Hot Stove Lunch: Why taking on (another) bad contract might be a good move for Sox; Twenty years of Cash and more

This is a daily BSJ off-season feature that will arrive in time for your lunch, Monday-Friday.

A spin around the leagues with the latest news, notes, and rumors around Major League Baseball

RED SOX

Jeff Sullivan of Fangraphs posted an interesting theory recently: teams with some payroll flexibility should consider taking on a big, unwanted salary as a means of obtaining a top prospect.

Say a team is looking to move an overpaid player off its payroll. To get another team to take the salary off their hands, they would include a good prospect as part of the deal.

That got me thinking: if the Red Sox aren't going to be taking on another big salary before the start of the season, might it make sense for them to instead follow this path?

It almost doesn't matter who the veteran player is; the Sox could just designate him for assignment immediately, the way the Braves did recently with Adrian Gonzalez. Then, the Sox would have another highly-valued young player to add to a system which has been thinned out due to trades and promotions.

Sure, the Red Sox already have some dead money on their payroll - Pablo Sandoval and Rusney Castillo come to mind. But what's one more big contract? Especially if this one brings with it some actual value.

AL EAST

Brian Cashman has been on the job for 20 years. Ken Davidoff takes a long look at his tenure.

Orioles pitching prospect Hunter Harvey hopes this is the year he finally gets over a series of injuries

How will the Rays utilize Brendan McKay -- at first base, as closer, or both?

AL CENTRAL

Today is National Bubble Gum Day, so it made sense to ask some Indians fans how many pieces Terry Francona goes through per day.

The Tigers are having a hard time selling tickets for Opening Day

Twins chief baseball officer Derek Falvey grew up in Lynn, Mass. and was asked what he would ask Bill Belichick.

The Royals have been focused on building pitching depth

White Sox top prospect Eloy Jimenez predicts big things for his franchise

AL WEST

Former No. 1 pick by the Astros, Mark Appel, has left the game behind

A look at the rebuilt Oakland bullpen

Perhaps the Mariners' bullpen will be better than expected

Work is ongoing on the new Rangers' ballpark.

NL

The Nationals finally got a backup catcher.

TAKE I MAY REGRET IN A MONTH

It seems as though baseball won't have a pitch clock after all in 2018

In the latest round of talks between commissioner Rob Manfred and the Players Association, the commissioner offered to go without a pitch clock in 2018. The deal: no clock, but one would be introduced in 2019 if players can't shave about 10 minutes off the average time of game this season.

Manfred has the right to unilaterally implement a pitch clock, which the majority of players oppose. It seems as though Manfred is willing to put the onus on the players to clean up their own game. If they can figure a way to do so without a pitch clock, that's fine.

Last year, the average time of game soared to 3:05. Manfred wants games to be average no more than 2:55 this season.

I would have preferred to see Manfred institute the pitch clock for 2018. But perhaps this is a good tactical move. It invites the players to do their part, while not alienating them and sewing seeds for a labor dispute in a few years. If the players can't speed things up, Manfred will have given them their chance and be free to implement a clock for 2019.