Next man up, err I mean Down: Craig

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,261
JimD said:
He wasn't going to opt out and leave that money on the table.  Might as well see if he has any value going forward before they release him or dump his contract for pennies on the dollar.
 
If he's released, does he still count against the salary cap? Honestly, I don't see the point of this move. They should have just left him off the 40-man roster.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,299
The wrong side of the bridge....
Somebody remind me: what happens to the Sox obligation if we release him and then somebody signs him to a new contract? Are we still liable for (a) all of our original obligation, (b) none of it, (c) what's left of it after you subtract what the new contract pays him?
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,261
Savin Hillbilly said:
Somebody remind me: what happens to the Sox obligation if we release him and then somebody signs him to a new contract? Are we still liable for (a) all of our original obligation, (b) none of it, (c) what's left of it after you subtract what the new contract pays him?
 
Unless something has changed, I think the Sox would be obligated to pay him (c) 'his original contract minus his new contract'. Because of this, he'd only get roughly the league minimum because even if Team A offers him $600,000 and Team B offers him $700,000, it doesn't make any difference to him financially, unless he's out looking to save the Red Sox some money. His payday will be the same in the end, unless there's a crazy market for him and someone actually tops what the Sox already owe him.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,670
Miami (oh, Miami!)
This is weird.  Calling him up to increase his trade value does not make sense at this point.  And if he had power, he'd have shown it in AAA.  So he'll just camp out with the big club and maybe take MLB at-bats away from someone?   Shaw being the most likely?
 
I just don't get this.  Maybe there was some kind of gentleman's agreement at some point?
 

MuzzyField

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
I hope that TC asks DD about this move during his appearance on the pregame show.
 
Can Craig be optioned again in the offseason? 
 
Maybe the Sox needed to add some clubhouse clutter for the final weeks of the season.  Craig doesn't deserve to be on a major league roster and certainly shouldn't be taking any significant innings from anyone.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,970
I'm going with Dombrowski felt he couldn't learn much (either way) from Craig batting in the minors, so he convinced Henry to spend the money for an evaluation of Craig vs. MLB pitching.
 

nvalvo

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
16,667
Rogers Park
Harry Hooper said:
I'm going with Dombrowski felt he couldn't learn much (either way) from Craig batting in the minors, so he convinced Henry to spend the money for an evaluation of Craig vs. MLB pitching.
 
Guys: if it doesn't work out *again*, it won't be hard to get Craig back off the 40 man. 
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,970
nvalvo said:
 
Guys: if it doesn't work out *again*, it won't be hard to get Craig back off the 40 man. 
 
Is it that simple? When does the window close for removing Craig from luxury tax calculations? I didn't think he could be outrighted again.
 
 
This is from Over The Monster back in May:
 
For now, at least, the benefit of removing Craig from the 40-man is fairly minimal. The Red Sox were already over the CBT threshold, remain over without Craig, and if they do find themselves in a position where there's a move out there to improve the team, the ~$4.5 million they'll save against that figure and the ~$750,000 in actual tax savings aren't going to be the difference makers.
 
Going into the future, however, that money could prove important. The Red Sox project to be a good $60 million under the CBT threshold in the coming offseason, and if they still have to pay Craig's salary, having his money "off the books" as it were could well help them reset their tax rate by getting under for a year.
 
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,064
MikeM said:
 
People read way too much into a notion that the LT limit = our budget imo. If the Sox want and feel a need to spend on a guy...they'll spend. Plus the cap likely gets an upwards adjustment after next year anyway, and in present terms we are only looking at a rough total cost of $3m (?) extra here.  
 
So basically and after already flushing a large sum down the toilet, they are following that up by throwing a few extra million on a fire. Probably in the name of "doing right by the player perspective". The luxuries of being a big market team i guess. 
 
(If the plan really is to go into 2016 with Hanley at first, you ideally wouldn't want Craig eating up that AAA roster spot either. So next stop is probably his outright release)
 
Where do you come up with this?  Do you have access to the Sox FO, or are you able to cite some interview/article that I've missed?
 
I do know that last off-season, John Henry said that he was willing to blow through the cap for ONE year, since the 17.5% tax on the overage was not a big deal, but the implication was that they would get under the cap in years following to "re-set" the CBT structure.
 
As far as Craig, I believe, he can be waived and moved off the 40 man roster, once again, as long as he has less than 5 years MLB service time. (If I am wrong about that, then this is a huge blunder.)  But it makes sense to give Craig one, last golden opportunity to escape AAA prison and impress Dombrowski.  Although Craig showed no power at AAA, his OPS was still over .700, which was better than Shaw did at AAA this year.  And despite Shaw's game winning home run last week, he's gone 3 for his last 36, so maybe his 15 minutes of fame are over.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
nvalvo said:
 
Guys: if it doesn't work out *again*, it won't be hard to get Craig back off the 40 man. 
 

Getting his person off the 40-man won't be difficult. Getting his salary off the luxury tax calculations is likely to be much more so.
 
This smells to me like DDski's already got some good ideas for dumping salary in 2016. No idea what they'll be, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a fire sale of under-producing veterans for nothing but lottery tickets and salary relief, early in November.
 
With the various positional tryouts we're hearing about recently (Hanley to 1B, Rusney to LF), it certainly seems like DDski's been directing the coaching staff with specific plans in mind.  I wish I knew what they were, but I'm not surprised we haven't heard much about them.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
5,999
Springfield, VA
Hank Scorpio said:
 
If he's released, does he still count against the salary cap? Honestly, I don't see the point of this move. They should have just left him off the 40-man roster.
 
The point is to have a fifth outfielder on the roster in case someone is injured.  (Or fourth OF, depending on Hanley Ramirez's status).
 
If the OTM quote above is right, then the Sox only have to pay 17.5% of his monthly salary as luxury tax -- possible that this is less than they would have paid De Aza anyway, though I'm too lazy to do the math.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
17,071
I think the move was more optics than anything.  The $ doesn't make a difference - after all, it's the luxury tax on one month of Craig's salary - and it would have been a real slap in the face to Craig to not call him up since they are paying him anyways.  If DD is asked about it, I would guess that he's going to say something that includes the phrases "respect" "past achievements" "veteran" "done everything we've asked" etc.
 
Plus they can say to Craig (and others) that they've given him every chance. 
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,536
Buzzkill Pauley said:
 
Getting his person off the 40-man won't be difficult. Getting his salary off the luxury tax calculations is likely to be much more so.
 
Not at all.  He's still going to have less than 6 years of ML service time no matter what, which if I recall is the threshold he needs to clear before outrighting him no longer removes the luxury tax implications of his salary.
 
Putting him back on the 40 man roster does remove Craig's ability to declare free agency and void his contract, but then I don't think anyone expected him to do that anyway.  All they'll need to do is outright him again next winter.
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
1,666
New Mexico
Drek717 said:
Not at all.  He's still going to have less than 6 years of ML service time no matter what, which if I recall is the threshold he needs to clear before outrighting him no longer removes the luxury tax implications of his salary.
 
Putting him back on the 40 man roster does remove Craig's ability to declare free agency and void his contract, but then I don't think anyone expected him to do that anyway.  All they'll need to do is outright him again next winter.
Can only outright once.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,892
Maine
AB in DC said:
 
The point is to have a fifth outfielder on the roster in case someone is injured.  (Or fourth OF, depending on Hanley Ramirez's status).
 
If the OTM quote above is right, then the Sox only have to pay 17.5% of his monthly salary as luxury tax -- possible that this is less than they would have paid De Aza anyway, though I'm too lazy to do the math.
 
Rosters expand today.  Re-adding Craig wasn't necessary to having a fifth (or sixth if you want to count Holt) outfielder on the roster.  They could have added Cecchini to fill the same role, and he's already on the 40-man roster.
 
It's 100% a "respect the veteran" move.
 
 
Drek717 said:
Not at all.  He's still going to have less than 6 years of ML service time no matter what, which if I recall is the threshold he needs to clear before outrighting him no longer removes the luxury tax implications of his salary.
 
Putting him back on the 40 man roster does remove Craig's ability to declare free agency and void his contract, but then I don't think anyone expected him to do that anyway.  All they'll need to do is outright him again next winter.
 
They can't necessarily outright him again.  They only get to do that once before the player gets a choice in the matter, provided the player has a minimum of 3 years of service (which Craig does).  So if they DFA him again at the end of the season, Craig will most likely opt for free agency and take the remainder of his contract as he walks out the door.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,970
Drek717 said:
Not at all.  He's still going to have less than 6 years of ML service time no matter what, which if I recall is the threshold he needs to clear before outrighting him no longer removes the luxury tax implications of his salary.
 
Putting him back on the 40 man roster does remove Craig's ability to declare free agency and void his contract, but then I don't think anyone expected him to do that anyway.  All they'll need to do is outright him again next winter.
 
 
Could be, though it's a bit murky for guys with 3+ years of ML service time. Per Purple Row:
 
 
If a player does in fact clear waivers, he is outrighted to the minors. Though he has been removed from the 40-man roster, the player is still paid according to the terms of his guaranteed contract. A player can only be outrighted once in his career without his consent. His options on subsequent outrightings are as follows:
1) Reject the assignment and become a free agent
2) Accept the assignment and become a free agent at the end of the season if he’s not back on the 40-man roster.
In addition, a player with 3 years of major league service may refuse an outright assignment and choose to become a free agent, regardless of whether he has been sent outright to the minors previously. A player with five or more years of ML service time, as with minor league options, is given even more rights. The player cannot be outrighted even once without Veteran's Consent, even if he clears waivers. If the player refuses his assignment to the minors, the team must either release him, making him a free agent, or keep him on the major league roster.
Regardless, in the case of the five-year service player, the team is obligated to pay the player  under the terms of his guaranteed contract. If he is released and signs with a new team, his previous team must pay the difference in salary between the two contracts if the previous contract called for a greater salary.
 
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,064
Bigpupp said:
Can only outright once.
 
I believe this to be correct, in which case DD just goofed, and added $10 mil a year to the Sox payroll in 2016 and 2017.  That's $3 mil in added tax for 2016 and potentially $4 mil in 2017, subject to the next CBA negotiations.
 
As Nancy Kerrigan once asked, "Why? Why?"
 
(Maybe they have some verbal agreement with Craig as to a buy-out/settlement offer? Where he gets 60 cents on the dollar to not play in AAA, and a September tryout to win a job?  Wishful thinking, I know.)
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,261
WenZink said:
 
I believe this to be correct, in which case DD just goofed, and added $10 mil a year to the Sox payroll in 2016 and 2017.  That's $3 mil in added tax for 2016 and potentially $4 mil in 2017, subject to the next CBA negotiations.
 
As Nancy Kerrigan once asked, "Why? Why?"
 
(Maybe they have some verbal agreement with Craig as to a buy-out/settlement offer? Where he gets 60 cents on the dollar to not play in AAA, and a September tryout to win a job?  Wishful thinking, I know.)
 
Reading Harry Hooper's post, it seems they can still outright him providing he does not exceed five years service time. He's currently at 4.077 years, according to baseball reference, so I'm thinking we can outright him again.
 
The difference this time is, he has the option to refuse the outright. Craig refusing the outright won't force us to keep him on the roster though, it'll end his contract with the Boston Red Sox.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,892
Maine
Hank Scorpio said:
 
Reading Harry Hooper's post, it seems they can still outright him providing he does not exceed five years service time. He's currently at 4.077 years, according to baseball reference, so I'm thinking we can outright him again.
 
The difference this time is, he has the option to refuse the outright. Craig refusing the outright won't force us to keep him on the roster though, it'll end his contract with the Boston Red Sox.
 
But they'll still be paying the contract in full in that case.  Unless there's an out in which the entirety of the remaining contract gets counted against the 2015 payroll (a $25M hit instead of the $6.2M current hit), WenZink is correct that Dombrowski may have unnecessarily added taxable salary to the 2016 and 2017 payrolls (though it will only be $6.2M per year since that's the AAV of the contract).
 

WenZink

lurker
Apr 23, 2010
1,064
Hank Scorpio said:
 
Reading Harry Hooper's post, it seems they can still outright him providing he does not exceed five years service time. He's currently at 4.077 years, according to baseball reference, so I'm thinking we can outright him again.
 
The difference this time is, he has the option to refuse the outright. Craig refusing the outright won't force us to keep him on the roster though, it'll end his contract with the Boston Red Sox.
 
That was my original understanding, but the clause, "he can only be outrighted once without his permission," sounds very familiar.  And again, maybe Craig has agreed to give his permission to another "outrighting" in order to get this September audition.  Hope so.  And if it's a verbal agreement, I hope Dombrowski is holding Craig's puppy as hostage.
 

Bowlerman9

bitchslapped by Keith Law
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 1, 2003
5,206
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
But they'll still be paying the contract in full in that case.  Unless there's an out in which the entirety of the remaining contract gets counted against the 2015 payroll (a $25M hit instead of the $6.2M current hit), WenZink is correct that Dombrowski may have unnecessarily added taxable salary to the 2016 and 2017 payrolls (though it will only be $6.2M per year since that's the AAV of the contract).
 
This is not true. DD did not accidentally make a $10M mistake.
 
The Sox can outright Craig again next winter and get him off the 40. If he accepts, we pay no LT on his contract. If he does not accept, he does not get paid.
 
The clause about "can only be outrighted once without consent" is relevant for someone like Nava who may get tired of being constantly sent down while making the league minimum and may want a change of scenery. The "opt out" is almost never used from someone with less than 5 years of service time while on a long term deal.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,970
I guess under either interpretation of the outrighting rules, it's not a blunder since Craig already had over 3 years of service time back in May. If he could have refused to be outrighted in May and still gotten paid, then perhaps he agreed to going off the 40-man with the promise that he would be called up Sept. 1st. If he cannot refuse even now (with less than 5 years of service time), then he can be outrighted again this winter or elect to go FA and forfeit the remainder of his contract. 
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,536
 

Bigpupp said:
Can only outright once.
They can only outright him once without him having the right to refuse and elect for immediate free agency.  Article XX Section D paragraphs (2) and (3):
 
(2) Election of Free Agency—Second Outright Assignment Any Player whose contract is assigned outright to a Minor League club for the second time or any subsequent time in his career may elect, in lieu of accepting such assignment, to become a free agent. In the event that such Player does not elect free agency in lieu of accepting such assignment, he may elect free agency between the end of the then current Major League season and the next following October 15, unless such Player is returned to a Major League roster prior to making such election. 
 
(3) Effect of Free Agency Election A Player who becomes a free agent under this Section D shall immediately be eligible to negotiate and contract with any Club without any restrictions or qualifications. Such Player shall not be entitled to receive termination pay. Such a free agent shall receive transportation and travel expenses in the same manner as he would if he had been unconditionally released except he shall be limited to receiving travel expenses to his new club if he reports to it directly, provided such expenses are less than to his home city.

 
 
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
But they'll still be paying the contract in full in that case.  Unless there's an out in which the entirety of the remaining contract gets counted against the 2015 payroll (a $25M hit instead of the $6.2M current hit), WenZink is correct that Dombrowski may have unnecessarily added taxable salary to the 2016 and 2017 payrolls (though it will only be $6.2M per year since that's the AAV of the contract).
 
It is still prorated throughout for luxury tax purposes.  Article XXIII, Section C.2(d)(ii):
 
(ii) If a Club terminates a multi-year Uniform Player’s Contract while it remains obligated to pay Salary under either this Agreement or a Special Covenant to the Contract, Salary shall be allocated to that Club for each Contract Year during which its obligation continues. Salary shall be attributed to each such Contract Year pursuant to this Article XXIII (subject to any offset 102 called for by this Agreement or a Special Covenant). This attribution shall apply even if the Club pays the Salary in advance.
 
So by my interpretation at least (and I'm not a lawyer or anything) calling him up now Craig has gained the right to refuse his next outright assignment, but doing so would immediately result in surrendering the termination pay from his current contract.  He was going to have the option of taking free agency this winter anyhow, so basically the club has pulled back the option for him to choose FA on October 15th and instead he'll be presented with that option the next time the club chooses to take him off the 40 man roster.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
5,999
Springfield, VA
Bowlerman9 said:
 
This is not true. DD did not accidentally make a $10M mistake.
 
 
 
Honestly -- given a choice between the two statements,
 
(a) "DD just made a $10M mistake"
and
(b) "Maybe there's some subtlety about the outrighting rule that I don't fully understand"
 
how many people here would pick (a)??
 
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
17,071
AB in DC said:
 
Honestly -- given a choice between the two statements,
 
(a) "DD just made a $10M mistake"
and
(b) "Maybe there's some subtlety about the outrighting rule that I don't fully understand"
 
how many people here would pick (a)??
 
 
First of all, there is no mistake.  Article XX gives the same right to elect free agency to any player with more than 3 years' service (Craig has 4+ according to BRef) as well as to the second outright assignment.  Thus, under no circumstances is Craig gaining any additional rights by being called up.  Whatever rights he had as a fourth year player would apply to the second outright assignment.
 
Drek717 said:
 

(3) Effect of Free Agency Election A Player who becomes a free agent under this Section D shall immediately be eligible to negotiate and contract with any Club without any restrictions or qualifications. Such Player shall not be entitled to receive termination pay. Such a free agent shall receive transportation and travel expenses in the same manner as he would if he had been unconditionally released except he shall be limited to receiving travel expenses to his new club if he reports to it directly, provided such expenses are less than to his home city.
 

In Article XXIII(C)(f), which describes the competitive balance tax, players who are outrighted to the minors aren't included in the luxury tax calculations.  We know that.  The issue is whether a player who has elected free agency pursuant to Article XX would be counted.  Since the consensus seemed to be that if Craig elected free agency after this season (which again was his right even before this last call-up), his salary would not be counted by the luxury tax purposes - and since this makes sense with the intent of Article XXIII, which was to count players on the Active List, I will go ahead and conclude that DD knows what he is doing and is not costing Henry multiple millions of dollars in luxury tax payments by making this meaningless roster move.
 

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,536
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
In Article XXIII(C)(f), which describes the competitive balance tax, players who are outrighted to the minors aren't included in the luxury tax calculations.  We know that.  The issue is whether a player who has elected free agency pursuant to Article XX would be counted.  Since the consensus seemed to be that if Craig elected free agency after this season (which again was his right even before this last call-up), his salary would not be counted by the luxury tax purposes - and since this makes sense with the intent of Article XXIII, which was to count players on the Active List, I will go ahead and conclude that DD knows what he is doing and is not costing Henry multiple millions of dollars in luxury tax payments by making this meaningless roster move.
The bolded from the section of the CBA I posted that you quoted specifically states that.  "Such Player shall not be entitled to receive termination pay.".  i.e. if Craig at any point elects free agency as opposed to accepting being outrighted and assigned to an mL roster, electing FA on October 15th after spending the majority of the season off the 40 man roster, etc., he gives up his contract in the process.  Basically the player can't opt for free agency and still get paid.  The only way he isn't obligated to play within the Red Sox organization but still draws his salary is if the Red Sox themselves elect to release him, terminating his contract from their end.
 
Like I said, what this really does is remove Craig's ability to opt out on October 15th, as he is now on the 40 man roster.  Going forward if the club should outright him he has the option to choose free agency and forfeit the rest of his remaining contract at that time.  If he wants to keep his contract he needs to accept the assignment.  At least that is my reading of what the CBA refers to as "termination pay", as it is immediately followed with a clear statement as to what is paid (travel expenses to their home state or new team, whichever is cheaper).
 
What will be interesting is if some time from the start of next season through the year if the club should outright him while maintaining less than a full 40 man roster, as that would be a pretty clear "we're dodging the luxury tax" statement if ever there was one.  But then how often do teams intentionally hang out below the 40 man roster limit?
 
If Allen Craig could find himself again he would be an ideal addition to the 2016 club really.  His weak OF range would be acceptable in Fenway's LF, making an ideal 4th OF to pair with JBJ, Betts, and Castillo.  He'd bring pop at the plate and could take LF while two of the other three are playing the more difficult fielding positions.  As he's right handed and Bradley has, up until this month, featured a big platoon split even when he was hitting in AAA this season, a worthwhile 4 man rotation giving Bradley the day off against all LHP should the split return, and letting Craig effectively spell Betts and Castillo against RHP by playing whomever is the regular LF in the vacated position.  Something like 1.5 days off per week for each of Castillo and Bradley (with JBJ's against LHPs) and 1 day off per week for Betts, making 4 games per week for Craig.
 
He would also be a nice hedge against Hanley being truly cooked and unable to hit at 1B and/or a backup plan if Ortiz loses his ability to hit LHP permanently next season.  Of course, that all depends heavily on Craig returning to his ~130 OPS+ career form pre-injury.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,261
Craig can become a free agent in two ways:
 
1: He is released by the Boston Red Sox. In this case, he is owed every penny of his contract, and it will count against the luxury tax.
 
2: He is outrighted to the minors, refuses the assignment and elects free agency. This ends his contract with the Boston Red Sox and he is owed no money, thus nothing is left to count against the luxury tax.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,892
Maine
Hank Scorpio said:
Craig can become a free agent in two ways:
 
1: He is released by the Boston Red Sox. In this case, he is owed every penny of his contract, and it will count against the luxury tax.
 
2: He is outrighted to the minors, refuses the assignment and elects free agency. This ends his contract with the Boston Red Sox and he is owed no money, thus nothing is left to count against the luxury tax.
 
Regarding #2...I'm willing to concede that's the case (he gives up any owed money on the contract).  But I wonder why this tactic isn't used by teams to "cut" players without being obligated to pay their contract?  If I understand correctly, any time after being outrighted once or after accruing 5 years of service time, the player has the right to refuse the assignment and elect free agency.
 
Just as a for example, if the Red Sox were to DFA Hanley Ramirez and he cleared waivers, could they not try to outright him to Pawtucket and make him play there if he wants to collect the remainder of his contract?  I'm sure I'm missing something along the way here, but by accruing five years service time, that only earns him the right to refuse the outright assignment rather than prevent the team from outrighting him at all.  Seems like a big loophole if it exists.  That no team has exploited it indicates to me that maybe it doesn't actually exist.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
25,970
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Regarding #2...I'm willing to concede that's the case (he gives up any owed money on the contract).  But I wonder why this tactic isn't used by teams to "cut" players without being obligated to pay their contract?  If I understand correctly, any time after being outrighted once or after accruing 5 years of service time, the player has the right to refuse the assignment and elect free agency.
 
Just as a for example, if the Red Sox were to DFA Hanley Ramirez and he cleared waivers, could they not try to outright him to Pawtucket and make him play there if he wants to collect the remainder of his contract?  I'm sure I'm missing something along the way here, but by accruing five years service time, that only earns him the right to refuse the outright assignment rather than prevent the team from outrighting him at all.  Seems like a big loophole if it exists.  That no team has exploited it indicates to me that maybe it doesn't actually exist.
 
 
Go back to my post #267. A 5-year vet can refuse to go to the minors, be granted free agency, and still get all the money remaining in his contract. This came up with Jason Giambi when he was struggling with the Yanks. The team (and a pleading Old Hickory) wanted him to go to the minors, but he refused.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
17,071
Red(s)HawksFan said:
 
Regarding #2...I'm willing to concede that's the case (he gives up any owed money on the contract).  But I wonder why this tactic isn't used by teams to "cut" players without being obligated to pay their contract?  If I understand correctly, any time after being outrighted once or after accruing 5 years of service time, the player has the right to refuse the assignment and elect free agency.
 
 
It's anytime after being outrighted once or after accruing 3 years, they have the right to become a free agent.

A player with five years or more of service time can't be assigned to the minors at all without his consent.  That's why it wouldn't work with Hanley.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
5,261
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
Go back to my post #267. A 5-year vet can refuse to go to the minors, be granted free agency, and still get all the money remaining in his contract. This came up with Jason Giambi when he was struggling with the Yanks. The team (and a pleading Old Hickory) wanted him to go to the minors, but he refused.
 
To add/rephrase this a bit:

A post-three/pre-five year player can refuse to accept their outright, and declare himself a free agent, or he can shut up and go to the minors. This is where Allen Craig is. If Craig elects to become a free agent, he forfeits the ~$21M or whatever he is owed by Boston.
 
A post-five year player, like Hanley Ramirez can refuse his outright, but he doesn't declare himself a free agent. By refusing the outright, he forces the team to either 1) keep him on the big league roster, or 2) to grant him his release. If the team chooses to release him, he's owed his full contract. There's really nothing to be gained by outrighting a player like Hanley Ramirez. At best, the Sox would save about $550,000/yr on Hanley Ramirez when another team picks him up for next to nothing.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,892
Maine
Thanks for the clarification, guys.  It was the distinction between pre- and post- 5 years of service that hung me up.  My incorrect assumption was that there was no difference between a player who had reached 5 years of service and a player who had been outrighted at least once regardless of his service time status.
 

Mike F

Mayor of Fort Myers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
2,068
Don't wonder any longer. ESPN & a few local talking heads will be doing 'in depth' pieces or should I say feces on the subject. Starting in 5...
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,529
Tamworth, NH
The drop off is pretty amazing.  If I understand correctly, his front foot (left) was the one injured?  One could understand him losing hits to being slower on the basepaths, or perhaps losing some power, but the increase in Ks (from roughly once every 5 AB to once every 3 AB) makes me scratch my head.
 

Doooweeeey!

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,414
Baltimore via Brimfield
Craig needs to jettison that stupid dip of the bat in the strike zone as the pitcher starts his motion.  It's a timing mechanism that simply does not work. 
Has no one said anything to him about it?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,201
Doooweeeey! said:
Craig needs to jettison that stupid dip of the bat in the strike zone as the pitcher starts his motion.  It's a timing mechanism that simply does not work. 
Has no one said anything to him about it?
 
I'll bet lots of people have made lots of suggestions trying to help him.
 

Doooweeeey!

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,414
Baltimore via Brimfield
joe dokes said:
 
I'll bet lots of people have made lots of suggestions trying to help him.
Agree, it probably has been open season on "how-to-fix-Allen-Craig" commentary.
 
I am not a major league hitting coach, obviously.  But I'd think Chili Davis could bring it up and Craig would have to respond one way or the other. 
The move he makes seems to me detrimental to getting the bat head on the ball. 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
13,201
Doooweeeey! said:
Agree, it probably has been open season on "how-to-fix-Allen-Craig" commentary.
 
I am not a major league hitting coach, obviously.  But I'd think Chili Davis could bring it up and Craig would have to respond one way or the other. 
The move he makes seems to me detrimental to getting the bat head on the ball. 
 
It always seems that way...and then you see  guys with much less prior success than Craig -- JBJ, Joe Kelly come to mind -- have to repeatedly get their brains beat in before they adjust.  At some level he has to be thinking, "this is what I did to hit .320; it *has* to work."  Craig has done nothing to make me "hate" him beyond his inability to hit. I really feel sorry for the guy.  It's not age. They say it's not injury.
 

Doooweeeey!

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,414
Baltimore via Brimfield
joe dokes said:
It's not age. They say it's not injury.
So, stubbornness?  Wonder if that's what the Cardinals saw in him which led them to part ways?
Not that stubbornness is all bad.  Being driven to succeed in a single minded way (to phrase it slightly differently) can often be really productive.
 
I don't hold any particular grudge against him either.  He's a curious case.  
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
636
joe dokes said:
They say it's not injury.
 
Of course it's injury.  He had a severe injury that is known to not respond well to surgery.  When he came to the Sox, our resident doctor explained that his chances of recovery, given his situation, were poor.  
 
An athlete who has suffered a career-ending injury has seen his career end.  There's no mystery to this.   
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
20,678
Saskatoon Canada
I agree. Reports if Hus health mean he can physically play, or more accurately attempt to play. He is good as he us going to get, but obviously he doesn't generate anything approaching his former power.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
10,892
Maine
HangingW/ScottCooper said:
Jonathan Papelbon ($13 million next year) for Allen Craig ($20 million over the next two years). Who says no?
 
The Nats?
 
Maybe if the Sox kick in the $7M difference and a reasonable prospect, they say yes, but I don't see how they couldn't get something better elsewhere.  Pap may be a dick, but he's still a productive player.
 

rehabsox

Ornithologist
SoSH Member
Aug 5, 2014
500
Atlanta, GA
HangingW/ScottCooper said:
Jonathan Papelbon ($13 million next year) for Allen Craig ($20 million over the next two years). Who says no?
I am guessing the Nats say no.
 
Papelbon has *some* value (or a lesser negative value).  Craig has *none* (or a greater negative).
 
Edit:  What RHF said at the same time.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,299
The wrong side of the bridge....
Just to pile on, I think it's almost impossible to underestimate Craig's trade value right now. We're talking about a 31-year-old corner guy with a .299 SLG over his past two years and a .076 ISO against AAA pitching this year. He shows every sign of being finished as a major league ballplayer. It's hard to imagine a team giving up a day-old sandwich for him, even with a 100% subsidized contract. The Sox might as well pay him to play in Pawtucket some more and see if a miracle happens; they're going to be paying him anyway.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
46,532
Not that it matters much in this context, but Papelbon's 2016 salary is actually $11M. He agreed to the lower number as part of the trade to WAS, in exchange for that option being immediately exercised.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,529
Tamworth, NH
Sort of ironic to see Allen Craig in as DH today, being that his batting average is at or below the that of an average pitcher.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.