Next man up, err I mean Down: Craig

Status
Not open for further replies.

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,674
RIrooter09 said:
 
Some of us were saying this all off season.  It's somewhat concerning that Farrell and Cherington either weren't able or willing to recognize it.
 
But then Castillo got hurt in ST and Victorino didn't and JBJ was going to AAA no matter what.
 
I don't think Allen Craig has earned that kind of deference, especially since they didn't need his permission to send him down.  He wasn't that good with St Louis, and it was only for about two seasons in total.  He was sort of a rich man's Daniel Nava in terms of production, and the Sox didn't hesitate to send him down last year.  For better or worse, they made what they thought was the best decision for the club, and didn't worry about his feelings.
 
 
Actually Craig *was* that good in STL for the two years before he got hurt. But you're right about the time. As I said upthread, he really only had 2,5 good seasons, so even though he's 30, he didn't earn the full measure of veteran "let him work it out."  He got about a month. And he didn't get a whole lot of deference...."we're sending you down or you'll play sporadically here" is hardly a free pass.  If both Victorino AND Castillo hadn't gotten hurt, he was probably gone a couple of weeks ago.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,466
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
RIrooter09 said:
 
Some of us were saying this all off season.  It's somewhat concerning that Farrell and Cherington either weren't able or willing to recognize it.
 
Veteran Deference I suppose .. which can be good and bad. Or they saw things in ST that lead them to believe Victorino had used the Way Back Machine to 2013. Regardless I think it's pretty obvious at this stage that Castillo is the better player and needs to play regardless of any hurt feelings. 
 
Tempting as it is to can Nava as well I think I'd leave JBJ in AAA at this point. I think he needs a solid 300 ABs to cement his resurrection at the plate. 
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,466
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
joe dokes said:
 
But then Castillo got hurt in ST and Victorino didn't and JBJ was going to AAA no matter what.
 
 
Actually Craig *was* that good in STL for the two years before he got hurt. But you're right about the time. As I said upthread, he really only had 2,5 good seasons, so even though he's 30, he didn't earn the full measure of veteran "let him work it out."  He got about a month. And he didn't get a whole lot of deference...."we're sending you down or you'll play sporadically here" is hardly a free pass.  If both Victorino AND Castillo hadn't gotten hurt, he was probably gone a couple of weeks ago.
 
But then the "plan" had been to give the starting gig to Victorino all along. The Castillo injury actually gave them an easy out and allowed them to defer a decision that should have been made in ST.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,459
Can this even be called "rebuilding his value," though? If he rakes at AAA against AAA pitching, does that even prove anything? I would rather the ABs go to guys like Shaw and Brentz, frankly.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Danny_Darwin said:
Can this even be called "rebuilding his value," though? If he rakes at AAA against AAA pitching, does that even prove anything? I would rather the ABs go to guys like Shaw and Brentz, frankly.
 
It does rebuild Craig's value if he can use the time in AAA to regain his eye and his swing.  FWIW, from 2011-2013 he was a very good hitter. 
 
That guy may well never return, and he could well be a "has-been" that drags down the Sox payroll over the next two years.  But that being said, Shaw and Brentz are "never were's" as organizational guys, and if Craig's cost is sunk it still may be better to try to get some return by using his last two options, than nothing at all and just DFA'ing him. 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,674
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
 
But then the "plan" had been to give the starting gig to Victorino all along. The Castillo injury actually gave them an easy out and allowed them to defer a decision that should have been made in ST.
 
It did. Now they can be *really* sure that Craig isn't a major league hitter right now and that Victorino can't stand up to regular playing time burden.  If Castillo hadn't been hurt, he'd have been here 3 weeks ago.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,527
Not here
chrisfont9 said:
JBJ still has options, no?
 
Yeah, but simply replacing JBJ with Castillo would mean an outfield of Ramirez, Betts, Vic, Castillo, and Nava. I have a hard time believing that Castillo would just be the 4th guy. I'd think he'd have to take over in right with Vic the fourth guy. That decision is going to be the interesting thing.
 
The other option would be to dump Nava and keep JBJ as the lefty hitting non starting OFer. I'd rather they not go this route as I want him to have a bunch of ABs and I think if he's up he's going to be used most often as a defensive replacement for Ramirez.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Rasputin said:
 
Yeah, but simply replacing JBJ with Castillo would mean an outfield of Ramirez, Betts, Vic, Castillo, and Nava. I have a hard time believing that Castillo would just be the 4th guy. I'd think he'd have to take over in right with Vic the fourth guy. That decision is going to be the interesting thing.
 
The other option would be to dump Nava and keep JBJ as the lefty hitting non starting OFer. I'd rather they not go this route as I want him to have a bunch of ABs and I think if he's up he's going to be used most often as a defensive replacement for Ramirez.
Ah, right, the original dilemma. It comes down I think to either Castillo staying put or returning to CF and Betts moving around. The club seems pretty set on Hanley and Shane, assuming there's ever a stretch of time where neither is injured.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,674
chrisfont9 said:
Ah, right, the original dilemma. It comes down I think to either Castillo staying put or returning to CF and Betts moving around. The club seems pretty set on Hanley and Shane, assuming there's ever a stretch of time where neither is injured.
 
I think this shot is Victorino's last to show he's a ML player; and that inlcudes the ability to stay on the field.  He's already down to a virtual platioon. Whether its injury or performance or the combination, if Victorino doesn't show signs of life by the time that that Castillo has ramped up to every day play (I think he's up to 4 days in a row?), he's DFA.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,527
Not here
chrisfont9 said:
Ah, right, the original dilemma. It comes down I think to either Castillo staying put or returning to CF and Betts moving around. The club seems pretty set on Hanley and Shane, assuming there's ever a stretch of time where neither is injured.
 
I think we're all generally in agreement that the Shane isn't going to last.
 
I can totally understand not wanting to move Betts around. He's having enough of an adjustment on fly balls already, I don't want him to adjust to right would be asking a lot.
 
I guess the questions really boil down to these.
 
1) Who is starting in right?
 
2) If it's not Shane Victorino, is he the 4th guy, on the DL, or off the team?
 
3) Who's the lefty OF off the bench?
 
A bench OF of Vic and Nava would enable them to pinch run or replace Ramirez on D while still having a lefty around just in case, plus the ability of Nava to cover first.
 
A bench OF of Vic and Bradley would allow for much more frequent pinch running and defensive replacing, have the lefty, but no coverage of first and limited playing time for Bradley to rebuild himself into starting material.
 
I would guess the answers to these questions play out ove the next month and a half or so and it's going to be an interesting process.
 
Except Vic. Watching him is probably going to be painful.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,459
I feel like we're seeing the flaw in the vaunted "deep depth" approach - if you have too many guys who ideally need to play every day for whatever reason, you start contorting yourself into situations where you aren't putting the best lineup on the field.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,466
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
joe dokes said:
 
I think this shot is Victorino's last to show he's a ML player; and that inlcudes the ability to stay on the field.  He's already down to a virtual platioon. Whether its injury or performance or the combination, if Victorino doesn't show signs of life by the time that that Castillo has ramped up to every day play (I think he's up to 4 days in a row?), he's DFA.
 
I'm not sure why you would want to DFA Victorino .. he seems like a perfect 4th OF at this point - plus he's really expensive. Trading him on the other hand would make some sense - especially if they could get some team to assume the whole contract.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,527
Not here
Danny_Darwin said:
I feel like we're seeing the flaw in the vaunted "deep depth" approach - if you have too many guys who ideally need to play every day for whatever reason, you start contorting yourself into situations where you aren't putting the best lineup on the field.
 
I don't think that's a deep depth problem, I think that's a general roster management problem that is exacerbated by the fact that the Sox were in a position last July where they needed outfielders desperately, and this past offseason where Hanley Ramirez basically came to the team and said he wanted to play for them and they weren't stupid enough to turn him down.
 
Teams routinely don't call up their best prospects for control reasons.
 
This team in particular has added Betts, Castillo, Cespedes, Ramirez, and Allen Craig all to the OF since the trade deadline last year while keeping Bradley, Nava, and Vic.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,674
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
 
I'm not sure why you would want to DFA Victorino .. he seems like a perfect 4th OF at this point - plus he's really expensive. Trading him on the other hand would make some sense - especially if they could get some team to assume the whole contract.
 
Of course, if he gets hurt, its to the DL; but if he just puts up Craig #s in the next month, why keep him? Yes, they could trade him for some low-grade prospect.  But no one is giving up anything of value to a damaged declining player if they also have to pick up the 10M or so left this year.  To me DFA may be the only choice if he's "healthy" and bad.  He's a sunk cost.  If he's got nothing left, they might as well pay him not to take up a spot on the 25. Not saying he's there yet, but I think he's headed that way. Oakland's endless foul territory will be a nice test.
 
Then, Castillo's the starter(if....if....if); JBJ the 4th.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
I agree it's not a deep depth issue.  It's a embarrassment of riches issue, with a clear emphasis on embarrassment.
 
Ideally, the Sox keep Victorino around because he can provide an effective defensive replacement for Hanley, which unfortunately, is something a playoff-competitive Sox team would have to plan for.  Hanley is simply not someone I want even a simple can-o-corn hit toward, with the game on the line.
 
What the Sox don't really have to plan for as they seek to field a playoff-competitive team, though, is more than one LHH bench bat.  Because Sandy Leon is pretty much the only RHH on the 25-man who still isn't going to be better against RHP than the alternative.   And frankly, you could have Swihart bat for him and not burn another bench player.
 
Which is why I think the best Sox alignment for 2015 keeps Nava over JBJ for now.  When Castillo's physically ready to take over RF from BROCKHOLT then maybe you talk about DFA'ing Nava.   Because even then, Vic is likely to be the best option to sub defensively for Hanley. 
 
Unless he's hurt, of course.  Or sulking over losing regular playing time.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
Rasputin said:
 
2) If it's not Shane Victorino, is he the 4th guy, on the DL, or off the team?
 
Except Vic. Watching him is probably going to be painful.
He's made some noises about not accepting being the 4th guy, which either complicates matters or accelerates them. Maybe if it were a platoon situation he would embrace a diminished role, but that was only even thinkable while he was switch-hitting. Now it's just three RHHs for two spots. But if he's feeling OK, I wouldn't put it past him to play well.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,303
E5 Yaz said:
Craig batting third, playing RF tonight for the PawSox
Didn't end up playing, for whatever reason. Maybe it's too much to expect him to just waltz in and take Luke Montz' spot in the lineup.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,309
Rasputin said:
 
I don't think that's a deep depth problem, I think that's a general roster management problem that is exacerbated by the fact that the Sox were in a position last July where they needed outfielders desperately, and this past offseason where Hanley Ramirez basically came to the team and said he wanted to play for them and they weren't stupid enough to turn him down.
 
Teams routinely don't call up their best prospects for control reasons.
 
This team in particular has added Betts, Castillo, Cespedes, Ramirez, and Allen Craig all to the OF since the trade deadline last year while keeping Bradley, Nava, and Vic.
Yeah, it's unfortunate the team was stupid enough to sign the guy with an 0.894 OPS and 10 HR's.  Or are you forgetting that the defensive WAR stats are meaningless this point of the season (assuming they are meaningful at the end of the season, which is still a big assumption)?  
 

TigerBlood

Banned
Mar 10, 2011
330
lexrageorge said:
Yeah, it's unfortunate the team was stupid enough to sign the guy with an 0.894 OPS and 10 HR's.  Or are you forgetting that the defensive WAR stats are meaningless this point of the season (assuming they are meaningful at the end of the season, which is still a big assumption)?  
I think you're reading that post incorrectly, they said it would have been stupid to turn Ramirez away.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,490
moondog80 said:
Didn't end up playing, for whatever reason. Maybe it's too much to expect him to just waltz in and take Luke Montz' spot in the lineup.
The whatever reason is that he hasn't reported yet. Apparently, Craig decided he'd like an extra paid day off to utilize the full amount of time he has to report to the minors per the CBA. 2 good years = veteran entitlement I suppose.

Yes it it his right.....it is also a terrible message to send to your employer who you hopefully are trying to impress. Or maybe he wants out and will put a minimal amount of work in prior to being moved. Either way he still gets paid.....it's a great country.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
HomeRunBaker said:
... = veteran entitlement I suppose.

Yes it it his right.....it is also a terrible message to send to your employer who you hopefully are trying to impress. Or maybe he wants out and will put a minimal amount of work in prior to being moved. Either way he still gets paid.....it's a great country.
If he figures out how to hit down there over the next few weeks, his reporting day won't matter. If he doesn't, he could have shown up ready to play on day #1 and his employer wouldn't give a shit.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
HomeRunBaker said:
The whatever reason is that he hasn't reported yet. Apparently, Craig decided he'd like an extra paid day off to utilize the full amount of time he has to report to the minors per the CBA. 2 good years = veteran entitlement I suppose.

Yes it it his right.....it is also a terrible message to send to your employer who you hopefully are trying to impress. Or maybe he wants out and will put a minimal amount of work in prior to being moved. Either way he still gets paid.....it's a great country.
 
That seems like an uncharitable reading. Craig (who it seems like has been amazingly quiet about all this - I haven't read anything about him saying much about him being sent down, which often happens) is moving down to AAA for probably a long time. It seems like the decent thing to do to let the guy get his stuff together and find a place down there. I'd want him spending more time at the ballpark and less time in his car on 95 commuting anyway. By pro athlete standards, I think Craig's actually been pretty classy about all this.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,527
Not here
lexrageorge said:
Yeah, it's unfortunate the team was stupid enough to sign the guy with an 0.894 OPS and 10 HR's.  Or are you forgetting that the defensive WAR stats are meaningless this point of the season (assuming they are meaningful at the end of the season, which is still a big assumption)?  
Huh?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,490
alwyn96 said:
 
That seems like an uncharitable reading. Craig (who it seems like has been amazingly quiet about all this - I haven't read anything about him saying much about him being sent down, which often happens) is moving down to AAA for probably a long time. It seems like the decent thing to do to let the guy get his stuff together and find a place down there. I'd want him spending more time at the ballpark and less time in his car on 95 commuting anyway. By pro athlete standards, I think Craig's actually been pretty classy about all this.
If he was moving out of his place 45 min away it takes about an hour to check into an extended stay and report same day really if he was serious about his work. Taking extra days, which again is his right, sends the wrong message. It's not like he's working with a realtor to find home sweet home.

The fact that he was in the lineup is evidence that the Sox expected him there as well and surely aren't thrilled that he didn't.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
HomeRunBaker said:
If he was moving out of his place 45 min away it takes about an hour to check into an extended stay and report same day really if he was serious about his work. Taking extra days, which again is his right, sends the wrong message. It's not like he's working with a realtor to find home sweet home.

The fact that he was in the lineup is evidence that the Sox expected him there as well and surely aren't thrilled that he didn't.
 
45 minutes! Slow it down out there! :) It's never taken me less than an hour, but then I was living north of the city. I almost took a job in Providence, but it could have been like 3 hours of driving per day. My back can't handle that.
 
None of this seems like evidence of very much to me, but maybe I'm a more laid back person. I suppose he could be wearing all the pieces of flair and getting out on the field at 5am every morning, but I think this is a bit of a molehill. Lots of guys take a day. I tend to be a little more generous in my readings of people's actions, but everyone's different.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,527
Not here
I don't really give a damn if he took an extra day out of spite, to sulk, or to get his dick waxed. I just care if he does his damndest to turn himself back into a guy who can hit the damn ball.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,930
Craig saying almost all of the right things: http://www.woonsocketcall.com/node/13268

Asked what he reaction was when Red Sox manager John Farrell told him he was Pawtucket-bound, Craig said, “I don’t know. I guess you could say I was surprised. Just coming back down to the minor leagues, I’m a little surprised by that. Given the situation, it kind of just is what it is. That’s all I can really say.

“What’s [sulking] going to do? It really is not going to accomplish anything. I think everybody acknowledges it’s disappointing, but what am I going to do about it?” Craig continued. “I’m going to bring a positive attitude down here. Nobody wants to see that anywhere. It doesn’t do anybody any good. I’m going to be professional and just play the game and do the best that I can. That’s all I can do.”
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,740
Miami (oh, Miami!)
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
Craig saying almost all of the right things: http://www.woonsocketcall.com/node/13268
 
 
I'm not really sure what the guy expected or why he was surprised.  
 
In 59 PA this year he's put up a slash line of 237/192/430.  Last year (for the Sox) he put up 234/191/425 in 107 PA. He offers no defensive or baserunning value and is getting paid regardless.  
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
He doesn't have much reason to complain, as the Red Sox may well be his best shot at this juncture.  As long as they're on the hook for his out years, they have a vested interest in giving him a lot of rope to turn things around.
 
If they were to cut him loose, he'd probably be looking for a minor league deal or spring training invite, in which case the new team would be on the hook for very little cash and thus not need to have as much patience if he's stinking up the place.  One or two short trials like that and his career could be over, whereas right now he in theory has quite a bit of time to work on things.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
jsinger121 said:
Talk about flushing money down the toilet.
 
 
Not necessarily.  Merloni makes a good point that, after Napoli, the Sox don't have any "true" replacements at 1st base.  Craig has plenty of time to try and get his hitting back, knowing that he has a shot at being the Sox' first baseman in 2016.  It's' hardly a sure thing, but not a long shot, either.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,561
 
 
Art. XXII.C.2.(f) Outright Assignment to a Minor League club
If a Uniform Player’s Contract is assigned outright to a Minor
League club, the Club shall exclude from its Actual Club Payroll
such pro rata portion of the Salary attributable to that Contract
Year as the number of days during the championship season that
the Player was off the Major League Club’s 40-man roster bears
to the number of days in the championship season; provided,
however, that the above exclusion shall not apply to: (i) the day
on which a Club outrights a Player for assignment; (ii) the days
in which a Player is in the status of a “designated player” under
Major League Rule 2(k); or (iii) the Salary of any Player whose
Contract has been assigned outright to a Minor League club for
the purpose of defeating or circumventing the intention of the
Parties as reflected by this Article XXIII.

Read more: http://forum.soxprospects.com/thread/2684/allen-craig-optioned?page=2#ixzz3aWInZCjt
Salary does not count against the LT
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
soxhop411 said:
Salary does not count against the LT
 
Wow. I had no idea! Craig's salary doesn't really hurt them at all then, unless he hits well enough to deserve a call-up? That's fantastic!
 
I mean, I imagine John Henry would rather not be playing a AAA guy millions of dollars a year, but it seems like the Red Sox payrolls generally go right up to the LT limit without regard for how much non-LT payroll there is.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
alwyn96 said:
 
Wow. I had no idea! Craig's salary doesn't really hurt them at all then, unless he hits well enough to deserve a call-up? That's fantastic!
 
I mean, I imagine John Henry would rather not be playing a AAA guy millions of dollars a year, but it seems like the Red Sox payrolls generally go right up to the LT limit without regard for how much non-LT payroll there is.
 
Interesting.  So it was Craig's lack of sufficient service time (just over 4 years) that made this maneuver possible?  Otherwise, the Angels would have pulled this with Josh Hamilton, since what they're recovering in his move to Texas, may well be less than the luxury tax they'll accrue over the next 3 years.
 

Bowlerman9

bitchslapped by Keith Law
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 1, 2003
5,227
WenZink said:
 
Interesting.  So it was Craig's lack of sufficient service time (just over 4 years) that made this maneuver possible?  Otherwise, the Angels would have pulled this with Josh Hamilton, since what they're recovering in his move to Texas, may well be less than the luxury tax they'll accrue over the next 3 years.
 
Yes it was. Players with more than 5 years service time can refuse an assignment and take the full value of their contract as a one time payment (ie: if this happened to Hamilton). Craig had no ability to refuse the assignment with less than 5 years service time.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,527
Not here
WenZink said:
 
Not necessarily.  Merloni makes a good point that, after Napoli, the Sox don't have any "true" replacements at 1st base.  Craig has plenty of time to try and get his hitting back, knowing that he has a shot at being the Sox' first baseman in 2016.  It's' hardly a sure thing, but not a long shot, either.
 
That was the crux of the off season argument to keep Craig. His value as a potential future replacement for Napoli or Papi is huge. It's the gamble they made, his salary is the downside, a potential middle of the order hitter is the upside. 
 
soxhop411 said:
Salary does not count against the LT
 
This is, as mentioned, fantastic. It dramatically lessens the downside.
 

alwyn96

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 24, 2005
1,351
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
I'm not sure that clause is saying Craig doesn't get his money. I think it's referring to the total club payroll for Luxury Tax purposes?
 
I don't think anyone is saying Craig won't get his money, just that it won't go towards the LT, which is all that's really relevant to Red Sox fans who aren't John Henry's heirs.
 

WenZink

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,078
Bowlerman9 said:
 
Yes it was. Players with more than 5 years service time can refuse an assignment and take the full value of their contract as a one time payment (ie: if this happened to Hamilton). Craig had no ability to refuse the assignment with less than 5 years service time.
 
I get that now, and, in a way, always knew it, but I never thought about the fact that taking on salary obligations from a player with lessened MLB service time also lessened a team's potential cost.  The Sox are counting on having at least 3 key player (Swihart/Betts/Bogaerts) under team control as a way to say under the luxury tax limit going forward.  If any of those three should fail, OR if they have to reconsider their philosophy of not giving big contracts to 30+ pitchers, the Craig contract obligations could cost them up to 40% additional in at least one of the following years.  In retrospect, one small plus for evaluating the Lackey trade last summer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.