DFA Moustakas

[Old school 1983]

Yeah when the Reds do something well, it’s blind squirrel. If something goes wrong, they’re terrible and it’s all their fault. Whether you want to play the luck routine or not, they have been good at picking up NRI position players. I think they do need to spend a little more on the pen.

[Kc61]

It's a method for a smaller market club to woo players who originally wanted higher AAV. The team gets to pay what it can afford rather than what the player was seeking. The Reds had Castellanos at a 25% discount. He wasn't a major star in his prime, just a guy with a good power profile. I think the key part is "in his prime." If it's a guy that you would expect to post numbers in the first year or two of the deal, then what are you really venturing? I'd add that it should be a bat too, at least for the Reds. Do that and I don't mind the risk.

What are you venturing? That the player regresses and you are stuck for years at guaranteed big dollars.

With no similar benefit to the team if he does well. In which case he’s gone.

Counting on the other party’s option to benefit you is a very dangerous business.

[RedTeamGo!]

I still dont know why moose was ever signed to start with back when.

Because he had a very good season the year before? Not exactly rocket science.

[klw]

The impact of Moose's plantar issues are most likely a big contributing cause to his drop off., It would explain loss of mobility, inability to drive at the plate the same way, and inability to maintain conditioning. Hopefully he can come back fit and able to contribute in the Spring.

[M2]

What are you venturing? That the player regresses and you are stuck for years at guaranteed big dollars.

With no similar benefit to the team if he does well. In which case he’s gone.

Counting on the other party’s option to benefit you is a very dangerous business.

If you don't think a guy can be good even in the first year of his contract, then why would you sign him at all? Conversely if you expect a guy is young/good enough to post a big season for you, then you get him at a discount for a year or two. Yes, it can go wrong, but it can go right too. The benefit to the team if he does well is literally that he did well (and you didn't pay retail for him). Like I said, I think we've got the parameters down - big bats in their primes, no pitchers.

[Kc61]

If you don't think a guy can be good even in the first year of his contract, then why would you sign him at all? Conversely if you expect a guy is young/good enough to post a big season for you, then you get him at a discount for a year or two. Yes, it can go wrong, but it can go right too. The benefit to the team if he does well is literally that he did well (and you didn't pay retail for him). Like I said, I think we've got the parameters down - big bats in their primes, no pitchers.

You may think the guy can be good. But the upside is a good year or two, the downside is four bad years throwing away money.

As for a discount, I never thought four years, $64 million for Nick C was much of a discount. It was late off-season, he was unsigned. He wouldn’t want much discount because he might serve his full four year term.

If a player wants a short-term deal, fine, go for it. But short-term both ways. Don’t make the term of the deal up to the player side only, depending on what’s best for him (not you).

[mth123]

You may think the guy can be good. But the upside is a good year or two, the downside is four bad years throwing away money.

As for a discount, I never thought four years, $64 million for Nick C was much of a discount. It was late off-season, he was unsigned. He wouldn’t want much discount because he might serve his full four year term.

If a player wants a short-term deal, fine, go for it. But short-term both ways. Don’t make the term of the deal up to the player side only, depending on what’s best for him (not you).

But for a short term deal, it may have cost $20 to $25 Million each for say 2 years. The voidable years made the annual salary less because he had the big guarantee. That's what is in this for the team.

[M2]

You may think the guy can be good. But the upside is a good year or two, the downside is four bad years throwing away money.

As for a discount, I never thought four years, $64 million for Nick C was much of a discount. It was late off-season, he was unsigned. He wouldn’t want much discount because he might serve his full four year term.

If a player wants a short-term deal, fine, go for it. But short-term both ways. Don’t make the term of the deal up to the player side only, depending on what’s best for him (not you).

Except taking on the long-term risk is how you get them to take less in the short-term. Normally the way it works on a short-term deal is you pay a higher AAV. That pretty much eliminates the Reds from the conversation.

[Kc61]

But for a short term deal, it may have cost $20 to $25 Million each for say 2 years. The voidable years made the annual salary less because he had the big guarantee. That's what is in this for the team.

At that point, 2019 post-seadon, nobody was paying Cast that kind of money.

After his last season with Reds, starting All Star, he got very pricey.

[mth123]

At that point nobody was paying Cast that kind of money.

After his last season with Reds, starting All Star, he got very pricey.

My guess is he would not have signed for 2 years at $16 Million per year. The voidable years got him at the lower salary.

[Kc61]

My guess is he would not have signed for 2 years at $16 Million per year. The voidable years got him at the lower salary.

Cast was about the last free agent remaining late off-season.

Boras negotiated well for him.

I’m sure Nick’s side demanded more and took the option for less, but teams weren’t standing in line for Castellanos at that point.

[mth123]

Cast was about the last free agent remaining late off-season.

Boras negotiated well for him.

I’m sure Nick’s side demanded more and took the option for less, but teams weren’t standing in line for Castellanos at that point.

If the point is williams probably wasn't the most experienced negotiator and maybe gave too much away, I agree (the Moose and especially Shogo deals show that), but I think for Williams to get Castellanos at a number that fit within his budget, he had to give the voidable years.

[Kc61]

If the point is williams probably wasn't the most experienced negotiator and maybe gave too much away, I agree (the Moose and especially Shogo deals show that), but I think for Williams to get Castellanos at a number that fit within his budget, he had to give the voidable years.

Not sure I buy that budget thing. Reds were spending that off season. I assume they preferred even a slightly lower salary with options, that’s Reds-like.

But it’s a bad template for future deals except in very limited situations.

[LeatherPants]

Yeah when the Reds do something well, it’s blind squirrel. If something goes wrong, they’re terrible and it’s all their fault. Whether you want to play the luck routine or not, they have been good at picking up NRI position players. I think they do need to spend a little more on the pen.

Cincinnati Reds Baseball: Good at picking up decent Non-Roster Invitees!

[Kc61]

Cincinnati Reds Baseball: Good at picking up decent Non-Roster Invitees!

They should be good at it. Lots of practice. It’s a mainstay of Reds team building, NRIs!