2015 Rotation

[Guest]

Your question was what teams could and when faced with an answer, you move the goalposts. Nice.

[davell]

Talking about trading for Hamels in the offseason as a sure thing as opposed to signing a FA is a logical fallacy. The Phillies are no more certain to accept the Cubs offer than is Lester.

That is not a logical fallacy. The question is should the cubs do it if it is an option. Some seem to think they should not. Others think they should.

 

No team is trading for Hamels when they can add a guy for just money. He's not getting dealt prior to those guys coming off the market.

you are making huge assumptions about other teams' budgets.

 

Hamels costs 22.5 per over the next 4 years, with an option and buyout after that. Even if Lester or Scherzer cost 30 mill per( beyond doubtful) they're not costing the team much more, if any, at the start of their new deal.

[SouthSideRyan]

You guys realize the Dodgers have said they want to keep their main guys and didn't meet the asking price on Hamels already, right? They will definitely look at just buying in FA before going the trade route. Considering Pederson and Seager weren't on the table for Price, you think they're going to throw them at Hamels when they can spend on a FA and not have to?

 

And our FO hasn't given the same message?

[jersey cubs fan]

Hamels costs 22.5 per over the next 4 years, with an option and buyout after that. Even if Lester or Scherzer cost 30 mill per( beyond doubtful) they're not costing the team much more, if any, at the start of their new deal.

 

And you are also assuming that there will be no money involve in a Hamels deals.

[davell]

You guys realize the Dodgers have said they want to keep their main guys and didn't meet the asking price on Hamels already, right? They will definitely look at just buying in FA before going the trade route. Considering Pederson and Seager weren't on the table for Price, you think they're going to throw them at Hamels when they can spend on a FA and not have to?

 

And our FO hasn't given the same message?

 

That's my point. Hamels will be available AFTER the main 3 FA are gone.

[XZero771679666304]

Talking about trading for Hamels in the offseason as a sure thing as opposed to signing a FA is a logical fallacy. The Phillies are no more certain to accept the Cubs offer than is Lester.

That is not a logical fallacy. The question is should the cubs do it if it is an option. Some seem to think they should not. Others think they should.

 

No team is trading for Hamels when they can add a guy for just money. He's not getting dealt prior to those guys coming off the market.

you are making huge assumptions about other teams' budgets.

 

Hamels isn't cheap, either. Ostensibly, any team trading for him is going to have to have large budget. Or an attractive enough package to persuade Amaro to eat a bunch of money. And again, they're not going to trade him to another team without running it by the Cubs first.

 

The case that the Cubs should pursue a trade for Hamels as a first priority for risk of losing the opportunity is weak, at best.

[Guest]

You guys realize the Dodgers have said they want to keep their main guys and didn't meet the asking price on Hamels already, right? They will definitely look at just buying in FA before going the trade route. Considering Pederson and Seager weren't on the table for Price, you think they're going to throw them at Hamels when they can spend on a FA and not have to?

 

And our FO hasn't given the same message?

Right.

 

And Basically any team with some payroll flexibility and a prospect of value or two could potentially trade for him.

[davell]

Your question was what teams could and when faced with an answer, you move the goalposts. Nice.

 

You named one team. And that team has already tried trading for him, decided against it, and has plenty of financial resources. You really think they'd go against what they've already done just to get a guy early?

[jersey cubs fan]

Your question was what teams could and when faced with an answer, you move the goalposts. Nice.

 

You named one team. And that team has already tried trading for him, decided against it, and has plenty of financial resources. You really think they'd go against what they've already done just to get a guy early?

It's not about getting a guy early. It's about getting a guy.

[davell]

Hamels costs 22.5 per over the next 4 years, with an option and buyout after that. Even if Lester or Scherzer cost 30 mill per( beyond doubtful) they're not costing the team much more, if any, at the start of their new deal.

 

And you are also assuming that there will be no money involve in a Hamels deals.

 

So you're cutting into the market even further by upping the prospect haul?

[Guest]

Your question was what teams could and when faced with an answer, you move the goalposts. Nice.

 

You named one team. And that team has already tried trading for him, decided against it, and has plenty of financial resources. You really think they'd go against what they've already done just to get a guy early?

Name a team with some value and payroll flexibility.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hamels isn't cheap, either. Ostensibly, any team trading for him is going to have to have large budget. Or an attractive enough package to persuade Amaro to eat a bunch of money. And again, they're not going to trade him to another team without running it by the Cubs first.

 

The case that the Cubs should pursue a trade for Hamels as a first priority for risk of losing the opportunity is weak, at best.

 

What does running it by the Cubs have to do with it? If you are advocating for waiting until all free agents are taken then it doesn't matter if a trade gets "run by" the Cubs before going down.

[jersey cubs fan]

Hamels costs 22.5 per over the next 4 years, with an option and buyout after that. Even if Lester or Scherzer cost 30 mill per( beyond doubtful) they're not costing the team much more, if any, at the start of their new deal.

 

And you are also assuming that there will be no money involve in a Hamels deals.

 

So you're cutting into the market even further by upping the prospect haul?

I don't know what that means.

[davell]

Your question was what teams could and when faced with an answer, you move the goalposts. Nice.

 

You named one team. And that team has already tried trading for him, decided against it, and has plenty of financial resources. You really think they'd go against what they've already done just to get a guy early?

It's not about getting a guy early. It's about getting a guy.

 

One, if we miss on the FA, I'm fine going after Hamels. I'm not fine trading Castro for him, but that's not my point. My point is he'll still be there after the FA are gone and if we miss on them, we certainly have the goods to trade for him at THAT point.

[davell]

Hamels costs 22.5 per over the next 4 years, with an option and buyout after that. Even if Lester or Scherzer cost 30 mill per( beyond doubtful) they're not costing the team much more, if any, at the start of their new deal.

 

And you are also assuming that there will be no money involve in a Hamels deals.

 

So you're cutting into the market even further by upping the prospect haul?

I don't know what that means.

 

If Philly is going to pay down his contract, it'd require the team they're trading with to give up even more to acquire him. There just aren't many teams that have the prospects to do it.

[davell]

Your question was what teams could and when faced with an answer, you move the goalposts. Nice.

 

You named one team. And that team has already tried trading for him, decided against it, and has plenty of financial resources. You really think they'd go against what they've already done just to get a guy early?

Name a team with some value and payroll flexibility.

 

The Red Sox, us, and the Dodgers. None of whom would trade elite talent away before trying to acquire the same value in FA first.

[Guest]

I don't know how you can possibly make that claim with any degree of certainty. Russell has been great in the minors, but that guarantees pretty much nothing

 

advanced approach, power, defense, and athleticism go a long way.

 

although now i see people disparaging a prospect they love in order to try to be right about something. for shame.

 

Sorry to come back to this, but come on.

 

Castro at age 20 at Tennessee: 121 PA, .376/.421/.569, 9/11 BB/K

Russell at age 20 at Tennessee: 135 PA, .304/.356/.556, 8/26 BB/K

 

People forget how badly Castro was incinerating AA when he was first promoted.

[seanimal]

I don't know how you can possibly make that claim with any degree of certainty. Russell has been great in the minors, but that guarantees pretty much nothing

 

advanced approach, power, defense, and athleticism go a long way.

 

although now i see people disparaging a prospect they love in order to try to be right about something. for shame.

 

Sorry to come back to this, but come on.

 

Castro at age 20 at Tennessee: 121 PA, .376/.421/.569, 9/11 BB/K

Russell at age 20 at Tennessee: 135 PA, .304/.356/.556, 8/26 BB/K

 

People forget how badly Castro was incinerating AA when he was first promoted.

 

jim hendry tho

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't know how you can possibly make that claim with any degree of certainty. Russell has been great in the minors, but that guarantees pretty much nothing

 

advanced approach, power, defense, and athleticism go a long way.

 

although now i see people disparaging a prospect they love in order to try to be right about something. for shame.

 

Sorry to come back to this, but come on.

 

Castro at age 20 at Tennessee: 121 PA, .376/.421/.569, 9/11 BB/K

Russell at age 20 at Tennessee: 135 PA, .304/.356/.556, 8/26 BB/K

 

People forget how badly Castro was incinerating AA when he was first promoted.

 

http://rack.0.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEzLzA2LzI1L2Q3L2dpcGh5Mi42NWEyOS5naWYKcAl0aHVtYgkxMjAweDk2MDA-/e18a6e2c/309/giphy-2.gif

[SouthSideRyan]

Your question was what teams could and when faced with an answer, you move the goalposts. Nice.

 

You named one team. And that team has already tried trading for him, decided against it, and has plenty of financial resources. You really think they'd go against what they've already done just to get a guy early?

Name a team with some value and payroll flexibility.

 

The Red Sox, us, and the Dodgers. None of whom would trade elite talent away before trying to acquire the same value in FA first.

 

You're making a pretty big assumption there. And I'd add the Angels, Giants, and Mariners to that list. Maybe the Cardinals too

[davell]

Your question was what teams could and when faced with an answer, you move the goalposts. Nice.

 

You named one team. And that team has already tried trading for him, decided against it, and has plenty of financial resources. You really think they'd go against what they've already done just to get a guy early?

Name a team with some value and payroll flexibility.

 

The Red Sox, us, and the Dodgers. None of whom would trade elite talent away before trying to acquire the same value in FA first.

 

You're making a pretty big assumption there. And I'd add the Angels, Giants, and Mariners to that list. Maybe the Cardinals too

 

The Angels and Giants don't have nearly enough to pull off a trade. Can't see the Mariners or Cardinals doing it, when they've already had a chance to do it and didn't either. Not til the FA are off the board.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

The Angels and Giants don't have nearly enough to pull off a trade. Can't see the Mariners or Cardinals doing it, when they've already had a chance to do it and didn't either. Not til the FA are off the board.

 

And as I said, you're making assumptions about how each of these front offices operate and what they value.

 

The Angels could center a deal around Calhoun. The Giants could center a deal around Crick.

 

ETA: Mets too

[sneakypower]

no way Angels move Calhoun

[davell]

 

The Angels and Giants don't have nearly enough to pull off a trade. Can't see the Mariners or Cardinals doing it, when they've already had a chance to do it and didn't either. Not til the FA are off the board.

 

And as I said, you're making assumptions about how each of these front offices operate and what they value.

 

The Angels could center a deal around Calhoun. The Giants could center a deal around Crick.

 

ETA: Mets too

 

There are 3 major FA pitchers out there. There are many more teams than that, that will be going after them. To get the best return on Hamels, it definitely seems to me they'd let those guys go off the board prior to trading him. One, because each of those teams certainly would rather pay money than give up a ton AND have to pay money. Two, we don't even know for sure they'll put Hamels back on the market to begin with. Three, if they do, why would they come down on their astronomical price early in the offseason? They'd get more by waiting to see who the FA losers are anyway. Not to mention, Im sure they've got certain prospects on a few teams they like more than others obviously. If those teams look to go FA first(Us,Dodgers, Red Sox) do you think they'd settle with the chance one of them has to wind up bidding on Hamels?

[SouthSideRyan]

Yikes, didn't realize how much he destroyed the minors before getting the call last year.