburns). That replaced a 76 OPS+ with a 108 OPS+. Meanwhile, they had done a pretty good job of replacing much of Mo with Mike Stanley (140 OPS became 115).
The problem came in 2000, when they moved Offy to 1B to help offset the black hole of Daubach, Stanley and Hattieburg while trying to get more production at 2B from Mike Lansing (God help us). If you really want to cry, go look at poor Nomar stuck on that shit sandwich of a team in 2000.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Love. It.

If you really want to cry, go look at poor Nomar and Our Lord and Savior Pedro stuck on that shit sandwich of a team in 2000.
Yup. Nomar was a 7 fWAR player that year, and Pedro was over 9 fWAR. And then...

Still, I have some good memories of that team. Tek, Trot, DLowe, my boy Yummy O'Leary, El Guapo, Rod Beck's mustache, Dauber. For an 85-win team they were a lot of fun to watch... especially when Pedro would pitch every 5th day.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
Don't forget Carl 'Oil Can' Everett. He was a head-case but if JBJ posts numbers similar to what he gave us (300/373/587/959 with 34 HRs and 11/15 SBs) that year in CF I'd take it any day of the week and twice during NYY series.

And the heart-and-soul of that team was, of course, Framingham Lou Merloni...
 

sezwho

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,951
Isle of Plum
It sticks out like a sore thumb because he hasn't contributed at all to the major league roster.
First off, I get that I'm echoing the obvious because his MLB value is scarcely worth tallying. One thing I've wondered though: lets say for arguments sake that he were signed by an organization that was consistently below the cap. Would that team have a place for him such that he could accumulate WAR? Would the hope of an MLB spot help keep him focused and engaged? Sympathy for multi-millionaires seems out of place of course, but I wonder if he were in a position not trapped behind a salary cap wall, would this have played out differently. He would have to absolutely crush it to even get a chance.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
First off, I get that I'm echoing the obvious because his MLB value is scarcely worth tallying. One thing I've wondered though: lets say for arguments sake that he were signed by an organization that was consistently below the cap. Would that team have a place for him such that he could accumulate WAR? Would the hope of an MLB spot help keep him focused and engaged? Sympathy for multi-millionaires seems out of place of course, but I wonder if he were in a position not trapped behind a salary cap wall, would this have played out differently. He would have to absolutely crush it to even get a chance.
I'm sure Rusney is better than many MLB 5th OF types .. on his defence alone.

But the equivalent salary for those kind of players is not much above the major league minimum. Would Castillo trade his current salary for the minimum in exchange for a regular MLB gig? Aside from the union frowning on this, it's probably pretty unlikely.

He is a classic example of a player who should be non-tendered - thus freeing him. But he can't be.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,862
I'm sure Rusney is better than many MLB 5th OF types .. on his defence alone.

But the equivalent salary for those kind of players is not much above the major league minimum. Would Castillo trade his current salary for the minimum in exchange for a regular MLB gig? Aside from the union frowning on this, it's probably pretty unlikely.

He is a classic example of a player who should be non-tendered - thus freeing him. But he can't be.
In some ways, he's like the reverse Wily Mo: his contract keeps him from being able to be put in the majors, and Wily had the reverse problem. Both situations to the detriment of their careers.