johnnywayback said:
Betts is blocked at 3B by Holt. He's also blocked at 1B, 2B, SS, LF, CF, and RF by Holt.
Sox sign Rusney Castillo to 7-year/$72.5M deal (2014-2020)
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
- Status
Betts is blocked at 3B by Holt. He's also blocked at 1B, 2B, SS, LF, CF, and RF by Holt.
Craig also makes more sense in the Carp role since the guy he'd need to pinch-hit for most often (JBJ) is a left handed hitter.
You think JBJ is starting? I'd guess the question is whether he is even on the 25 not if he starts.O Captain! My Captain! said:
dbn said:
Perhaps 2014 is Holt's career year. I do not believe it's prudent to count on Holt to duplicate or improve upon 2014 going forward. Better to hedge one's Betts.
Bit of an overstatement for a guy who OPS'd 1.180, .789, .920 and .786 in June, July, August and Sept./Oct. respectively in his first year. Sure, his K/BB ratio got better, but who cares that much with those OPS's.Rough Carrigan said:
dbn said:
Holt isn't blocking anyone long-term. If Betts is blocked at 3B, it's by his own arm's accuracy.
And while BROCKHOLT's hitting and energy has been one of the few joys of this long season, his future role remains that of a super-sub.
Assuming Castillo can bat leadoff with better than a .300 OBP, that is. Book's still out on that bit.
My post was a joke. The subtle nuance that a single person can't play 7 different positions at the same time should have been the clue.
dbn said:
I laughed. It was a great line.
The Cuban players in MLB recently is kind of odd to look at. With the exception of maybe Kendrys Morales, it seemed the action was chiefly with the pitchers. Plus, the performance of guys like Contreras on MLB mounds could make you wonder about the quality of Cuban hitters. Then we've seen this run of big bat guys like Puig, Abreu, and Cespedes.
Castillo could present a rather small strike zone if he uses anything like a Rickey crouch.
Generally six year deals are bad because very few free agents hit the market at 27. I have no problem with the length of this deal if it is otherwise sound. It runs 2020, a season he will begin as a 32 year old. Long deals are trouble when the player isn't any good, but mostly when you start buying 35+ seasons at 27-32 prices, which this deal does not.
I also don't think that the overall per year price is absurd or causes any financial bind or overpay. His bar is relatively low to be a good value over the next couple years, and if salary inflation keeps up (not a certainty) and he plays well, the final years of this deal could be a huge value instead of an unwieldy albatross.
I'm pretty confident in his abilities to perform in the majors given his talents, scouting report, and overall success in Cuba compared to previous players. Recent years has shown that on average the Cuban players have outperformed their contracts and are largely undervalued by the market, and I think the dollars here are fair. He doesn't have to be better than Chapman/Cespedes/Puig/Abreu for this to be a fair or value deal.
And we don't give up prospects or draft picks to sign him, there is a lot to like.
Of course we now have some extra pieces around our organization to deal with, but that is a good problem to have, and enables us to go after starting pitchers, a thirdbaseman if we choose, or unnamed south Florida power hitters. If we have all these outfielders on April 1, 2015 it is an issue, but having them in August and into the winter meetings is a good situation.
I also don't think that the overall per year price is absurd or causes any financial bind or overpay. His bar is relatively low to be a good value over the next couple years, and if salary inflation keeps up (not a certainty) and he plays well, the final years of this deal could be a huge value instead of an unwieldy albatross.
I'm pretty confident in his abilities to perform in the majors given his talents, scouting report, and overall success in Cuba compared to previous players. Recent years has shown that on average the Cuban players have outperformed their contracts and are largely undervalued by the market, and I think the dollars here are fair. He doesn't have to be better than Chapman/Cespedes/Puig/Abreu for this to be a fair or value deal.
And we don't give up prospects or draft picks to sign him, there is a lot to like.
Of course we now have some extra pieces around our organization to deal with, but that is a good problem to have, and enables us to go after starting pitchers, a thirdbaseman if we choose, or unnamed south Florida power hitters. If we have all these outfielders on April 1, 2015 it is an issue, but having them in August and into the winter meetings is a good situation.
Two years ago the Red Sox went into the off-season with a lot of money and very few players. This year they go in with too many position players. Obviously there will be many changes between now and April, and I expect that our opening day lineup will include players not currently in the organization.
I think this speaks to a few things
1) The cubans recently have nearly all outperformed expectations, to some extent that's going to help access future players. All the recent cuban deals look great value
2) It's getting ever harder to use money to acquire talent. The draft is now controlled and an IFA draft basically appears a done deal at some point. The smarter teams all en mass just blew up the IFA pools in a nothing special year of talent. Guys who wouldn't have got much under the old system got top dollars. This despite penalties for overspending too!
3) Pitching is ruling hitting in the majors at the moment, the bar for a good defensive player with speed is a lot lower than it was a few years ago. I mean look at JBJ, his defense alone (as he's not quick) is nearly offsetting one of the worst stat lines in modern history.
4) Money is flooding the game, AND teams are getting smarter at locking up young talent.
5) The sox have a lot of low pay players on the roster. The worst case for this year on a per year basis is unlikely to hurt the organization a whole lot in the near future. (Vasquez, Xander, Betts, JBJ, Kelly, RDLR, Webster and so on are all playing for minimal money and Pedey, Napoli, Cespedes, Napoli, Shane and Papi are all well off top money and/ or are on short years). This is a sweet spot to take this kind of risk.
I don't know if this guy will work out, but if he can play CF and has real speed the bar of hitting to justify the contract is low.
I'm very confused how all the pieces fit, but there is a whole offseason plus to change that, so I'm willing to be patient.
As someone mentioned I ever more confused on the craig move. Some are suggesting Craig had negative value, which I don't get at all. And if he was negative value then the LAckey for Kelly minus trade looks bizarre and maybe horrible. Picking up money to downgrade from lackey to kelly just seems weird. Maybe the team is super high on Kelly, but eh.
Assuming that line of thinking is incorrect, then they had a plan for Craig. They already had JBJ and Betts and Shane and Nava and Cespedes and Stanton. Oh wait that's not real. 1B has Napoli and DH has Papi. Craig can't really play RF IMO so he's for LF if he's playing everyday next year. The year after fine a lot of options.
Edit: btw the Yanks just discovered they could use money to acquire ALL the IFA talent. The fact they haven't been in on the cubans is mind boggling. In this specific case I think it makes sense (as they have a number of similar players already), but how they weren't in on some of the others is just... well good but bizarre.
1) The cubans recently have nearly all outperformed expectations, to some extent that's going to help access future players. All the recent cuban deals look great value
2) It's getting ever harder to use money to acquire talent. The draft is now controlled and an IFA draft basically appears a done deal at some point. The smarter teams all en mass just blew up the IFA pools in a nothing special year of talent. Guys who wouldn't have got much under the old system got top dollars. This despite penalties for overspending too!
3) Pitching is ruling hitting in the majors at the moment, the bar for a good defensive player with speed is a lot lower than it was a few years ago. I mean look at JBJ, his defense alone (as he's not quick) is nearly offsetting one of the worst stat lines in modern history.
4) Money is flooding the game, AND teams are getting smarter at locking up young talent.
5) The sox have a lot of low pay players on the roster. The worst case for this year on a per year basis is unlikely to hurt the organization a whole lot in the near future. (Vasquez, Xander, Betts, JBJ, Kelly, RDLR, Webster and so on are all playing for minimal money and Pedey, Napoli, Cespedes, Napoli, Shane and Papi are all well off top money and/ or are on short years). This is a sweet spot to take this kind of risk.
I don't know if this guy will work out, but if he can play CF and has real speed the bar of hitting to justify the contract is low.
I'm very confused how all the pieces fit, but there is a whole offseason plus to change that, so I'm willing to be patient.
As someone mentioned I ever more confused on the craig move. Some are suggesting Craig had negative value, which I don't get at all. And if he was negative value then the LAckey for Kelly minus trade looks bizarre and maybe horrible. Picking up money to downgrade from lackey to kelly just seems weird. Maybe the team is super high on Kelly, but eh.
Assuming that line of thinking is incorrect, then they had a plan for Craig. They already had JBJ and Betts and Shane and Nava and Cespedes and Stanton. Oh wait that's not real. 1B has Napoli and DH has Papi. Craig can't really play RF IMO so he's for LF if he's playing everyday next year. The year after fine a lot of options.
Edit: btw the Yanks just discovered they could use money to acquire ALL the IFA talent. The fact they haven't been in on the cubans is mind boggling. In this specific case I think it makes sense (as they have a number of similar players already), but how they weren't in on some of the others is just... well good but bizarre.
LondonSox said:
My main worry with this is that, eventually one will be a turd, or at least underperform to one degree or another. I don't know if it will be Rusney, but they can't all overperform their expectations.
Felger just made a good point: he added 20 pounds of muscle in between seasons.
If I'm a Cuban refugee, not being subjected to testing, and looking to maximize my contract for teams in a few showcases/workouts.....pass me the needle.
I'm sure the Sox realize this is a possibility, but the concern remains that he feels the need to continue using.
If I'm a Cuban refugee, not being subjected to testing, and looking to maximize my contract for teams in a few showcases/workouts.....pass me the needle.
I'm sure the Sox realize this is a possibility, but the concern remains that he feels the need to continue using.
"So-and-so added X pounds of muscle in the offseason" is a line the media has been throwing out for decades and it's almost always bullshit (or greatly exaggerated).
Infield Infidel said:
Every roster move a team makes carries some risk/opportunity cost. This one is mostly financial and, in the context of the market for position players - especially those that have similar skill sets - it isn't that great.
Even if Castillo turns out to be a bust, it isn't nearly as bad as paying an over-30 Ellsbury ~$22mm per year through his 37th birthday, no matter how hard some here stamp their tiny little bowl-cut shadowed feet. This contract is exactly the type of risk a team with the Sox resources should take.
The thing that stands out in looking at those stats is how little the walk rate translates. I wonder if these superstars in Cuba are just regularly pitched around/intentionally walked to that great of an extent.
I think you could run some regressions at this point without getting laughed at if someone was so inclined.
I think you could run some regressions at this point without getting laughed at if someone was so inclined.
So does this wipe out the
"International Bonus Money" for the next 10 years?
Seriously though, does it in any way impact that international rule in any way?
"International Bonus Money" for the next 10 years?
Seriously though, does it in any way impact that international rule in any way?
That it wasn't first reported on the radio to generate calls from Mouthbreather Nation?The Allented Mr Ripley said:
Without going into all the specific numbers and all that, I like the gamble and I want to see him in Boston ASAP. The Sox aren't playing for anything except getting out of last in the East and watching a guy like that would make the last month of the year interesting.
I remember seeing on MLBTR that it doesn't. I'll look for a linkstrek1 said:So does this wipe out the
"International Bonus Money" for the next 10 years?
Seriously though, does it in any way impact that international rule in any way?
Infield Infidel said:
Well, that's why it's our job around here to keep expectations nice and low. :buddy:
I guess Viciedo isn't that recent any more, and it might be a little unfair to call him a turd, but he hasn't been very good--fringe-average offense and meh defense at the least demanding positions. So there's that.
That's a good point. Even though it's a gamble since he's an unproven talent at this level, the odds aren't terrible, and the outlay is not that much*.DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
*It's hard to look at $70m these days as "not that much".
CaskNFappin said:
Maybe so, but considering that news of "X pounds of added muscle" originates from a player or his agent, I've always dismissed it as useless (if not questionable) knowledge.
Not sure why the impliccation of your post is that I'd be opposed to this signing. I've said I like it three times, partly because its a risk worth taking. But, to repeat, given the way they value defense, plus the clear indication in scouting reports that he can play above-average CF and RF, it's not even clear to me that they would see this as all that big a risk. On an AAV standpoint, the upside and downside risks seem completely balanced to me.DeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
One thing these Cuban guys seem to have in common (Although I know it's hard to generalize) is toughness. Not a fragile looking one in the bunch. Hopefully that means less breakdowns.
Infield Infidel said:
Don't really need to look much farther than J.C. Linares. He was billed as an "advanced defensive center fielder with above-average range" with better batting numbers in Cuban baseball than Castillo.
He came to the states at age 25 having OPSed over 1.000 as a three-year average, but then couldn't actually play CF well even when he could stay on the field, and never made it to the Show.
Plympton91 said:
Fair enough. I know you think little of the FO but this move, along with their recent trades shows me they are adjusting to the market (where offense, especially from young cost-controlled players, is now at a premium).
The Sox clearly seem to have adopted the Alderson/Beane/St. Louis model of building a contender via a portfolio of young talent, supplemented with undervalued veterans and relatively cheap fliers such as Castillo. Given the market dynamics, it seems to be a better path to take versus signing ~30 year old players to long, expensive contracts that reward them for their previous accomplishments.
O course that may have been just prior to the latest Cuban "Training regimen"Buzzkill Pauley said:
If the Sox viewed Kelly as the main or only asset in the Lackey deal, I don't think it's strictly about money. I'm sure the Sox see Kelly as being a young guy who is improving AND who is controlled thru 2018 vs Lackey who is likely declining and is gone after next year.LondonSox said:
I also think Lackey was going to be disruptive if not given a new deal (whataprick)
Saying I have a low opinion of the front office is ridiculously simplistic interpretation. But, overall, I like the front office that built the deep depth of the 2013 team, I just wondered where it went while the 2014 team was depth charged last winter. But, my vehement disagreement with two moves from last offseason and what I perceive to be my far greater skepticism of so-called advanced defensive metrics than their recent bidding behavior suggests they do hardly translates to "thinking little" of their overall portfolio, which includes building a top 5 or so farm system in the game. Of course, as I said, it seems likely that their emphasis on defense made them more comfortable with going as far as they did for Castillo, so sometimes even my criticisms work out to something I likeDeJesus Built My Hotrod said:
. I agree with your assessment of an apparent adoption of the A's / Rays / Cardinals approach, I just don't see why their budget requires that to be the case. It seems to me like they could have a "core budget" of around $105-115 million, wherein they apply the A's, Rays, and Cardinals approach to build 95 percent of the organization from the major league roster to minor league free agents, to the amateur draft and the international signings. Given their track record, it seems to me that would generate the level of success enjoyed by the A's and Cards. But then on top of that they should be able to afford a superstar budget of around $70-80 million to retain people like Lester, Ortiz, and Ellsbury. That would fit the model of spending up to but not over the luxury tax threshold. Those numbers are just illustrative, too; you could move $10-$20 million between those two categories without defeating the overall point.
The used to talk this way, I remember the discussion specifically going that route with Henry talking about the Matsuzaka posting fee coming out of a different budget than everything else. This signing could also fall into that bucket, though unlike the posting fee it counts against the luxury tax.
It's interesting that Dombrowski said the Tigers found out on Monday they were out. Does that mean that the Giants came in second or the Sox were finishing this up with Castillo the last 4 days?
Papelbon's Poutine said:
This is an issue with your browser. I posted the text directly in that post.
E5 Yaz said:
A 27-year-old McCutcheon sounds great -- does the comparison apply? A Gardner with power sounded nice too, but his plate discipline sounds like a negative, whereas Gardner's is excellent.
I wonder if the Red Sox have consciously downgraded patience and plate discipline in their trade and prospect evaluations. Trading for Cespedes and signing Castillo may have something to do with Farrell's views about the larger strike zone and the declining of patience-based offenses. Adding stolen bases to the lineup, with Ellsbury gone and Victorino hobbled, may be Castillo's biggest impact on the offense, but I will be surprised if Castillo doesn't look like a hacker in 2015.
I wouldn't really put Linares, or even Iglesias in the category of Puig, Abreu, Cespedes, or now Castillo. Linares wasn't on a big money deal, his signing bonus was a whopping $750,000.
At $10m/yr, Castillo is going to be expected to perform right away
At $10m/yr, Castillo is going to be expected to perform right away
- Status