Assets

[MoneyInTheBank]

Hey, but they brought in a 33-year old 2nd Baseman who can't hit and hasn't played SS regularly since he entered the majors more than 8 years ago and they want him to play SS. Is that an asset?

He's on a minor league contract that will pay $1M if he makes the team so you don't need much out of him to return on value

[mth123]

The contract gets certainty after this season, no? So, if the only thing holding down Cast's value is the certainty, wouldn't the acquiring team have a valuable asset if he were to opt in?

I think if the Reds trade Cast, they'll need to throw in $5 Million per year for the two out years if he doesn't opt out. If he ops out, the Reds keep that money. Under those conditions, I'd expect a middling prospect (some one in an organizations 8 to 15 range) as the return. If he doesn't opt out and the Reds are paying enough to make him a bargain, the Reds may get another player as a PTBNL who might be a higher end guy (say in the 100 to 150 range in all of baseball), but everything depends on the opt out.

[mth123]

He's on a minor league contract that will pay $1M if he makes the team so you don't need much out of him to return on value

If he's the starting SS, I don't think he returns positive value at all. He'll hurt the team on offense and defense. If he were somehow to become the second baseman, I could see him being a .5 to 1 WAR player. It's the only position where he's adequate.

[MoneyInTheBank]

I think if the Reds trade Cast, they'll need to throw in $5 Million per year for the two out years if he doesn't opt out. If he ops out, the Reds keep that money. Under those conditions, I'd expect a middling prospect (some one in an organizations 8 to 15 range) as the return. If he doesn't opt out and the Reds are paying enough to make him a bargain, the Reds may get another player as a PTBNL who might be a higher end guy (say in the 100 to 150 range in all of baseball), but everything depends on the opt out.

What would you expect to get if he was on a straight 3 year contract with no opt outs?

[MoneyInTheBank]

If he's the starting SS, I don't think he returns positive value at all. He'll hurt the team on offense and defense. If he were somehow to become the second baseman, I could see him being a .5 to 1 WAR player. It's the only position where he's adequate.

It will all depend on his bat. That's how he remains the starting SS. Otherwise, he will be a utility man. If he figures out a way to get back to the 85-90 OPS+ range (it has been a while), he'll be able to overcome the defense, IMO

[Kc61]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it only benefits the player. The player definitely controls their destiny in terms of future earnings which is a big benefit. But it benefitted the Reds in that they were able to sign Castellanos. The opt-outs seem the be a compromise on teams not wanting to give a guy like Castellanos a 6-7 year deal. Sure, it might make trading someone a little more difficult to trade, but you aren't signing Castellanos to that deal with the expectations of trading him in year 2 for anything of substance in return.

The contract overall had value to the Reds, agree, they got the player for at least one year at an agreed price. The opt out was a compromise of terms, agree. Not disputing any of that.

But the opt out itself only benefits the player who has full control over the term of the deal. It’s possible Nick’s decisions will not hurt Reds, but that’s just happenstance. The decisions will be for Nick’s benefit.

Just look at this year. Nick stayed because it was in his interest. Reds post-COVID may have preferred to shed the remaining three years $48 million guarantee. Player option is a player benefit.

[mth123]

What would you expect to get if he was on a straight 3 year contract with no opt outs?

Not much without the Reds sending the $5 Million per year. I'd say pretty much the same as I posted above. I think any taker for his deal without the optout woud want the $5 Million per year and offer middling prospects. If the Reds current prospects were from the team dealing to us, I'd guess something like Ivan Johnson and Tony Santillan if the Reds send the $5 Million per year. If the other team eats the deal, I'd expect somebody like Alex Blandino or something.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Not much without the Reds sending the $5 Million per year. I'd say pretty much the same as I posted above. I think any taker for his deal without the optout woud want the $5 Million per year and offer middling prospects. If the Reds current prospects were from the team dealing to us, I'd guess something like Ivan Johnson and Tony Santillan if the Reds send the $5 Million per year. If the other team eats the deal, I'd expect somebody like Alex Blandino or something.

So, in other words, the opt out doesn't impact the value it just makes the trade have conditions on it depending on if he opts out?

[mth123]

So, in other words, the opt out doesn't impact the value it just makes the trade have conditions on it depending on if he opts out?

The opt out might effect the value a little, but I'd guess any team dealing for Castellanos would hope he would opt out after 2021. They'd want the money from the Reds in case he didn't.

[JFLegal]

castellanos hit one of the most famous (infamous?) home runs in reds history. right thom? if anyone wants to trade for him, we're not chipping in a dollar. they can pay full price for him.

all joking aside, i think castellanos is headed for big season.

[RedTeamGo!]

Such a strange debate about Castellanos. If he goes out and mashes in the first half he will absolutely be valuable to contenders (if the reds aren’t one). Players that can hit like him don’t grow on trees.