Napoli to TEX
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Brian MacPherson @brianmacp
Cherington: Napoli cleared waivers 48 hours ago, at which point he reached back out to teams with whom they'd talked before July 31.
Cherington: Napoli cleared waivers 48 hours ago, at which point he reached back out to teams with whom they'd talked before July 31.
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 4m4 minutes ago
Cherington says unlikely Sandoval or Ramirez plays first base this season. Shaw and eventually Craig.
Cherington says unlikely Sandoval or Ramirez plays first base this season. Shaw and eventually Craig.
Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 1m1 minute ago
Cherington said the terms of the Napoli deal were better than any he was offered before the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline.
Cherington said the terms of the Napoli deal were better than any he was offered before the July 31 non-waiver trade deadline.
I can't see the RS pulling up Craig when they are probably about 5.5 from the LT threshold. I would guess that the option of a return of cash is dependant on whether the RS can get within a million of the threshold. Then that payment would be very useful in getting under.
It will still be an uphill battle to remove that last 5 million effectively.
It will still be an uphill battle to remove that last 5 million effectively.
I guess what confuses me is that, this off-season, they have to make a decision on who plays 1B next year.
There are, I think, three options.
1) Travis Shaw and Allen Craig play 1B next year.
2) Hanley Ramirez or Pablo Sandoval (with Hanley at 3B) plays 1B next year.
3) Someone not currently in the organization plays 1B next year.
I don't think Option 1 is a good one, even if Shaw continues to play well -- banking on him turning into Carlos Pena (or Allen Craig turning back into Allen Craig) doesn't seem like a really great strategy for a team that should be looking to contend.
Option 2 makes a lot of sense; if Castillo and Bradley both seem ready to start, we have a perfect roster fit, and even if it turns out they aren't, and we need to go sign an outfielder, there are a couple of really good options in Heyward and Upton, some middling options like Colby Rasmus and Austin Jackson, plus a bit more depth on the way with Margot. But it only works if it works defensively, and there's only one way to find that out.
Option 3, well, okay -- but who? Maybe they're counting the days until Byung-Ho Park arrives. Maybe they can trade for Adam Lind for a year and hope Sam Travis gets ready in a hurry. But there aren't a ton of good options in the free agent class -- Napoli himself, along with Chris Davis, represents the cream of the crop.
All of which to say: I really prefer Option 2, even if it leaves us an outfielder short, and -- bringing it back to this thread -- literally the only reason to trade Napoli for cash is to use the rest of the season to find out if it's defensively viable. Which they now say they aren't interested in doing.
So what am I missing?
There are, I think, three options.
1) Travis Shaw and Allen Craig play 1B next year.
2) Hanley Ramirez or Pablo Sandoval (with Hanley at 3B) plays 1B next year.
3) Someone not currently in the organization plays 1B next year.
I don't think Option 1 is a good one, even if Shaw continues to play well -- banking on him turning into Carlos Pena (or Allen Craig turning back into Allen Craig) doesn't seem like a really great strategy for a team that should be looking to contend.
Option 2 makes a lot of sense; if Castillo and Bradley both seem ready to start, we have a perfect roster fit, and even if it turns out they aren't, and we need to go sign an outfielder, there are a couple of really good options in Heyward and Upton, some middling options like Colby Rasmus and Austin Jackson, plus a bit more depth on the way with Margot. But it only works if it works defensively, and there's only one way to find that out.
Option 3, well, okay -- but who? Maybe they're counting the days until Byung-Ho Park arrives. Maybe they can trade for Adam Lind for a year and hope Sam Travis gets ready in a hurry. But there aren't a ton of good options in the free agent class -- Napoli himself, along with Chris Davis, represents the cream of the crop.
All of which to say: I really prefer Option 2, even if it leaves us an outfielder short, and -- bringing it back to this thread -- literally the only reason to trade Napoli for cash is to use the rest of the season to find out if it's defensively viable. Which they now say they aren't interested in doing.
So what am I missing?
Rasputin said:
Barring an unforeseen salary dump coming out of left field, i'm not sure there is much of a chance at us actually getting under the cap at this point. Last rough estimates i crunched had us a lot further away then dumping a small portion of Napoli's salary. That ship likely sailed at the deadline.
I still am a little unclear though if the same loophole that was applied this year could then be reapplied next if we were to call him back up. If that's the case then no biggie imo.
MikeM said:
What loophole are you referring to? The one of him being off the 40-man roster and thus not counted against the luxury tax? Yes, that loophole will continue to exist next year if they again decide to DFA him (assuming they add him back on before the end of this year). However, after having outrighted him once already (this year), he'll have to right to refuse that assignment if they try to do it again. If he does, he must be released and they owe him the entirety of his remaining deal which all counts against the payroll. So the "loophole" rests solely on Craig's desire to play for Pawtucket instead of seeking employment elsewhere. In other words, if their goal is to keep him off the official luxury-taxable payroll, they probably don't want to bring him back at all.
No, if Texas had claimed him, the Red Sox would have been in charge and the Rangers would have been in that hole. The minute any team claimed him, Ben could have said, "okay, he's yours, payroll and all."E5 Yaz said:
But as noted upthread, he cleared waivers. 29 teams were unwilling to take him in exchange for paying him the rest of the way.
A while back, someone wrote that if we leave him off the 40-man next year, he can refuse to go to Pawtucket only by getting out of his contract. I don't remember the details for sure, but I think it was because then he would be far enough from his major league debut to be allowed to reject being optioned or something. Does that sound familiar to anyone? Does he still have options? I tried to look this up on Cots and discovered I don't know how... Sorry I'm not adding a lot of value.Red(s)HawksFan said:
Idabomb333 said:
He has options remaining, but if he's not on the 40-man, options aren't a factor. If he stays off the 40-man through the end of the year, he has the choice of opting out of his deal (and giving up the money he'd be owed otherwise) or he can stay on and be a minor leaguer in the Red Sox organization that gets paid like a big leaguer.
Apparently, according to a PM I got from brimac, the same thing applies if he's added back to the 40-man and then DFA'd again next year. He will then have the choice to reject an assignment to Pawtucket, but if he does, he forfeits the remainder of his deal and the Sox don't owe him anything (which I had wrong in my earlier post). If he accepts the assignment, he is off the 40-man and thus not counted against the luxury taxable payroll.
