There aren't many, but Brad Keller for the Royals has been very solid since they grabbed him before 2018.What are the success odds on a Rule 5 pick anyway? Who was the last one that went on to have a significant career with the team that picked him?
On the lists I've seen, Johan Santana seems like the best of later vintage ... a true Rule V pick (as opposed to a guy with some experience who through circumstances was eligible).What are the success odds on a Rule 5 pick anyway? Who was the last one that went on to have a significant career with the team that picked him?
The bullpen was not the problem last year. Or, to the extent it was, having a guy who the Laws of God and Nature demand that he only pitch in the 9th inning with a lead of 1-3 runs would not have helped.If we sign him in a normal time frame and he has a normal spring training I believe he pitches fine. While starting pitching was a huge issue, we blew quite a few saves while he's sitting at home. Not only did we suffer losses but we didn't help our starters when we did pitch well enough to win.
I believe unequivocally that letting Kimbrel go was the right move. Likeable enough guy that I hope I'm wrong here, but I believe he's toast.If we sign him in a normal time frame and he has a normal spring training I believe he pitches fine. While starting pitching was a huge issue, we blew quite a few saves while he's sitting at home. Not only did we suffer losses but we didn't help our starters when we did pitch well enough to win.
Myers deal is actually 6/83mm, but is tremendously backloaded (owes 67.5 in final 3 years). His AAV, though, is 13.833, which would save Sox 17.167mm in CBT but they’d shed much less in real dollars.The latest on the Price trade talks per Mark Feinsend
--Sox have held trade talks with 5 teams(Padres, Cardinals, White Sox, Reds, Angels)
--MLB executive: "This SP market is only helping the Red Sox. All of a sudden, Price's contract doesn't look so crazy."
--Attaching Benintendi or any younger player to a Price trade has not been considered and won't be.
--Players rumored to be a possibility of coming back to the Sox in a deal would be Wil Myers in a SD deal(would save $10 million on CBT), and Matt Carpenter in an STL deal(would save $13 million on CBT)
--Red Sox have gotten calls from multiple teams on all of it's pitchers including Chris Sale. Unlikely that Sale would be moved.
https://www.mlb.com/breaking-news/david-price-red-sox-trade-possibilities
The Reds and White Sox being involved is interesting because there are no real big bad contracts on those teams that would come back the other way (unless you count Alex Colomé‘s roughly $10m arb figure).The latest on the Price trade talks per Mark Feinsend
--Sox have held trade talks with 5 teams(Padres, Cardinals, White Sox, Reds, Angels)
--MLB executive: "This SP market is only helping the Red Sox. All of a sudden, Price's contract doesn't look so crazy."
--Attaching Benintendi or any younger player to a Price trade has not been considered and won't be.
--Players rumored to be a possibility of coming back to the Sox in a deal would be Wil Myers in a SD deal(would save $10 million on CBT), and Matt Carpenter in an STL deal(would save $13 million on CBT)
--Red Sox have gotten calls from multiple teams on all of it's pitchers including Chris Sale. Unlikely that Sale would be moved.
https://www.mlb.com/breaking-news/david-price-red-sox-trade-possibilities
It doesn't necessarily mean that, though, right? It could be Price + cash for some marginal prospects. We shed some but not all of Price's AAV and get back something (probably nothing too exciting) in return. I would assume the Red Sox are sending no cash if they are taking back Carpenter, Myers, or some other albatross.The Reds and White Sox being involved is interesting because there are no real big bad contracts on those teams that would come back the other way (unless you count Alex Colomé‘s roughly $10m arb figure).
If one of those orgs is interested at essentially taking over Price’s contract as is, then we shouldn’t have to settle for a deal that requires us to eat $40m worth of Matt Carpenter in return.
Not necessarily, no, and I’m sure we’d at least get a Josh Tobias-type at the very least. I’m just happy that the expectation is no longer that the Sox would have to cover half his salary — or take on the equivalent in a useless player — in return.It doesn't necessarily mean that, though, right? It could be Price + cash for some marginal prospects. We shed some but not all of Price's AAV and get back something (probably nothing too exciting) in return. I would assume the Red Sox are sending no cash if they are taking back Carpenter, Myers, or some other albatross.
Probably play 1B.Is Carpenter still a legitimate option at second base? Doesn't look like he has played there much since 2013.
I’d have it the other way around.I'd rather Carpenter over Myers. get it done Chaim.
regardless good to hear they won't attach anyone major to Price
Why? Having already conceded the next decade to the MFYs, it's hard to see how one player would change things.Keep him the hell away from the Bronx.
They are getting calls about Eovaldi? Are they answering those calls? I have mixed feelings about the guy, we all saw how great he can be and he seems like a solid person to boot. But I thought his contract was supposedly untradeable?The latest on the Price trade talks per Mark Feinsend
--Sox have held trade talks with 5 teams(Padres, Cardinals, White Sox, Reds, Angels)
--MLB executive: "This SP market is only helping the Red Sox. All of a sudden, Price's contract doesn't look so crazy."
--Attaching Benintendi or any younger player to a Price trade has not been considered and won't be.
--Players rumored to be a possibility of coming back to the Sox in a deal would be Wil Myers in a SD deal(would save $10 million on CBT), and Matt Carpenter in an STL deal(would save $13 million on CBT)
--Red Sox have gotten calls from multiple teams on all of it's pitchers including Chris Sale. Unlikely that Sale would be moved.
https://www.mlb.com/breaking-news/david-price-red-sox-trade-possibilities
Given the state of this market, Eovaldi's contract isn't that bad if he stays healthy. But if he's healthy and pitching well, we want him on the Red Sox.They are getting calls about Eovaldi? Are they answering those calls? I have mixed feelings about the guy, we all saw how great he can be and he seems like a solid person to boot. But I thought his contract was supposedly untradeable?
No, and he's not much of a 3B either, so he'd be a 1B in Boston. He's also got no-trade for 2020, so that's another hurdle to overcomeIs Carpenter still a legitimate option at second base? Doesn't look like he has played there much since 2013.
Yeah, I'd rather take the risk of him rebounding than Price squeezing out a couple more quality years (at a much higher rate). Presumably the Sox wouldn't trade two starters, given the cost of finding replacements.Given the state of this market, Eovaldi's contract isn't that bad if he stays healthy. But if he's healthy and pitching well, we want him on the Red Sox.
Like E5 said, Clemente is probably the best all around and Santana is obviously pretty good too. IIRC George Bell was a Rule V guy as well. They Jays got the 1987 AL MVP for nothing, so that's a good return.What are the success odds on a Rule 5 pick anyway? Who was the last one that went on to have a significant career with the team that picked him?
I'd rather not have that piece of human paraquat on my teamDo they have the pieces to get Hader? Maybe not the prospects, but someone like Benintendi might be enticing to Milwaukee. Keep him the hell away from the Bronx.
Yeah, thats a hard pass on Hader. I'd like to keep my bigots on this team to a minimum and by minimum I mean none.I'd rather not have that piece of human paraquat on my team
You've also got Josh Hamilton, Dan Uggla, Joakim Soria and Shane Victorio; for recent guys at least.Like E5 said, Clemente is probably the best all around and Santana is obviously pretty good too. IIRC George Bell was a Rule V guy as well. They Jays got the 1987 AL MVP for nothing, so that's a good return.
For me, the Patron Saint of Rule V players is John Trautwein. He was a physics major at Northwestern, so he was a smart dude. I wonder what he thought of the rule where he had to be on the roster for the entire 1988 season but only managed to get into nine games (16 innings all together!). I never knew what Lou Gorman saw in him.
Does he happen to be from South Dakota? That would explain it.Rule V pick has a 50-game suspension for meth in his background
https://qconline.com/sports/river_bandits/bandits-infielder-among-suspended-for-drug-use/article_70662fba-3ce1-5e5c-be97-5bd573024ab6.html
TBA. For the most part I don't see much concerning the rotation being settled until Price or someone else is moved. I think Chaim needs to have an idea of where he stands in relation to the luxury tax before he begins to add players. I think it's possible that we see an opener situation at least once each time through the rotation, but if that's to happen there is a fair amount of work to be done with the bullpen as well.If Price gets traded (of course depending on who he is traded for) what does the rotation look like? WIth Porcello gone and possibly Price - it's looking a little thin.
That should buy a decent return.Chad Jennings says the Sox are willing to pay down Price’s contract enough so that the acquiring team would only owe him $20 million/year. So that would be a total of $36 million they’d throw in a trade.
If he’s willing to sign for a low contract to return “home”, why not have a veteran guy in the clubhouse that might get you some innings in July-September? Why not do that?while I don't mind Rich Hill, isnt he going through an alternative rehab to TJ with a fucked elbow? and won't be available until June/July?
hard pass.
How low is a "low contract"?If he’s willing to sign for a low contract to return “home”, why not have a veteran guy in the clubhouse that might get you some innings in July-September? Why not do that?
I think everyone's assuming a pure 1 year contract for Hill. I think he's a prime candidate for a 1 year with a team option. Something like 1/$5 with a $8-10M team option for year 2. That way the team eats the rehab, but if he's healthy, you get the second year at a relative value otherwise you walk away.How low is a "low contract"?
For a team looking to cut payroll and get under the luxury tax cap, is spending, say, $4M (MLBTR says 1/6M) on a pitcher who might not contribute at all a good use of resources? That's a pricey flyer that has as much chance of being a total flush of money as it does of paying off. I'm picturing a result somewhere between Schilling 2008 and Smoltz 2009.
Perez may be a questionable signing at similar dollars, but at least there's a reasonable expectation he'll be healthy enough to pitch 150+ innings. That alone can provide value that someone starting the year on the IL will not.
I think we'll probably hoard these guys until the deadline. Either we're out of it, and they will be valuable trade chits if they are pitching at least decently, or we're in it and we need them.With all the talk of attaching someone else to Price to maximize value, what about attaching Barnes or Workman? With the volatility of bullpens, I am ok with giving one up. Plus it saves an additional $3 - $4 million?
Pretty sure it's averaged out over the remainder of the contract. So if they pay $36M in total, it would count as $12M per year over the three years remaining on the deal. They can't work around the luxury tax hit with that any more than they can by front or back loading a contract in general. It's all about the annual average.When paying part of a traded player’s contract, how exactly is that counted towards the luxury tax? Is it counted at the time of the trade or when the money is actually paid?
My reason for asking is this hypothetical scenario: if the Sox trade David Price this year and contribute $0 in 2020, $30 million in 2021, and $6 million in 2022, does that count as $12 million per year for the next 3 years or does the actual amount correspond to the actual year? If it’s the latter, it seems like a good way to get below the tax threshold.
I apologize if this has been discussed before - I’ve tried to read every thread but not sure if I succeeded.
Alex Speier wrote here:Pretty sure it's averaged out over the remainder of the contract. So if they pay $36M in total, it would count as $12M per year over the three years remaining on the deal. They can't work around the luxury tax hit with that any more than they can by front or back loading a contract in general. It's all about the annual average.
I was, and may still be, a tad confuzzled by the AAV issue re subsidizing the salary of a traded player. In Speier's column referenced by JBJHOF above, is the following paragraph:Alex Speier wrote here:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/09/28/complete-explanation-red-sox-luxury-tax-and-payroll-situation/EuiO7nuDwHIPqHBABM2I8L/story.html
That you can do it by specific year.
That language is from the CBA, Article XXIII.C.2.iii. Unless I am misunderstanding how they are using "pro-rata," it sounds like any contribution has to be accounted for in the club payroll calculation evenly per year, with some exceptions based on performance incentives, player options, or deals that involve either a PTBNL or cash considerations.(iii) Cash Consideration: An assignor Club that pays cash consideration to defray all or part of the salary obligation of the assignee Club for an assigned Player or Players shall include such cash consideration in its Actual Club Payroll on a pro-rata basis over the remaining Guaranteed Years of the assigned Con- tract(s). Cash consideration that is conditionally payable based on the Player’s earning of performance or award bonuses will be included in the Actual Club Payroll of the Club responsible for paying the bonus in the Contract Year in which the bonus is earned. Cash consideration that is conditionally payable based on the outcome of Club or Player Option decisions will be included in the pro-rata calculation described above if the consideration is contingent on the decline of a Club Option Year or the exercise of a Player Option Year, but will not be included if contingent on the exercise of a Club Option Year or the decline of a Player Option Year. If any cash consideration not originally included in the pro-rata calculation described above is ultimately paid as a result of the outcome of Club or Player Option decisions, the cash consideration will be included in the Contract Year(s) covered by the Club or Player Options. An assignor Club that pays cash consideration in lieu of assigning an unnamed player shall include such cash consideration in its Actual Club Payroll in the Contract Year in which the cash consideration is paid.
The CBA language is written in legalese and is therefore impenetrable to me. I'm not 100% sure that "assignor' and 'assignee' Clubs refers to two teams involved in a player trade?I don't feel terribly comfortable opposing Speier on a question like this, but I can also read:
That language is from the CBA, Article XXIII.C.2.iii. Unless I am misunderstanding how they are using "pro-rata," it sounds like any contribution has to be accounted for in the club payroll calculation evenly per year, with some exceptions based on performance incentives, player options, or deals that involve either a PTBNL or cash considerations.
Am I missing something?
yeah I think Speier is just flat wrong here. Even as recently as the Punto trade and going back to Renteria, it’s been the total amount included spread over the years left. It would defeat the purpose of the whole AAV base to be able to parcel out as you see fit.I don't feel terribly comfortable opposing Speier on a question like this, but I can also read:
That language is from the CBA, Article XXIII.C.2.iii. Unless I am misunderstanding how they are using "pro-rata," it sounds like any contribution has to be accounted for in the club payroll calculation evenly per year, with some exceptions based on performance incentives, player options, or deals that involve either a PTBNL or cash considerations.
Am I missing something?
That seems to me to mean that they can determine when they pay the receiving team their portion. Like they can trade him now and agree to pay his 2021 and 2022 salary in those years as long as they're not spending a dime in 2020. That's only in real dollars, not luxury tax applicable salary on paper.Alex Speier wrote here:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/redsox/2019/09/28/complete-explanation-red-sox-luxury-tax-and-payroll-situation/EuiO7nuDwHIPqHBABM2I8L/story.html
That you can do it by specific year.
In context it is clear that the assignor is the team trading away a player along with cash considerations, while the assignee is the team receiving that player in trade.I
The CBA language is written in legalese and is therefore impenetrable to me. I'm not 100% sure that "assignor' and 'assignee' Clubs refers to two teams involved in a player trade?
How much do you spend on a backup catcher? Padres are looking to move Austin Hedges, arb1 eligible next year and set to make about $2.9 mil. Offense dipped a lot this season, but he was fine in 2018. Defense is immaculate.
The other is Jonathan Arauz, who was taken by the Red Sox from the Astros. Arauz started out in the Phillies' system and went to Houston in the Ken Giles trade; he turned 21 in August. He hasn't produced at the plate enough to think he'll hit at all next year, but he has consistently had good contact rates despite being young for every level he's played. The Red Sox could stash Arauz as a utility infielder and hope he can at least put the ball in play enough that they can give him 150-200 at-bats. He's a switch-hitter who can play short and is above-average at second, and his swing works. He did miss half of 2017 after a positive test for a banned stimulant. I'm a little surprised the Orioles, run by former Astros execs, didn't take Arauz, but they took likely reliever Brandon Bailey from the Houston organization instead.