2015 lineup or no?

[SouthSideRyan]

Just delete your first sentence Sulley.

[Guest]

i love TT, let me just say that. he's like the smartest dude on the board, but he's [expletive] wrong wrong wrong about this.

[Guest]

it really all comes down to

 

Maeda + McCarthy + Castro + Baez + Russell <<<<<<< Hamels + Scherzer/Lester + Russell + Baez + Alcantara

 

or something, any number of combinations you can think of there. Maybe Coghlan in LF instead of Bryant in the second one.

[d_money]

The Cubs are on Hamels NTC, no? If so - all of the above chatter of acquiring Hamels is moot.

[Guest]

The Cubs are on Hamels NTC, no? If so - all of the above chatter of acquiring Hamels is moot.

 

they are not

[Rob]

holy [expletive] they're both good, but Lester is probably going back to Boston and Hamels has 4 years on his deal, which will take a guy like him through his productive years with a club option if he's good. i'm positive that Jed and Theo value that. And like I said, with Hamels on board, Lester or Scherzer are more likely to look at Chicago as a destination. If the Cubs can come out of the offseason with Hamels and Lester/Scherzer, they are Central favorites and can rival the Dodgers and Nationals immediately. If they can put that together, they will, even if it means trading Castro to do it.

 

"I'm positive the Cubs value getting players on reasonable contracts. That's why they're going to trade their pre-prime 23 year old SS signed to a significantly below-market deal in order to acquire a beat up 30 year old pitcher whose contract can best be described as 'at least it's not 5-7 years.'"

[Rob]

Let's make three big assumptions.

 

1.) Hamels stays healthy and is a 4 fWAR player for the next four years.

 

2.) Lester and Scherzer are exactly the same as Hamels for the next four years.

 

3.) Castro stays healthy and remains a 3 fWAR player for the next five years.

 

We would be paying $6M per win for Hamels. $2.9M per win for Castro. This ignores the fact that Hamels is post-prime, already has arm issues, and has a manager who has tried to actively ruin his arm. It ignores the fact that Lester and Scherzer are just a half tick better than Hamels and don't have quite the same injury concerns. It also ignores that Castro is pre-prime and has some room for growth. So of the big 3 assumptions, all are optimistic towards Sulley's view of the situation.

 

At the standard quote of $6M per win on the free agent market, that would mean Hamels is projected to be worth exactly what he's paid. Castro would be worth about $46M more than he's being paid.

 

Let's take that $46M and toss it on the back end of Hamels contract. It would look like 6/$142M, which should be enough to bring in one of Lester or Scherzer. That means they could miss the last two seasons of that contract entirely and we'd be no worse off. Anything better than replacement level would be gravy.

 

Trading Castro for Hamels is dumb.

[jumbo]

Let's make three big assumptions.

 

1.) Hamels stays healthy and is a 4 fWAR player for the next four years.

 

2.) Lester and Scherzer are exactly the same as Hamels for the next four years.

 

3.) Castro stays healthy and remains a 3 fWAR player for the next five years.

 

We would be paying $6M per win for Hamels. $2.9M per win for Castro. This ignores the fact that Hamels is post-prime, already has arm issues, and has a manager who has tried to actively ruin his arm. It ignores the fact that Lester and Scherzer are just a half tick better than Hamels and don't have quite the same injury concerns. It also ignores that Castro is pre-prime and has some room for growth. So of the big 3 assumptions, all are optimistic towards Sulley's view of the situation.

 

At the standard quote of $6M per win on the free agent market, that would mean Hamels is projected to be worth exactly what he's paid. Castro would be worth about $46M more than he's being paid.

 

Let's take that $46M and toss it on the back end of Hamels contract. It would look like 6/$142M, which should be enough to bring in one of Lester or Scherzer. That means they could miss the last two seasons of that contract entirely and we'd be no worse off. Anything better than replacement level would be gravy.

 

Trading Castro for Hamels is dumb.

 

It's hard to argue with that. Well done

[ConstableRabbit]

It's silly to use "a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" logic wrt definitely getting Hamels vs. the risk of not signing Lester, and then saying you're cool with trading Castro because Russell is going to be awesome.

[sneakypower]

if we were going to trade Al Contra by now, we'd surely just have paired him with Wood for Price

 

soon you pukes will all see him as the very good player he is

[Guest]

It's silly to use "a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush" logic wrt definitely getting Hamels vs. the risk of not signing Lester, and then saying you're cool with trading Castro because Russell is going to be awesome.

Those are not similar at all. Again someone tries to oversimplify in order to prove an unprovable point.

[Guest]

if we were going to trade Al Contra by now, we'd surely just have paired him with Wood for Price

 

soon you pukes will all see him as the very good player he is

 

Kinda the same argument as Hamels no? Price is good(and this year finally has the elite performance to match his reputation), but why give up big talent for the right to pay him 1.5/27M?

 

I really like Alcantara, but I am a little worried at the early returns on him as an OF.

[Guest]

Let's make three big assumptions.

 

1.) Hamels stays healthy and is a 4 fWAR player for the next four years.

 

2.) Lester and Scherzer are exactly the same as Hamels for the next four years.

 

3.) Castro stays healthy and remains a 3 fWAR player for the next five years.

 

We would be paying $6M per win for Hamels. $2.9M per win for Castro. This ignores the fact that Hamels is post-prime, already has arm issues, and has a manager who has tried to actively ruin his arm. It ignores the fact that Lester and Scherzer are just a half tick better than Hamels and don't have quite the same injury concerns. It also ignores that Castro is pre-prime and has some room for growth. So of the big 3 assumptions, all are optimistic towards Sulley's view of the situation.

 

At the standard quote of $6M per win on the free agent market, that would mean Hamels is projected to be worth exactly what he's paid. Castro would be worth about $46M more than he's being paid.

 

Let's take that $46M and toss it on the back end of Hamels contract. It would look like 6/$142M, which should be enough to bring in one of Lester or Scherzer. That means they could miss the last two seasons of that contract entirely and we'd be no worse off. Anything better than replacement level would be gravy.

 

Trading Castro for Hamels is dumb.

 

We're not comparing fWAR of Hamels and Castro, are we?

 

Essentially, in order to get a true idea of the issue, we're comparing the difference between Hamels and the pitcher that Hamels is replacing, and castro and the player that's replacing Castro, right?

 

I mean, you're simplifying to make a point, i get it, but not everyone is a meatball to reason.

 

So, let's say that we trade for Hamels and he replaces Wood. Scherzer (or Lester) feel better about signing with the Cubs because of this and this tips the scale in favor of Chicago in the race. I realize that this is very optimistic, but if you want to say you're being optimistic to my point of view, we might as well be optimistic to my point of view, right?

 

Scherzer replaces Jackson.

 

So now, you have a 2 WAR difference between Wood and Hamels and a 4 WAR difference between Scherzer and Jackson, totalling a 6 WAR profit.

 

Assuming that, if Castro is traded, Kris Bryant plays LF, Baez goes to 3rd, Russell at SS, Alcantara plays 2b, and they get Castillo to play CF, who is the low WAR man in this scenario? Because that's the guy that you compare Castro's WAR (as a 3rd baseman, btw) to, not Hamels.

 

If it's even, then you've added 6 WAR, and if whomever is low man outprojects or produces Castro, which is very possible, you've added more. Sure, you've paid a ton for those wins, more than you would pay for 3 Castros (but only at SS), but at some point, for a major market team, you have to spend inefficiently to put yourself over. The dollars per win thing is stupid, as i said before, let Boxcar Ricketts figure that out.

[Guest]

if we were going to trade Al Contra by now, we'd surely just have paired him with Wood for Price

 

soon you pukes will all see him as the very good player he is

 

Kinda the same argument as Hamels no? Price is good(and this year finally has the elite performance to match his reputation), but why give up big talent for the right to pay him 1.5/27M?

 

I really like Alcantara, but I am a little worried at the early returns on him as an OF.

 

I think we need to reevalute these fielding metrics

[Guest]

I'm not talking about the fielding metrics(although in this case they actually highlight my point), it's that Alctanara's arm looks sub-replacement in CF. Hopefully he can improve on that, and his range has been great so maybe it ends up not mattering, but 1) I'm still a little scarred by Juan Pierre and 2) we're at the point where we're talking about guys who are good but less than ideal fits. If Alcantara is going to be sub-optimal in CF compared to a guy you can spend money on, using him as a trade to get a pitcher who is more optimal than the guys available for money is a good idea.

[Guest]

Essentially, in order to get a true idea of the issue, we're comparing the difference between Hamels and the pitcher that Hamels is replacing, and castro and the player that's replacing Castro, right?

 

This is an emphatic no.

[Rob]

Essentially, in order to get a true idea of the issue, we're comparing the difference between Hamels and the pitcher that Hamels is replacing, and castro and the player that's replacing Castro, right?

 

This is an emphatic no.

 

Thank you, TT. I couldn't even figure out how to get started breaking down that convoluted nonsense. (Though what was really jumping out at me was the suggestion that the lowest WAR total from Bryant, Baez, Russell, Alcantara, and Castillo would match or beat Castro. -- That was seriously pants-on-head crazy.)

[Guest]

Essentially, in order to get a true idea of the issue, we're comparing the difference between Hamels and the pitcher that Hamels is replacing, and castro and the player that's replacing Castro, right?

 

This is an emphatic no.

 

Thank you, TT. I couldn't even figure out how to get started breaking down that convoluted nonsense. (Though what was really jumping out at me was the suggestion that the lowest WAR total from Bryant, Baez, Russell, Alcantara, and Castillo would match or beat Castro. -- That was seriously pants-on-head crazy.)

 

lol this reminds me of the scene with George Plimpton in Good Will Hunting. "He's a raving looney!"

[Guest]

Essentially, in order to get a true idea of the issue, we're comparing the difference between Hamels and the pitcher that Hamels is replacing, and castro and the player that's replacing Castro, right?

 

This is an emphatic no.

 

so Rob is right in simply comparing Hamels's WAR to Castro's?

[Guest]

Yes, because they're the two players involved in the trade. There's far more liquidity in roster movement than you're implying if you're relying on 'guy v. his backup' logic to justify it. 'We'll get this shiny quarter for our wrinkly dollar bill' is not excusable with 'you have to be inefficient to get this caliber of player' when there's been several alternatives presented to you that do not have that problem.

[Guest]

Yes, because they're the two players involved in the trade. There's far more liquidity in roster movement than you're implying if you're relying on 'guy v. his backup' logic to justify it. 'We'll get this shiny quarter for our wrinkly dollar bill' is not excusable with 'you have to be inefficient to get this caliber of player' when there's been several alternatives presented to you that do not have that problem.

 

it would make sense to me to compare total WAR of the team with and without the move. by leaving the other factors out, you're framing the argument.

[Guest]

No, you do not take lesser value in a trade simply because what you're trading away has a more able replacement. The only way that would make sense is if you could not acquire the same value for less given up(or trade away the same value for a greater return). Neither are true, most especially in the offseason.

 

EDIT: For a more concrete example, let's say I want something for 50 cents at a vending machine that only takes exact change, and all I have are $1 bills.

 

- If this vending machine is in the middle of nowhere and there's only one person within sight, I *might* give them a dollar for only 50 cents to make sure I can make a purchase

 

- If this vending machine is in the middle of a busy convenience store that also has an ATM, I'm going to want 4 quarters in return for my dollar when making an exchange

 

This is the second situation, not the first.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

In this scenario, we're kids whose parents always promise us they are going to get the candy-bar next door and then when we get there it turns out they were lying.

[Sammy Sofa]

We're not comparing fWAR of Hamels and Castro, are we?

 

Essentially, in order to get a true idea of the issue, we're comparing the difference between Hamels and the pitcher that Hamels is replacing, and castro and the player that's replacing Castro, right?

 

I mean, you're simplifying to make a point, i get it, but not everyone is a meatball to reason.

 

So, let's say that we trade for Hamels and he replaces Wood. Scherzer (or Lester) feel better about signing with the Cubs because of this and this tips the scale in favor of Chicago in the race. I realize that this is very optimistic, but if you want to say you're being optimistic to my point of view, we might as well be optimistic to my point of view, right?

 

Scherzer replaces Jackson.

 

So now, you have a 2 WAR difference between Wood and Hamels and a 4 WAR difference between Scherzer and Jackson, totalling a 6 WAR profit.

 

Assuming that, if Castro is traded, Kris Bryant plays LF, Baez goes to 3rd, Russell at SS, Alcantara plays 2b, and they get Castillo to play CF, who is the low WAR man in this scenario? Because that's the guy that you compare Castro's WAR (as a 3rd baseman, btw) to, not Hamels.

 

If it's even, then you've added 6 WAR, and if whomever is low man outprojects or produces Castro, which is very possible, you've added more. Sure, you've paid a ton for those wins, more than you would pay for 3 Castros (but only at SS), but at some point, for a major market team, you have to spend inefficiently to put yourself over. The dollars per win thing is stupid, as i said before, let Boxcar Ricketts figure that out.

 

http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy133/kpejoro/Indy_zps315d58ca.gif

[TruffleShuffle]

This ignores the fact that Hamels is post-prime, already has arm issues, and has a manager who has tried to actively ruin his arm.

 

i would quibble with these points. hamels has never suffered a serious arm injury, and his issue in spring training was shoulder tendonitis. he had an MRI that came back clean, so the problem was treated with rest and anti-inflammatories. it didn't take him long to get back to full health and he has pitched really well this year. i've had shoulder tendonitis in the past (from swimming), and that's not a major concern - not like the dreaded forearm strain or fraying of the rotator cuff. it's not a structural issue. both scherzer (2012) and lester (2011) have had minor arm isues in the past, so i wouldn't say that hamels is at any greater risk because of minor spring training shoulder tendonitis.

 

as for hamels being worked hard, he's had only 7 starts in which he's thrown 110+ pitches, compared to lester 13 for lester and scherzer. sandberg is a lousy manager, but hamels' workload hasn't been too irresponsible, aside from a couple of starts.