Papelbon's Poutine said:I didn't see it stated that he was claimed on waivers by Texas. If that were the case I would assume the Sox would have just let them have him rather than mess around with paying cash and then getting possibly less cash back. It seems he cleared, so yes they would have had a chance.
Papelbon's Poutine said:So paying Naps salary and reintroducing Craig to the LT payroll is the way to do that?
And they didn't see enough value in Vesuvius-in-decline to bid for him before the trading deadline.Brianish said:Pirates, Mets, and Nats didn't get the chance, as they're in the NL.
That makes it sound like Craig will be up in September. Not sure I like that.GaryPeters71 said:Pete Abraham @PeteAbe 4m4 minutes ago
Cherington says unlikely Sandoval or Ramirez plays first base this season. Shaw and eventually Craig.
It's Cafardo. There's a highly likely chance he's pulling it out of his ass.
It was Edes, but same thing applies
Rasputin said:That makes it sound like Craig will be up in September. Not sure I like that.
MikeM 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.
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:
In addition, if the Rangers put in a claim, the Sox were in a hole. Deal with Texas or be stuck with 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:
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.
Idabomb333 said: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.
FADE IN:
EXT. THE NEW TOILET – DAY
9th inning. The Sox are down 2-1 in the top of the 8th, with a man on 2nd. Seats are emptying. Stadium workers are cleaning the trash in the stands.
The PA system blares out – “Bring out your dead!”