1) My understanding is that, unless Hosmer never plays again, the Red Sox (who were only on the hook for the league minimum for the final three years of his contract) would only be on the hook for whatever the pro-rated part of the season where he doesn't get paid by another team is. San Diego is covering virtually all of the final years of his contract. So the money is nothing.

2) Hosmer is obviously, at best, an average hitter and fielder at this point (and probably not even that), but as a Red Sox fan, I can say he was an upgrade from the stunningly poor 1B situation we had most of last year. It was Dalbec, Cordero, even Arroyo or Christian Vazquez some days. In Bloom's defense, it was assumed Casas would take over the position by mid-season, but injuries slowed him down, and left the position in limbo until September.

3) I continue to feel that Bloom is acting like, in creating "Tampa North", he thinks he has to act like the resources available are also "Tampa North". His trades seem more focused on "winning the trade" than "winning more games". When you are the Red Sox (or the Yankees, or the Dodgers, etc.), you can sometimes just go out and spend money to solve a problem. Sometimes the point of a trade is not to get more value in future WAR or something; sometimes, it is take a surplus of talent at one position, and trade some of it to address a deficit in another position.

4) I have to vent: I am still upset that the team didn't re-sign Kyle Schwarber, or very clearly was interested in staying in Boston. The fan base adored him, and he was awesome when he came over at the deadline in 2021. The team could have put him at 1B or LF for a season, then let JD Martinez go after 2022 and put him at DH if you want to take him off the field. He signed with Philly for 4 years/$79m ($19.75m a year), hit 46 HRs last year, and takes a bunch of walks - enough that even if he hits for a low average, he's getting on base enough to not be Dave Kingman or anything. This is consistent with his career. They thought it was too much money. How does it look relative to the market right now? For the next three years, Jose Abreu and Kyle Schwarber are making almost identical money. You get Abreu's age 36-38 seasons, and Schwarber's age 30-32 seasons. Benintendi is getting 5/$75. Schwarber is a deal at his age, with his production, able to play some LF...grrr.

I'm rather surprised Hosmer has zero trade value - I'd think any number of teams at the bottom would benefit. The pirates just spent a lot of money upgrading 1B, why not Hosmer at the cost of a B prospect.

It seems if you are going to tank (money-wise) there are tons of guys like this that could make for an entertaining team / mid season trade bait

I don't know if Hosmer has zero trade value so much as Bloom appears to have filled the 40-man with a lot of really marginal guys to the point where acquiring his next marginal guy (or officially signing Yoshida) means cutting one loose, and it's apparently not going to be one of those precious relief pitchers. So a couple of potentially decent guys get lost in the Rule 5 draft, Jeter Downs gets dropped earlier in the week, etc., etc.

Honestly, I don't even remember which trade Hosmer was a throw-in part of, and he was both injured and quickly supplanted by Casas, so, whatever, I don't much care about losing Eric Hosmer; the fact that he was potentially useful is more an indictment of the team Bloom has built than anything else. But, geez, what a mess!

The Sox currently have 24 pitchers and 16 position players on the 40 man. 5 of those position players have never played in the majors (Hamilton, Valdez, Rafaela, Abreu and Yoshida).

I continue to feel that Bloom is acting like, in creating "Tampa North", he thinks he has to act like the resources available are also "Tampa North". His trades seem more focused on "winning the trade" than "winning more games".

I doubt Bloom has gone rogue - the ‘Tampa North’ strategy must have ownership’s blessing. Why that’s the case is a bit of a mystery, given the prior success, but I assume some bright boy has a spreadsheet showing winning isn’t that important to maximizing profits.

The pirates just spent a lot of money upgrading 1B

$11.5 million for Santana and Choi, though it seems they're going to be DHing, too.

Sounds like he’s reached the Oakland As part of his career

Honestly, I don't even remember which trade Hosmer was a throw-in part of

He was a throw-in to the Soto/Bell Padres-Nats trade but the Nats, apparently rather last minute, didn't want him and insisted on Voit instead. Despite losing Voit, the Padres still didn't want to keep Hosmer around and pretty much gave him away.

Officially it was Hosmer and 2 minor-leaguers for 2016 1st round pick (and former top 100 prospect) Jay Groome. Groome was not very good in 2017 (good K-rate), missed all of 2018, pitched 4 inninngs in 2019, did god knows what in 2020, was pretty bad in 2021 (very good K-rate) and pretty solid in AA/AAA in 2023. He's still only 24 and if any of the stuff that got him drafted is still left, it's not hard seeing him as a reliever/swingman, 4/5 starter. He is on the Padres' 40-man but must be close to minor-league FA at this point though so, unless he's useful soon, the Red Sox probably didn't lose anything.

The Sox currently have 24 pitchers and 16 position players on the 40 man. 5 of those position players have never played in the majors (Hamilton, Valdez, Rafaela, Abreu and Yoshida).

This is pretty common. Teams use a lot of pitchers in the season and every one of them will eventually need a 40-man slot. Position players don't get injured much so you don't need many spares on the 40-man, so position player 40-man slots in excess of the 25-man slots are a 3rd C or a prospect they didn't want to expose to the rule 5 draft. Most of the emergency replacement position players will be kept off the 40-man as long as possible. It's also not even spring yet of course, you bring the vets to camp on NRIs and sort it out later, this is the time of year for keeping kids on the 40-man.

He was a throw-in to the Soto/Bell Padres-Nats trade but the Nats, apparently rather last minute, didn't want him and insisted on Voit instead.

I believe it was the other way around - Hosmer invoked his no trade clause to block a trade to the Nationals. The Padres then substituted Voit. At least that is how it’s been reported. The trade veto apparently only increased the Padres desire to move Hosmer, and he was willing to approve a trade to the Red Sox.

You're surely right, my memory sucks.

Also meant to comment ... I'm pretty sure that point #1 of #1 is correct. For certain, it's the Padres that are on the hook for the big money. What I don't know for sure is whether, because of the trade, the Red Sox became responsible for the league min for the remainder of 2022 and 2023-24 or just the remainder of 2022. Given they acquired him in trade, I'm guessing the former. If a team now claims him after he clears waivers, they will take on the min for 2023 (assuming he makes the team) but if they get rid of him does the liabiility for 2024 rest with the new team, the Red Sox or the Padres? Even more esoterically, if a team were to claim him on waivers now, would they take on only the league min or would they be taking on the full amount, letting the Padres off the hook (in which case for sure nobody will claim him)?

What I don't know for sure is whether, because of the trade, the Red Sox became responsible for the league min for the remainder of 2022 and 2023-24 or just the remainder of 2022. Given they acquired him in trade, I'm guessing the former.

Correct, Boston is on the hook for its minimal portion through 2024.

If a team now claims him after he clears waivers, they will take on the min for 2023 (assuming he makes the team) but if they get rid of him does the liabiility for 2024 rest with the new team, the Red Sox or the Padres?

The 2024 league minimum would be a liability for the new team as Hosmer's most recent contract would be with that new team.

Even more esoterically, if a team were to claim him on waivers now, would they take on only the league min or would they be taking on the full amount, letting the Padres off the hook (in which case for sure nobody will claim him)?

The new team would be taking on the league minimum as they're picking up Hosmer with his Boston contract attached.

If a team now claims him after he clears waivers, they will take on the min for 2023 (assuming he makes the team) but if they get rid of him does the liabiility for 2024 rest with the new team, the Red Sox or the Padres?

Let's re-do this one. First, it's impossible: a player can't be claimed "after he clears waivers."

But the next theoretical part I'm not certain about. Namely, assume Hosmer goes unclaimed on waivers. Then he signs a deal with for the league minimum with a third team. Has this reduced the Padres commitment (a little) further? Specifically,

Padres owe $13M per year less
Boston's league minimum, and
Third Team's league minimum.

Let's re-do this one. First, it's impossible: a player can't be claimed "after he clears waivers."

True. I meant signed.

I hadn't thought of your question ... I would guess no, the Padres only get the break once but not sure. The scenario I was thinking of was the same one but my quesiton was slightly different. As it stands, we think Boston is responsible for the league min for 2023-24. Hosmer clears waivers, is a free agent, signs with another team. That team is only signing him for 1 year at the league min, I assume they bear no responsibility for 2024.

Your question would be one way it could work. For 2023, both Bos and the new team pay him the min and the Padres get a $1.4 M break. Then for 2024, if nobody signe him, Bos still owes him the min but the other team doesn't and the Padres get just a $700 K break. Or is Bos off the hook for 2023 then back on the hook in 2024? Or does a new team taking him on somehow absolve Bos of their commitment (I wouldn't think so).

Most of the time, the DFA'd player is in the last year of their contract (e.g. Heyward) and this is all moot. But surely the scenario we're thinking of has come up before.

I'm pretty sure Boston acquired Hosmer's contract plus $13M cash. They're responsible for the paychecks now. If a different team acquires Hosmer off waivers they would be responsible for the paychecks. He will become a free agent when he clears waivers. I have no idea how the baseball payroll system works. Do they get paid by individual teams or by the league?

Most of the time, the DFA'd player is in the last year of their contract (e.g. Heyward) and this is all moot. But surely the scenario we're thinking of has come up before.

I almost cited the sorta topical example for this in my post: Robinson Cano. With made-up numbers just for last season, the Mets let him go owing him $24M. The Padres picked him up for the league minimum. Let's just say $500K for simplicity. So that moves the Mets down to $23.5M.

Then the Padres let him go and Atlanta picks him up, let's say for league minimum prorated at that point to $300K. The Mets are now down to $23.2M. Some time later Atlanta drops him.

And now here's where I don't know how it all officially plays out.*** I'd guess the Mets remain down another $300K, and the Padres and Braves owe their prorated amounts of the minimum. My thinking is that 1) we always read of a guy like Cano after being released signing a contract with a new team—MLBTR said "After being released by the Mets in May, Cano signed a big league deal with the Padres soon thereafter...—and 2) since MLB contracts are guaranteed I figure signing teams are on the hook and the act of releasing the player again doesn't revert their (Padres/Braves) portion of his year's pay to original club (Mets). I presume this is just for the current season unless they specifically sign a Cano for more than that amount of time.

***The factual problem with the above example is that the Padres actually traded Cano to the Braves, which I'd forgotten.

I really really really don't understand what they're doing. Hopefully, they're super-duper smart.

#16 ... hmmm, I suspect that's not right (the "double-counting") but I also don't know for sure.

Let's take a simpler example. Truly washed up aged vet under contract to nobody (or aged backup C maybe) gets a NRI and makes the 25-man, hanging on however long he needs to for the $500 K to become guaranteed. So team #1 is on the hook for $500 K. He gets cut later, clears waivers ... then signs a ML contract with team #2 for league min. I don't think he gets $500 K from the first contract and a pro-rated $500 K from the second, I think the new contract just replaces whatever was left on the first contract and the player still only totals $500 K and the first team gets a break.

I doubt Bloom has gone rogue - the ‘Tampa North’ strategy must have ownership’s blessing. Why that’s the case is a bit of a mystery, given the prior success, but I assume some bright boy has a spreadsheet showing winning isn’t that important to maximizing profits.

Unfortunately I think this is the correct analysis, and even more unfortunately I think they're probably right. They're still spending, obviously (6-6-4 in the league, going backwards, the last three seasons according to Spotrac), but why bother spending to try to win 105 when 86 will get you a wild card spot?

I don't think he gets $500 K from the first contract and a pro-rated $500 K from the second, I think the new contract just replaces whatever was left on the first contract and the player still only totals $500 K and the first team gets a break.

This is correct. As you're noting, the books have to balance, so a player can't be signed for one salary and multiple teams' responsibility total more than that salary.

The confluence of the two parts of this headline underscores an interesting point: the Royals didn't want him, even as a throw-in.

Not that they should -- two of their best hitting prospects are natural first basemen. But Moore loooved Hosmer and was willing to break the bank for him before the Padres swooped in.

Moore is in Texas now. Nathaniel Lowe can mash but his defensive metrics look awful. Could Hosmer end up playing 1B there?