Jump to content

chasfh

What Will Become of Nicholas Castellanos?

How will the Tigers deal with Nicholas Castellanos?  

37 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. How will the Tigers deal with Nicholas Castellanos?

    • Trade him.
      21
    • Tender him a Qualifying Offer after the season, which he will accept.
      2
    • Tender him a Qualifying Offer after the season, which he will decline.
      3
    • Extend him for multiple seasons.
      0
    • Non-tender him after the season (aka let him walk).
      11
    • Other. (Explain in comments.)
      0
  2. 2. Suppose Castellanos is tendered a qualifying offer after the season and he declines it? Then what?

    • Will be re-signed afterward by the Tigers.
      3
    • Will be signed by another team before the 2020 draft.
      10
    • Will be signed by another team after the 2020 draft.
      24
  3. 3. If the Tigers do trade Castellanos, what kind of return will they get, based on what you think a player of his level should get?

    • Return equal to expectations.
      8
    • Higher return than expected.
      0
    • Lower return than expected.
      29

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/12/2019 at 04:59 AM

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, LooseGoose said:

In fairness, improvements wouldn't be expected whilst tearing down.  If Nick and Greene are dealt at the deadline I'd say that completes the teardown.   

Fairness and patience are not in my skillset.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

It still won't be complete.  They also need to get rid of Boyd and whoever does well next year.  

And Turnbull, don't forget about him.  He'll be 27 in September, so if Boyd is too old at 28 for this rebuild so is he.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, six-hopper said:

Fairness and patience are not in my skillset.  

I was once that way but as I've aged and gotten better dope I've become more relaxed.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

And Turnbull, don't forget about him.  He'll be 27 in September, so if Boyd is too old at 28 for this rebuild so is he.

Come on now, you know it’s not age that is the factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

why do you hope he sits next season?  He's a solid guy--why wish the worst for him?

I lost respect for him when he hired Boras. Also, all his talk to the media does him no good. I never liked players who negotiate through the media. "Give me an extension and I'll play first base". Right then, at that moment, he would have been benched. But, that's just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, are these player contracts written so that players will/can only play certain positions? I’m asking this question from a player’s perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LooseGoose said:

I was once that way but as I've aged and gotten better dope I've become more relaxed.

I have not matured pharmaceutically.  Still old-school shrooms and the Lovely Synthetic Drug for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Out of curiosity, are these player contracts written so that players will/can only play certain positions? I’m asking this question from a player’s perspective.

I cannot imagine they are, but I suppose there are stranger things out there, so unlikely but possibly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tigers probably told Miggy he can't Pitch or play SS... because he thinks he can and wants to really really bad.  True story... he hung Jim Leyland upside down while Carlos Guillen tickled the back of his knees in an attempt to let him pitch.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I cannot imagine they are, but I suppose there are stranger things out there, so unlikely but possibly?

Makes you wonder when a player tells a manager that he will take some reps at a new position but only if he gets extended. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Surely he is saying it to force extension talks or signal he won't move absent an extension.

I really don't think the Tigers ever offered an extension. Nick has said in the past he wanted to remain in Detroit. But the Tigers are in rebuild mode and are trying to shed payroll. By the time he hired Boras, he was aware he would be moving on, one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Surely he is saying it to force extension talks or signal he won't move absent an extension.

So what if Gardenhire (management) tells Nick (employee) that he is expected to take some reps at first base because on xxxx date he will be the regular first baseman until otherwise noted. Let’s say Nick refuses and as a result is benched for refusing to fulfill his contractual obligation for pay. He doesn’t get paid, right? Point being, if directed to play first, Nick cannot refuse to play the position if directed to by management without jeopardizing his salary. Is that correct? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 1776 said:

So what if Gardenhire (management) tells Nick (employee) that he is expected to take some reps at first base because on xxxx date he will be the regular first baseman until otherwise noted. Let’s say Nick refuses and as a result is benched for refusing to fulfill his contractual obligation for pay. He doesn’t get paid, right? Point being, if directed to play first, Nick cannot refuse to play the position if directed to by management without jeopardizing his salary. Is that correct? 

 

First of all, if the Tiger leaned on Nick, I will wager he would suck it up and do it. But just to play out the scenario - I imagine if the Tigers suspended Nick for refusing to play 1st there would be a grievance filed and there would be a labor arbitration and it would become a big hairy deal across the league and in the end the Tigers might well end up as Pyrrhic victors because having won the case  they would have lost the rest of the clubhouse and any prospect of ever signing another FA, Gardenhire would probably quit, they'd have to take some rookie wannabe as manager because no-one in the league whose players respected him would take the job, workers rights groups would be picketing CoPa, there would be cats and dogs living together...

...you get the picture. It wouldn't happen.

It's just a pointless thing to do on so many levels. Ball players are a lot like actors, there is no profit in forcing one into a role they don't want to play. They suffer, the fans suffer, the game suffers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was just looking for clarity/affirmation on, bottom line, they could sit him without salary if he refused to report to his position. I know it will never happen for the reasons you pointed to. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The organizations belief in Nick may be one of the most costly mistakes they have made in the past half decade or so.  Not only did it cost us guys like Suarez but there were numerous trades that were shot down from 2011-2014 that may have ended up putting us over the top because the team did not want to include Nick.  I can't remember all in detail but I vaguely remember guys like Justin Upton, Greinke and Hamels being rumored to us but we couldn't close the deals because of our reluctance to include Nick.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

The organizations belief in Nick may be one of the most costly mistakes they have made in the past half decade or so.  Not only did it cost us guys like Suarez but there were numerous trades that were shot down from 2011-2014 that may have ended up putting us over the top because the team did not want to include Nick.  I can't remember all in detail but I vaguely remember guys like Justin Upton, Greinke and Hamels being rumored to us but we couldn't close the deals because of our reluctance to include Nick.   

TBF,  he looked promising enough for a while, good power the opposite way, which is rare. The one caution was maybe that he was never exactly all that young for his performance level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gehringer_2 said:

TBF,  he looked promising enough for a while, good power the opposite way, which is rare. The one caution was maybe that he was never exactly all that young for his performance level.

Oh yeah for sure, not blaming anybody, just saying with the benefit of hindsight believing in him so much ended up really hurting the organization.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Oh yeah for sure, not blaming anybody, just saying with the benefit of hindsight believing in him so much ended up really hurting the organization.  

yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot imagine a team not paying a player after they benched him for not playing 1B.

I think the days of teams fining players is pretty much gone the way of the dodo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 1776 said:

So what if Gardenhire (management) tells Nick (employee) that he is expected to take some reps at first base because on xxxx date he will be the regular first baseman until otherwise noted. Let’s say Nick refuses and as a result is benched for refusing to fulfill his contractual obligation for pay. He doesn’t get paid, right? Point being, if directed to play first, Nick cannot refuse to play the position if directed to by management without jeopardizing his salary. Is that correct? 

 

Back in 2006, the Texas Rangers traded Alfonso Soriano to the Washington Nationals.  Immediately the Nationals wanted to play Soriano in the outfield.  Soriano refused since he wanted to continue to play 2B.  I think he even sat out most ST games.  The Nationals disputed his contract, saying that if he refused to take the field they wouldn't have to pay him because of breach in contract.  Soriano then agreed to play the OF.

If Gardenhire writes Castellanos' name at 1B and he refuses to take the field, then the Tigers won't have to play him because of the breach in contract.  

 

Edit: Here's an article I found on the situation. http://www.espn.com/espn/wire/_/section/mlb/id/2377925

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Back in 2006, the Texas Rangers traded Alfonso Soriano to the Washington Nationals.  Immediately the Nationals wanted to play Soriano in the outfield.  Soriano refused since he wanted to continue to play 2B.  I think he even sat out most ST games.  The Nationals disputed his contract, saying that if he refused to take the field they wouldn't have to pay him because of breach in contract.  Soriano then agreed to play the OF.

If Gardenhire writes Castellanos' name at 1B and he refuses to take the field, then the Tigers won't have to play him because of the breach in contract.  

Funny thing with Soriano is that he was a FA at the end of 2006. So when he signed for 2007 he could have looked for team to play 2b for, but he went to the Cubs and stayed in the OF, so I guess in the end he didn't find it that much of a hardship!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Back in 2006, the Texas Rangers traded Alfonso Soriano to the Washington Nationals.  Immediately the Nationals wanted to play Soriano in the outfield.  Soriano refused since he wanted to continue to play 2B.  I think he even sat out most ST games.  The Nationals disputed his contract, saying that if he refused to take the field they wouldn't have to pay him because of breach in contract.  Soriano then agreed to play the OF.

If Gardenhire writes Castellanos' name at 1B and he refuses to take the field, then the Tigers won't have to play him because of the breach in contract.  

 

Edit: Here's an article I found on the situation. http://www.espn.com/espn/wire/_/section/mlb/id/2377925

They should ink Miggy or JZ in at Catcher.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

The organizations belief in Nick may be one of the most costly mistakes they have made in the past half decade or so.  Not only did it cost us guys like Suarez but there were numerous trades that were shot down from 2011-2014 that may have ended up putting us over the top because the team did not want to include Nick.  I can't remember all in detail but I vaguely remember guys like Justin Upton, Greinke and Hamels being rumored to us but we couldn't close the deals because of our reluctance to include Nick.   

I don't think the organization's belief cost the Tigers Suarez.  I think it was just a case of a poor trade of a prospect for a one year wonder that wasn't worth acquiring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,733
    • Total Posts
      2,934,141
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...