Next man up, err I mean Down: Craig

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Does this also apply to Castillo's salary?

 
Does what apply to Castillo's salary?  Not counting versus the luxury tax like Craig?  No, it doesn't because Castillo is still on the 40-man roster.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
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.

 
I get that people are looking for positives here, but this really shouldn't be considered any kind of "plus" by any stretch. It's a good thing that the Red Sox traded for someone so useless that 29 other teams wouldn't even take him on for free? I wouldn't call this the worst-case scenario, but it's still pretty terrible. 

 

[MikeM]

 
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.

 
Like the Moncada signing before this, that logic really only adds up as a whole if John Henry is indeed paying for these expenses out of his own pocket. 
 
I mean it's one thing to both point out and stress the difference in how to view some of that cash being spent. Given our general understanding on how this ownership operates, nobody questions the importance in doing so. I just don't quite get how some people go from there to frankensteining such a difference into a rather defensive illusion that any large sum not being LT'd should be viewed as "irrelevant", or that the guys down in accounting actually are in all reality stuffing those envelopes with monopoly money. 
 
Money is money, regardless how the checks going out the door are being written out. Whether it's a non-taxable $13m we are spending on foreign import X or $10m + the 30% "i don't want my pitching to suck" tax being paid out to MLB Starter Y, there will always be multiple ways to spend it, and in the end it all adds up the relative same.
 
So while it's great news to hear that Craig's salary wouldn't count against the LT going forward, i don't see how that changes the fact that he still played out to be a rather terrible investment. Not to mention a waste of resources that by any rational account could have been spent on something else.

 

[DanoooME]

 
I get that people are looking for positives here, but this really shouldn't be considered any kind of "plus" by any stretch. It's a good thing that the Red Sox traded for someone so useless that 29 other teams wouldn't even take him on for free? I wouldn't call this the worst-case scenario, but it's still pretty terrible. 

 
He wouldn't be free.  If anyone claimed him on waivers, they'd get his contract in full too.  Nobody wants to pay $20+M for the right to have him on their roster.

 

[WenZink]

 
Like the Moncada signing before this, that logic really only adds up as a whole if John Henry is indeed paying for these expenses out of his own pocket. 
 
I mean it's one thing to both point out and stress the difference in how to view some of that cash being spent. Given our general understanding on how this ownership operates, nobody questions the importance in doing so. I just don't quite get how some people go from there to frankensteining such a difference into a rather defensive illusion that any large sum not being LT'd should be viewed as "irrelevant", or that the guys down in accounting actually are in all reality stuffing those envelopes with monopoly money. 
 
Money is money, regardless how the checks going out the door are being written out. Whether it's a non-taxable $13m we are spending on foreign import X or $10m + the 30% "i don't want my pitching to suck" tax being paid out to MLB Starter Y, there will always be multiple ways to spend it, and in the end it all adds up the relative same.
 
So while it's great news to hear that Craig's salary wouldn't count against the LT going forward, i don't see how that changes the fact that he still played out to be a rather terrible investment. Not to mention a waste of resources that by any rational account could have been spent on something else.

 
You've given the worst case scenario, but it has yet to be "played out."  Craig is still in the Red Sox system.  He may recover his hitting stroke with regular playing time, be put back on the 40 man roster, called back up to the majors and be the 2+ WAR player that he was with the Cardinals.  Or maybe even a partial recovery piques the interest of another club and the Sox get them to pick up part of Craig's compensation.  Meanwhile they still have Joe Kelly under club control.through 2018.
 
If Craig never recovers, at least they've mitigated the cost of the worst case.  But let it play out.

 

[MikeM]

 
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. 

 
Of course this tended to ignore the counter fact that this is the Red Sox we are talking about, and we most certainly won't be handing Craig the keys to a starting 1st base gig next year while taking a "forced into doing it" stance on the matter. The same core question that made him a long shot bet then applies even more so now. What would Allen Craig have to realistically do between now and the end of the season to seriously warrant having us NOT commit in a different direction?
 
On that note, wouldn't the ability to write him out of our future LT payments ultimately up the chances we see Craig simply get a full out release this winter, in the event we don't find anybody willing to take a further cost reducing flyer by then? Or can we basically do the same thing next year as long as he's still under the 5 years service time? 

 

[alwyn96]

 
Like the Moncada signing before this, that logic really only adds up as a whole if John Henry is indeed paying for these expenses out of his own pocket. 
 
I mean it's one thing to both point out and stress the difference in how to view some of that cash being spent. Given our general understanding on how this ownership operates, nobody questions the importance in doing so. I just don't quite get how some people go from there to frankensteining such a difference into a rather defensive illusion that any large sum not being LT'd should be viewed as "irrelevant", or that the guys down in accounting actually are in all reality stuffing those envelopes with monopoly money. 
 
Money is money, regardless how the checks going out the door are being written out. Whether it's a non-taxable $13m we are spending on foreign import X or $10m + the 30% "i don't want my pitching to suck" tax being paid out to MLB Starter Y, there will always be multiple ways to spend it, and in the end it all adds up the relative same.
 
So while it's great news to hear that Craig's salary wouldn't count against the LT going forward, i don't see how that changes the fact that he still played out to be a rather terrible investment. Not to mention a waste of resources that by any rational account could have been spent on something else.

 
I don't see how it ends up to be the same. LT dollars are different than non-LT dollars. The big tax on Moncada didn't prevent the FO from spending right up to the LT line, like they have almost every year since Henry bought the team. That's all I care about. How is that "defensive"? Or "frankensteining"? That seems like a weird response. I'm just a simple man who just wants his team to not be hamstrung by a bad contract. As they seem to have avoided that fate, that's a good thing. If they do wind up changing their spending habits and spending less on major league salary then they have in the past (and subsequently fielding a worse team), then yeah, that would be bad. That hasn't really been what the team has done in the past, though.
 
I don't think anyone is saying Craig doesn't suck and his contract looks pretty bad right now. We're all well aware that he sucks. I just think it's nice that his contract likely doesn't effect the rest of the team payroll, if the past is any guide. I'll take my pleasant surprises where I can get them.

 

[johnnywayback]

It really is too bad -- even 60% of what Craig was 24 months ago would be exactly what the team needs: a RHH 1B/OF with a history of good at-bats with runners on who could hedge against a Napoli collapse or lurk on the bench for when tough lefties get brought in against Ortiz or Sandoval.  In fact, if he had just been outrighted to the Memphis Redbirds, and we could get him for free (i.e., at the minimum salary), the upside is such a perfect fit for what we need that I bet a few folks here would be itching to take a flier on him.
 
So, very much too bad that it seems we'll never see even 60% of the old Allen Craig again, but, I think, it was worth a shot, especially since it won't affect the luxury tax equation.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Of course this tended to ignore the counter fact that this is the Red Sox we are talking about, and we most certainly won't be handing Craig the keys to a starting 1st base gig next year while taking a "forced into doing it" stance on the matter. The same core question that made him a long shot bet then applies even more so now. What would Allen Craig have to realistically do between now and the end of the season to seriously warrant having us NOT commit in a different direction?
 
On that note, wouldn't the ability to write him out of our future LT payments ultimately up the chances we see Craig simply get a full out release this winter, in the event we don't find anybody willing to take a further cost reducing flyer by then? Or can we basically do the same thing next year as long as he's still under the 5 years service time? 

Unless he shows significant improvement and they call him back up and restore him to the 40-man roster, his service time is frozen right where it is. Craig is a minor leaguer now until his contract expires and the Sox are under no obligation to treat him as anything more than that.

So for the sake of future discussions, we should just assume that any talk of Craig returning to the big leagues in a Red Sox uniform means he's recovered his form and can/will be a productive player. The days of the team trotting out 2014-vintage Allen Craig are absolutely over.

 

[TigerBlood]

Unless he shows significant improvement and they call him back up and restore him to the 40-man roster, his service time is frozen right where it is. Craig is a minor leaguer now until his contract expires and the Sox are under no obligation to treat him as anything more than that.

So for the sake of future discussions, we should just assume that any talk of Craig returning to the big leagues in a Red Sox uniform means he's recovered his form and can/will be a productive player. The days of the team trotting out 2014-vintage Allen Craig are absolutely over.

This may be a little off topic, but I'm so happy this is the way MLB contracts work. Boston gets to keep him in the system, give him work in the minors and an opportunity to rebound, and Craig still gets paid without it directly affecting the MLB payroll (I'm of the opinion that Craig's contract, because it's not counting against the LT anymore, is essentially insignificant). I don't know too much about the NHL or the NBA, but if this were the NFL, Craig would probably only have something like 750k guaranteed money or something and would find himself out of professional sports.

 

[Drek717]

What would Allen Craig have to realistically do between now and the end of the season to seriously warrant having us NOT commit in a different direction?

Well, Craig has 4.077 years of service time (per BBRef), so if they keep him in AAA until a minimum of about the mid-point of the season that would give the club almost half the season to try him out in 2016 before passing the waiver point where they could dodge the remaining LT implications of his contract.
 
Short of him raking in AAA for a month or two, replacing Napoli at 1B, and then raking there for the rest of 2015 I don't see where the club can go into 2016 with Craig as the only option at any position.  But going into 2016 with a 1B + OF + DH situation of Ramirez, Betts, Castillo, Bradley, Craig, and the best bat they can add in the off-season would give them six guys for five starting spots.
 
Maybe something like Hanley to DH with some 1B and LF time here and there, Betts and Castillo in CF and RF still, Craig as the 1B taking some time at DH and LF, then splash on Justin Upton as the starting LF?  Then if Craig is still a pumpkin they could potentially move Hanley to 1B full-time and free up DH for the best bat they can find from anywhere, or to implement a rotation to help rest players more efficiently.
 
There are definitely ways to make use of Craig.  Him clearing the 40 man and having his service clock frozen makes that far more likely I would say, as the Sox can now safely hang onto him without LT implications, bring him up when they think he's ready, play him for almost another year, and if they don't like what they see outright him again to either see another team take the money or at a minimum avoid LT implications themselves for the most expensive year of his deal (2017).

 

[Rovin Romine]

Craig's a sunk cost (one which is now not impacting the LT), so he'll be at AAA until something good happens for him, baseball-wise.  He won't be displacing any plus bat prospects at Pawtucket.  
 
Here's a question though - if Craig puts up a .900 plus OPS in AAA, do you trade him or call him up?

 

[benhogan]

  But going into 2016 with a 1B + OF + DH situation of Ramirez, Betts, Castillo, Bradley, Craig, and the best bat they can add in the off-season would give them six guys for five starting spots.
 
Maybe something like Hanley to DH with some 1B and LF time here and there, Betts and Castillo in CF and RF still, Craig as the 1B taking some time at DH and LF, then splash on Justin Upton as the starting LF?  Then if Craig is still a pumpkin they could potentially move Hanley to 1B full-time and free up DH for the best bat they can find from anywhere, or to implement a rotation to help rest players more efficiently.
 
 

 
 
Sounds like you have written off David Ortiz or did you just forget?

 

[moondog80]

Craig's a sunk cost (one which is now not impacting the LT), so he'll be at AAA until something good happens for him, baseball-wise.  He won't be displacing any plus bat prospects at Pawtucket.  
 
Here's a question though - if Craig puts up a .900 plus OPS in AAA, do you trade him or call him up?

 if there's a taker, trade him.
 
Here's my question; this ability to take him off the 40 man and not have him count against the luxury tax, how much more service time does he get before that goes away?  I would think that if the answer is say, 50 days, he'll have 49 days to really prove himself if/when he gets called back up.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 if there's a taker, trade him.
 
Here's my question; this ability to take him off the 40 man and not have him count against the luxury tax, how much more service time does he get before that goes away?  I would think that if the answer is say, 50 days, he'll have 49 days to really prove himself if/when he gets called back up.

He's not getting recalled to the big leagues unless he shows marked and sustained improvement for an extended period of time in AAA. So I don't think a "trial" period framed by his service clock is ever going to be in play. If he returns to the Red Sox roster, it won't be an experiment or as a flier, it will be as a player expected to meaningfully contribute for the remainder of his contract. Otherwise he stays right where he is.

 

[soxhop411]

 
ALLEN CRAIG’S FALL FROM GRACE: The Red Sox outrighted Allen Craig to Triple A Pawtucket and removed him from their 40-man roster — meaning that every team in the big leagues passed on the opportunity to claim him on waivers, a startling fall from grace for a player who is two years removed from All-Star status. Peter Abraham details the move.
The move has a couple of ramifications. First, as long as he’s outrighted off the 40-man roster, Craig doesn’t count against the luxury tax threshold, meaning that the Sox could save hundreds of thousands of dollars (perhaps to reinvest in the payroll) unless he rejoins the big league roster. Secondly, if Craig isn’t added back to the major league roster by the end of this year, he has the right to declare free agency anytime between the end of this season and the following Oct. 15. However, in order to do so, he’d have to forfeit the $21 million he’s owed after this year

from 108 Stitches

 

[JimD]

He will have only made $11.3 million through this year - no way he gives up that remaining $21 million.

 

[threecy]

He will have only made $11.3 million through this year - no way he gives up that remaining $21 million.

Unless the Red Sox make his life miserable enough that he opts to leave or retire...

 

[TigerBlood]

Unless the Red Sox make his life miserable enough that he opts to leave or retire...

What does this even mean? Name one thing the franchise could do to Craig to make him so miserable as to forfeit 21 million dollars?

 

[Drek717]

 
 
Sounds like you have written off David Ortiz or did you just forget?

Not written off, he'll make the argument with his bat this season.  If he starts hitting he'll remove the need for another bat.  If he doesn't I wouldn't expect him to come back for another season given his age and the dramatic reduction to his role that would be guaranteed following a poor season.

 

[C4CRVT]

I'm not Allen Craig but you could pay me 21 million to bounce around the minors for a few more years. I would not be offended. He might be, depending on how far down they send him.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

I'm not Allen Craig but you could pay me 21 million to bounce around the minors for a few more years. I would not be offended. He might be, depending on how far down they send him.

Perhaps he'd be offended.  Or disappointed.  Or upset.  Or frustrated.  Or whatever.
But I can think of nothing--literally nothing--that the team could do that would cause him to leave or retire, thereby forfeiting $21 million.

 

[threecy]

What does this even mean? Name one thing the franchise could do to Craig to make him so miserable as to forfeit 21 million dollars?

What are some of the possible outcomes?
- He heats up enough to get the Sox to recall him.
- He heats up enough to garner interest from other teams (are the Red Sox willing to eat the balance of his salary to clear a spot in the minors)?
- He heats up enough to have a future, but the Sox leave him in the minors, hurting his chances at earnings after the contract.
- He stumbles along until the Sox decide to cut ties.
- He stumbles along in the Sox minors for the balance of his contract (Okie?)
- He stops trying and phones it in for the paycheck (does he slip up and give the Sox an out?)
- He tries and realizes he's toast and pulls a Dempster/Foulke

 

[TigerBlood]

What are some of the possible outcomes?
- He heats up enough to get the Sox to recall him.
- He heats up enough to garner interest from other teams (are the Red Sox willing to eat the balance of his salary to clear a spot in the minors)?
- He heats up enough to have a future, but the Sox leave him in the minors, hurting his chances at earnings after the contract.
- He stumbles along until the Sox decide to cut ties.
- He stumbles along in the Sox minors for the balance of his contract (Okie?)
- He stops trying and phones it in for the paycheck (does he slip up and give the Sox an out?)
- He tries and realizes he's toast and pulls a Dempster/Foulke

I don't want to argue semantics but none of those are "the Red Sox making him miserable". I was thinking you meant benching him full time or sending him to random Venezuelan leagues all winter, wearing a jersey that says "I SUCK" instead of CRAIG, etc.

 

[MikeM]

What does this even mean? Name one thing the franchise could do to Craig to make him so miserable as to forfeit 21 million dollars?

 
Well, with the LT ramifications and always present flexibility to go in a different direction that offers more certainty, they would in all reality be severely hampering any legitimate opportunity for Craig to turn his career around. Spending the next 2.5 years rotting away in AAA essentially shuts the window and calls it a MLB career.
 
I ultimately can't see him giving up the sure thing money, but i wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that Craig ends up making a bet on himself either. I mean in the end it's "only" $21m. Hypothetically speaking, if he manages to have a strong showing in AAA going into the winter, parlays that into an opt out that nets him a 1 year/couple million flyer somewhere else, and then manages to post a halfway decent season in 2016....in terms of a lifetime earnings gain out of playing MLB baseball it's doable.
 
Or here's to hoping i guess. 

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

seems to me that the best hope is that he does reasonably well at AAA--well enough that there is either the possibility he can play for the Red Sox or else be dealt to someone if the Sox eat part of his salary

 

[smastroyin]

there are two basic scenarios.
 
He steps up his performance to the point that he is worth the contract, in which case the Red Sox will not want to just let him go for free.
He continues to perform poorly enough that he can't earn a roster spot, in which case he won't want to be a FA.
 
Now, I suppose there is in there a narrow window where his performance upticks but not enough for the Red Sox to give him a job.  This would go along with Ortiz, Napoli, and some RFer stepping up performance enough that he is not an upgrade.  In this case, his pride and thoughts of a bigger payday may get him to forego $21 million guaranteed in exchange for a "make-good" contract somewhere, OR the Red Sox can trade him with some salary relief (say, picking up $10-15 million of the gauranteed money)  But I think that window really is more narrow than people think.

 

[jasail]

there are two basic scenarios.
 
He steps up his performance to the point that he is worth the contract, in which case the Red Sox will not want to just let him go for free.
He continues to perform poorly enough that he can't earn a roster spot, in which case he won't want to be a FA.
 
Now, I suppose there is in there a narrow window where his performance upticks but not enough for the Red Sox to give him a job.  This would go along with Ortiz, Napoli, and some RFer stepping up performance enough that he is not an upgrade.  In this case, his pride and thoughts of a bigger payday may get him to forego $21 million guaranteed in exchange for a "make-good" contract somewhere, OR the Red Sox can trade him with some salary relief (say, picking up $10-15 million of the gauranteed money)  But I think that window really is more narrow than people think.

 
I tend to agree. Either his performance improves to the point where they want him on the 25 man roster or his performance continues to be poor and they pay him to play for a minor league affiliate. I think the chance that his performance improves to a point where another team is willing to incur part or all of his contract, but the Sox aren't willing to play him is awfully limited and I think the chance that he is willing to take the risk of forgoing $21M to get a make good contract is negligible. 

 

[koufax37]

Allan Craig had a 930 OPS over 850 PAs in Triple-A in 2009-2010, prompting his call up in 2010, his part time role in 2011, and his full time role in 2012 and 2013 as an excellent major league hitter.
 
He is not in the "hopeful" Will Middlebrooks territory.  He either displays his 2009/10 form in Pawtucket over an extended period, causing coaches and scouts to believe he has returned to being the hitter he was, or he stays there for the duration of his contract.
 
The cost is sunk, and his alternatives involve walking away from more money than he would warrant on the open market, so if he doesn't regain his form prompting a callup or trade to a team more optimistic than our own, he will play through the 2017 season as a minor leaguer.  That is a BIG window for him to regain his form that he lost, be 100% healthy, and reassert his previous value. Given that it spans his 30 to 32 age years, there isn't a big age reason (other than sample size of failure) to think that he will not have a reasonable chance dependent on health/skill/desire.
 
If he reaches a point where he decides he will never make it back, and he doesn't like being a minor leaguer, he can retire and leave money on the table, but given that he has earned less so far than he would be leaving, he isn't completely in the "set for life" category.
 
So our Allan Craig watch is really on pause while he figures stuff out out of the limelight, and the first time he puts together 200 ABs (not a hot few weeks) of looking like his old self, we can start to watch his next few hundred ABs to see if it is a reality.
 
I believe they also have the option to give him a "cup of coffee" later in the season if they want to test out a hot streak without any other downside than sending him back down and adding then removing him again from the 40 man, since he would still be under the 5 year service time. So while I'm mostly looking for a 400PA sample size and a good ST next year to see where he fits in, he might earn a no-big-cost September MLB test if he can demonstrate he has figured it out over the next few months.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Allan Craig had a 930 OPS over 850 PAs in Triple-A in 2009-2010, prompting his call up in 2010, his part time role in 2011, and his full time role in 2012 and 2013 as an excellent major league hitter.
 
He is not in the "hopeful" Will Middlebrooks territory.  He either displays his 2009/10 form in Pawtucket over an extended period, causing coaches and scouts to believe he has returned to being the hitter he was, or he stays there for the duration of his contract.
 
The cost is sunk, and his alternatives involve walking away from more money than he would warrant on the open market, so if he doesn't regain his form prompting a callup or trade to a team more optimistic than our own, he will play through the 2017 season as a minor leaguer.  That is a BIG window for him to regain his form that he lost, be 100% healthy, and reassert his previous value. Given that it spans his 30 to 32 age years, there isn't a big age reason (other than sample size of failure) to think that he will not have a reasonable chance dependent on health/skill/desire.
 
If he reaches a point where he decides he will never make it back, and he doesn't like being a minor leaguer, he can retire and leave money on the table, but given that he has earned less so far than he would be leaving, he isn't completely in the "set for life" category.
 
So our Allan Craig watch is really on pause while he figures stuff out out of the limelight, and the first time he puts together 200 ABs (not a hot few weeks) of looking like his old self, we can start to watch his next few hundred ABs to see if it is a reality.
 
I believe they also have the option to give him a "cup of coffee" later in the season if they want to test out a hot streak without any other downside than sending him back down and adding then removing him again from the 40 man, since he would still be under the 5 year service time. So while I'm mostly looking for a 400PA sample size and a good ST next year to see where he fits in, he might earn a no-big-cost September MLB test if he can demonstrate he has figured it out over the next few months.

 
Unless he shows remarkable improvement between now and the end of Pawtucket's season, he's not getting a "cup of coffee" in September.  There's no way the Red Sox add him back to the 40-man unless they're convinced he can stick.  They're unlikely to learn anything in 2-3 weeks worth of games in September that they can't also learn in Fort Myers with him in camp as a non-roster invitee.

 

[keninten]

Is their a possibility Craig decides he wants a better chance to get back to the big league so he negotiates some kind of buy out. Maybe $10-12 mil instead of the guaranteed $21 mil? He`d be giving up alot but could regain some if he makes it back up with another team. 
 
I`m amazed the Sox found another way to spend money not against the cap. Wonder how much of this they had figured out before the trade.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Is their a possibility Craig decides he wants a better chance to get back to the big league so he negotiates some kind of buy out. Maybe $10-12 mil instead of the guaranteed $21 mil? He`d be giving up alot but could regain some if he makes it back up with another team. 
 
I`m amazed the Sox found another way to spend money not against the cap. Wonder how much of this they had figured out before the trade.

 
He'd be gambling a whole lot on himself to walk away from a guaranteed $8-10M in the hopes of latching on to a new team and playing well enough to earn a new big contract.  Have to think the best he's going to do as a free agent right now is a minor league deal, which basically puts him right back where he is now.  Why give up millions to do essentially what he's already doing in Pawtucket?
 
I imagine the Sox knew this was a possibility, but I doubt very much they acquired Craig expecting to have to do it.  This is a fairly rare situation...a player without enough service time to object or opt-out but who's signed to a large enough contract that no one else will take a flier by claiming him on waivers.  It's not something that can be "taken advantage of" very often.

 

[Bowlerman9]

Is their a possibility Craig decides he wants a better chance to get back to the big league so he negotiates some kind of buy out. Maybe $10-12 mil instead of the guaranteed $21 mil? He`d be giving up alot but could regain some if he makes it back up with another team. 
 
I`m amazed the Sox found another way to spend money not against the cap. Wonder how much of this they had figured out before the trade.

 
No, there is no chance this happens. And the union wouldnt allow it, either.
 
The only time there's ever been a buyout was when Jason Bay had 2 years left with the Mets (or it may have been 1 year plus a huge buyout the next uear). The buyout was for the equivalent of the NPV of the contract less $500k, with the condition that anything he made over the next year didnt go back to the Mets. Bay signed a contract for $1M and came out $500k ahead. The "win" for the Mets was that they saved $500k that they would have saved had he signed elsewhere, anyways.
 
So no, unless the Sox offer him a $19M buyout and the offer to keep any future earnings, he isnt going to take a buyout. Especially for $10-$12M.

 

[Ramon AC]

This is a fairly rare situation...a player without enough service time to object or opt-out but who's signed to a large enough contract that no one else will take a flier by claiming him on waivers.  It's not something that can be "taken advantage of" very often.

Isn't this what the Yankees did with Kei Igawa for a few years?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Isn't this what the Yankees did with Kei Igawa for a few years?

 
Yes. They outrighted him in the second year of his five year deal, and he stayed with their AAA affiliate for the duration of his contract.  He was in another rather unique situation in that he was an international pro signed to an MLB deal.
 
For "homegrown" players (in the sense that they're drafted and come up through a system), it's pretty rare that one gets a long term multi-million dollar deal during the first five years of his MLB career.  Typically, the guys that get those are the no-doubters like Evan Longoria.  Otherwise, there's no reason for the team to invest when they've already got full control of the player for the first six years of his career.  To have a guy perform well enough to get the long-term deal and then fall off a cliff is rare.

 

[joe dokes]

 
I imagine the Sox knew this was a possibility, but I doubt very much they acquired Craig expecting to have to do it.  This is a fairly rare situation...a player without enough service time to object or opt-out but who's signed to a large enough contract that no one else will take a flier by claiming him on waivers.  It's not something that can be "taken advantage of" very often.

 
It *is* a really interesting CBA provision. It serves as a slight hedge for teams who sign young/inexperienced players to biggish deals (still have to pay him, but off the 40 man, no LT counting and he'll leave as a FA (contract not your problem anymore) if he's pissed) and gives the player *something* in that he can become a FA before he would have otherwise. (do I have that right?) if he's willing to take the chance or desperate to leave the organization.
 
 
Who thinks of this stuff enough to say, "oh lets have a provision about *this* class of players."?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
It *is* a really interesting CBA provision. It serves as a slight hedge for teams who sign young/inexperienced players to biggish deals (still have to pay him, but off the 40 man, no LT counting and he'll leave as a FA (contract not your problem anymore) if he's pissed) and gives the player *something* in that he can become a FA before he would have otherwise. (do I have that right?) if he's willing to take the chance or desperate to leave the organization.
 
 
Who thinks of this stuff enough to say, "oh lets have a provision about *this* class of players."?

 
The player doesn't get to become a FA earlier, since he's still under contract until it expires (in Craig's case, after the 2017 season).  Unless you mean that he's a free agent before he officially earns six years of MLB service time. In that sense, any player can ostensibly become a free agent in that way simply by the team deciding to release him.  No need for a long term contract at all.
 
This is how David Ortiz came to be available to the Red Sox.  He only had a shade over four years of service time when they signed him because the Twins chose to release him rather than go to arbitration with him.  Once he cleared waivers, he was able to go where ever he desired.

 

[Rasputin]

 
The player doesn't get to become a FA earlier, since he's still under contract until it expires (in Craig's case, after the 2017 season).  Unless you mean that he's a free agent before he officially earns six years of MLB service time. In that sense, any player can ostensibly become a free agent in that way simply by the team deciding to release him.  No need for a long term contract at all.
 
This is how David Ortiz came to be available to the Red Sox.  He only had a shade over four years of service time when they signed him because the Twins chose to release him rather than go to arbitration with him.  Once he cleared waivers, he was able to go where ever he desired.

 
He becomes a free agent earlier because he's allowed to opt out of his contract in the off season. It's a page or two back.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
He becomes a free agent earlier because he's allowed to opt out of his contract in the off season. It's a page or two back.

 
Link for that so I don't have to dig through the thread?  I don't remember seeing anything about him having the option to opt-out of the contract.  Is it wording in his own contract or some kind of CBA thing?  Because I would presume that if it was a CBA thing, the same option would have been available to Kei Igawa, yet he was stuck in Scranton through the expiration of his five-year deal after the 2011 season.  The only thing he apparently had the power to do was refuse to go back to Japan when the Yankees twice attempted to sell his contract to an NPB team.

 

[Rasputin]

 
Link for that so I don't have to dig through the thread?  I don't remember seeing anything about him having the option to opt-out of the contract.  Is it wording in his own contract or some kind of CBA thing?  Because I would presume that if it was a CBA thing, the same option would have been available to Kei Igawa, yet he was stuck in Scranton through the expiration of his five-year deal after the 2011 season.  The only thing he apparently had the power to do was refuse to go back to Japan when the Yankees twice attempted to sell his contract to an NPB team.

 
The thread's only four pages long, dude. It's a CBA thing, and I think the option was available to Igawa, he just didn't take it because he really wanted to pitch in the US. 

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
The thread's only four pages long, dude. It's a CBA thing, and I think the option was available to Igawa, he just didn't take it because he really wanted to pitch in the US. 

 
Four pages long, but all of the posts since he was outrighted are on page four.  And I have re-read every post on page four and see nothing that indicates that Craig can opt-out this winter.  So I'd appreciate a link directing me to the right place.  You're bringing it up, you must know where to find it.

 

[Bowlerman9]

 
Four pages long, but all of the posts since he was outrighted are on page four.  And I have re-read every post on page four and see nothing that indicates that Craig can opt-out this winter.  So I'd appreciate a link directing me to the right place.  You're bringing it up, you must know where to find it.

 
Per Article XX-D of the CBA, a player on an MLB 40-man roster who has been outrighted previously in his career and/or who has accrued at least three years of MLB Service Time can elect to be a free-agent if he is sent outright to the minors. (An international player with Article XX-D contractural rights also has the right to elect free-agency if outrighted). The outrighted Article XX-D player can elect to be a free-agent immediately upon being outrighted, or he can accept the Outright Assignment and defer his option to elect free-agency until after the conclusion of the MLB regular season. However, a player eligible to be a free-agent if outrighted who accepts an Outright Assignment and defers his option to elect free-agency until after the conclusion of the MLB regular season forfeits his right to elect free-agency if he is added back to an MLB 40-man roster prior to the conclusion of the MLB regular season.

If a player eligible to be a free-agent if outrighted elects to be a free-agent immediately, his contract is terminated and he receives no termination pay. But if the Article XX-D player accepts the Outright Assignment and defers his right to be a free-agent until the conclusion of the MLB regular season, the player continues to get paid, receiving the balance of his salary through to the end of the season. And then if the outrighted Article XX-D player is not subsequently added back to an MLB 40-man roster prior to the conclusion of the MLB regular season, the player can elect free-agency anytime beginning on the day after the conclusion of the MLB regular season through October 15th.

A player who has not previously been outrighted to the minors or who has not yet accrued three years of MLB Service Time but who qualified as a "Super Two" player after the conclusion of the previous MLB regular season can elect free-agency if he is outrighted to the minors, but an outrighted "Super Two" player cannot defer free-agency until the conclusion of the MLB regular season. To become a free-agent, the outrighted "Super Two" player must elect free-agency immediately.

 

[joe dokes]

 
He becomes a free agent earlier because he's allowed to opt out of his contract in the off season. It's a page or two back.

 
I thought that's what I read upthread.
 
 
EDIT:: Thanks  Bowlerman

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Per Article XX-D of the CBA, a player on an MLB 40-man roster who has been outrighted previously in his career and/or who has accrued at least three years of MLB Service Time can elect to be a free-agent if he is sent outright to the minors. (An international player with Article XX-D contractural rights also has the right to elect free-agency if outrighted). The outrighted Article XX-D player can elect to be a free-agent immediately upon being outrighted, or he can accept the Outright Assignment and defer his option to elect free-agency until after the conclusion of the MLB regular season. However, a player eligible to be a free-agent if outrighted who accepts an Outright Assignment and defers his option to elect free-agency until after the conclusion of the MLB regular season forfeits his right to elect free-agency if he is added back to an MLB 40-man roster prior to the conclusion of the MLB regular season.

If a player eligible to be a free-agent if outrighted elects to be a free-agent immediately, his contract is terminated and he receives no termination pay. But if the Article XX-D player accepts the Outright Assignment and defers his right to be a free-agent until the conclusion of the MLB regular season, the player continues to get paid, receiving the balance of his salary through to the end of the season. And then if the outrighted Article XX-D player is not subsequently added back to an MLB 40-man roster prior to the conclusion of the MLB regular season, the player can elect free-agency anytime beginning on the day after the conclusion of the MLB regular season through October 15th.

A player who has not previously been outrighted to the minors or who has not yet accrued three years of MLB Service Time but who qualified as a "Super Two" player after the conclusion of the previous MLB regular season can elect free-agency if he is outrighted to the minors, but an outrighted "Super Two" player cannot defer free-agency until the conclusion of the MLB regular season. To become a free-agent, the outrighted "Super Two" player must elect free-agency immediately.

 
Thanks.  Now I understand.
 
But opting out still requires him to forgo whatever salary he's owed in 2016 and 2017, so I have to think he'd elect not to do it.

 

[Hee Sox Choi]

From MLB Trade Rumors:
 
It is by now well-documented that Allen Craig of the Red Sox has experienced a significant decline at the plate, leading to his outright off of the 40-man roster. But as Alex Speier of the Boston Globe explains, the fall-off has been so steep that it actually has historical dimensions. Looking at other players who posted consistently strong batting lines in their age-26 to 28 seasons, Speier shows that no other player has fallen as far as has Craig (62 OPS+) in the following two years. There could, of course, still be some hope of a turnaround given the complicated role that injuries in his struggles and the fact that he is still only 30.

 

[threecy]

For what it's worth, his OPS in Pawtucket is .792 after 8 games (36 AB, 11 H, 0 HRs, 7Ks).

 

[moondog80]

From MLB Trade Rumors:
 
It is by now well-documented that Allen Craig of the Red Sox has experienced a significant decline at the plate, leading to his outright off of the 40-man roster. But as Alex Speier of the Boston Globe explains, the fall-off has been so steep that it actually has historical dimensions. Looking at other players who posted consistently strong batting lines in their age-26 to 28 seasons, Speier shows that no other player has fallen as far as has Craig (62 OPS+) in the following two years. There could, of course, still be some hope of a turnaround given the complicated role that injuries in his struggles and the fact that he is still only 30.

 
 
That's not a trade rumor.  Stop getting my hopes up.

 

[oumbi]

Just an update of the trials and tribulations of Craig. Since his descent into the minor leagues, his stats have been:
 
9 games
39 plate appearances
.308/.386/.410 slash line with an OPS of 796
4 doubles
0 home runs
4 walks
7 strike out
 
Too early to say much other than this is an improvement so far.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

BMac with a write-up on Allen Craig here: http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150531/SPORTS/150539889/14009. If life were a movie, Allen Craig would rise up from the ashes and lead the Sox to a WS win over the Cardinals and John Lackey. The story contains this interesting observation:

When Craig looks like his old self at the plate, as he has for most of his stint with the PawSox, he’s timing the movement of his lower half with the acceleration of his hands through the strike zone. That timing keeps his bat on a path that allows him to go with pitches on the outer half of the strike zone, hitting them hard to the opposite field the way he did when he homered Saturday night.

When Craig gets overanxious and gets his hands out in front of his lower half, as he was doing with the Red Sox, he wasn’t just putting himself in position to make weak contact. He was putting himself in position to be fooled more often, and he’d chase pitches he wouldn’t normally chase.

 

[threecy]

Was the flaw in his swing something that wasn't picked up until he worked with Gedman in Pawtucket?