Assets

[MoneyInTheBank]

Because Cast’s contract is uncertain as to duration. And he makes that decision. In acquiring that contract a team cannot be certain if they are getting one year or three years. That uncertainty likely results in a discount.

Moustakas’ contract, while too expensive for some teams, is fixed in duration. You know what you are getting. Either you want it or not.

It’s a mistake to rely on Cast’s opt out as a benefit to the Reds. He will only leave if his performance is strong. Reds would be losing a player with high market value, getting only a comp pick in exchange.

IMO, you are overthinking it a bit. It's not that hard for teams to run multiple iterations of their budget/build, one with Cast opting in and another with an opt out.

Every trade has an element of risk. The risk being that the players you are trading for will help you achieve your goals better than the players you traded away. Let's say you are the GM of a win now team and Cast pushes the team over the top for a World Series title as long as he plays to the back of his baseball card. Is there an appreciable difference in your job security if you lose because you sat on your hands or pushed your chips in and the player didn't produce and you are stuck with him?

Of course the cost will be "baked in" to the risk but I think it will be a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" situation. Higher budget teams wouldn't blink either way but you may bring in some lower or mid budget teams who are willing to roll the dice on the opt out.

While I wouldn't say it's a giant positive for the Reds, I'd say it's more positive than negative

[Kinsm]

Definitely not a positive. POPTS are never a positive. If they're great they leave, if they suck you're saddled.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Definitely not a positive. POPTS are never a positive. If they're great they leave, if they suck you're saddled.

The conversation is in regards to Cast as a trade asset and whether the presence of an opt out may actually help the Reds

[Griffey012]

Because Cast’s contract is uncertain as to duration. And he makes that decision. In acquiring that contract a team cannot be certain if they are getting one year or three years. That uncertainty likely results in a discount.

Moustakas’ contract, while too expensive for some teams, is fixed in duration. You know what you are getting. Either you want it or not.

It’s a mistake to rely on Cast’s opt out as a benefit to the Reds. He will only leave if his performance is strong. Reds would be losing a player with high market value, getting only a comp pick in exchange.

People around here are acting like Castellanos is signed to a horrible contract though, which I think is because they are putting way too much emphasis on a short 2020 season. Barring some sort of melt down in offensive performance by Cast, his contract is plenty reasonable and isn't something holding the Reds back.

If he has a great 2021 and opts out, the Reds got a good year from him at a reasonable price, that isn't a bad thing, after all they didn't give up assets to get him, only money.

[Kc61]

People around here are acting like Castellanos is signed to a horrible contract though, which I think is because they are putting way too much emphasis on a short 2020 season. Barring some sort of melt down in offensive performance by Cast, his contract is plenty reasonable and isn't something holding the Reds back.

If he has a great 2021 and opts out, the Reds got a good year from him at a reasonable price, that isn't a bad thing, after all they didn't give up assets to get him, only money.

It wasn’t a horrible contract. Cast was a desirable, major hitter. And the player options perhaps enabled Reds to win that bidding. Certainly was an inducement. Nor was it an outrageous demand, it’s not that uncommon in sports.

Point is only that the option benefits the player, not the team, and complicates the ability to trade him.

[Kc61]

IMO, you are overthinking it a bit. It's not that hard for teams to run multiple iterations of their budget/build, one with Cast opting in and another with an opt out.

Every trade has an element of risk. The risk being that the players you are trading for will help you achieve your goals better than the players you traded away. Let's say you are the GM of a win now team and Cast pushes the team over the top for a World Series title as long as he plays to the back of his baseball card. Is there an appreciable difference in your job security if you lose because you sat on your hands or pushed your chips in and the player didn't produce and you are stuck with him?

Of course the cost will be "baked in" to the risk but I think it will be a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" situation. Higher budget teams wouldn't blink either way but you may bring in some lower or mid budget teams who are willing to roll the dice on the opt out.

While I wouldn't say it's a giant positive for the Reds, I'd say it's more positive than negative

Scenario 1 deadline trade with opt out - acquiring Castellanos for two months stretch drive. Total cost about $5 million (pro rated $14 million salary).

Scenario 2 deadline trade no opt out - acquiring Castellanos for two years and three months. Total cost about $39 million ($5 million plus two final years at $!6 million each plus buy out).

The two scenarios are night and day. No team will just “bake in” that non-opt out risk. In whole or part, it would come out of the Reds’ hide in the trade.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Scenario 1 deadline trade with opt out - acquiring Castellanos for two months stretch drive. Total cost about $5 million (pro rated $14 million salary).

Scenario 2 deadline trade no opt out - acquiring Castellanos for two years and three months. Total cost about $39 million ($5 million plus two final years at $!6 million each plus buy out).

The two scenarios are night and day. No team will just “bake in” that non-opt out risk. In whole or part, it would come out of the Reds’ hide in the trade.

Sure they would. They just have to be comfortable with Scenario 2.

[Kc61]

Sure they would. They just have to be comfortable with Scenario 2.

I disagree. The trade could get made. But the Reds would have to share the risk. They would have to kick in an 8 figure payment. Or they would have to take discounted prospect value. Or both.

[MoneyInTheBank]

I disagree. The trade could get made. But the Reds would have to share the risk. They would have to kick in an 8 figure payment. Or they would have to take discounted prospect value. Or both.

They would get laughed off the phone if they asked for a 10 figure payment for a guy who could opt out after getting paid 5

[Kc61]

They would get laughed off the phone if they asked for a 10 figure payment for aguy who could opt out after getting paid 5

Some cash amount would be contingent on the non-opt out scenario. Cast stays around, Reds pay up.

One way or the other, it’ll come out of Reds’ hide.

Team wanting a stretch run guy isn’t likely taking on a $39 million commitment to Castellanos without consideration by Reds.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Some cash amount would be contingent on the non-opt out scenario. Cast stays around, Reds pay up.

One way or the other, it’ll come out of Reds’ hide.

Team wanting a stretch run guy isn’t likely taking on a $39 million commitment to Castellanos without consideration by Reds.

I made it clear the team would have to be comfortable with the risk of the extra 2 years. He'll be 29 at the start of the season and, if he's garnering trade interest, he's back to the 2.5 WAR player and the team will be a contender (and likely to opt out). $5M for a playoff run and $17M each for his age 30 and 31 seasons in the 2-2.5 WAR range is far from an albatross.

It's a gamble, for sure, but so is trading top prospects for aging players and GMs do it every single offseason. These guys get paid well to make these risky moves to build a roster. You want the player, you leave my hide alone. I've got multiple teams calling.

[Kc61]

It's a gamble, for sure, but so is trading top prospects for aging players and GMs do it every single offseason. These guys get paid well to make these risky moves to build a roster. You want the player, you leave my hide alone. I've got multiple teams calling.

Difference here is that acquiring team has no control over the duration of the contract. With meaningful financial ramifications. IMO that risk will cost the Reds in any trade negotiation. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

[Kingspoint]

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?

[MoneyInTheBank]

Difference here is that acquiring team has no control over the duration of the contract. With meaningful financial ramifications. IMO that risk will cost the Reds in any trade negotiation. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

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?

[Griffey012]

It wasn’t a horrible contract. Cast was a desirable, major hitter. And the player options perhaps enabled Reds to win that bidding. Certainly was an inducement. Nor was it an outrageous demand, it’s not that uncommon in sports.

Point is only that the option benefits the player, not the team, and complicates the ability to trade him.

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.