davell

I mean, I guess it's technically possible. But the guy hasn't played organized baseball in quite some time and a bad month or so could really decrease his value. I see no chance of it happening.

Doesn't Law have KB 1 overall?

The person who wrote that does not understand the difference between "rumor" and "speculation." Evidently there's been a scout or two mention it wouldn't be a surprise if he were dealt. But your point does stand. I can't imagine they actually would deal him.

http://www.bostonsuperblog.com/2014/07/mlb-rumors-could-washington-nationals-trade-bryce-harper-4482 Hmmmm.

Only if you can promise if/when he can't hit in those 100 ABs, he can finally go away. Absolutely.

Olt likely has too many holes and too long of a swing to produce as a starter. But he's at least hitting AAA pitching after struggling mightily there last year. It IS possible his vision has gotten better, but needed more consistent playing time in the majors to put up slightly better numbers. If he can hit .200 with his power and his glove, he's a fairly useful bench bat for us. It's worth finding out if he can be that. I hope we give him another 100 major league at bats this year, it's not like its hurting anything or taking AB's away from someone we don't already know what they are.

I'm agreeing with Goony too much today.

My first reaction is I'd do that. My first reaction is I'd trade Starlin for him too(straight up) but coming back from TJS is scary still and I doubt the Mets would do it anyway.

I think he's done, but unlike those two he is actually raking in AAA and does hold some defensive value. The other two are more done. This. He's still remotely salvageable to the point he's a bench bat.

We've got winter leagues and spring training to get looks at Straily, Doubront, and Turner. While it'd be nice to see them get a few starts now, it's not like we've got enough time to declare any of them as definites for next year. Same goes for Hendricks and Wada. I'd set the over/under at 1.5 on how many of that group open up in our 5 man rotation next April.

They don't call him the best color man in the business for nothing folks!

A quick google produced 4A arm. Opened up a 40 man spot though. Rivero time?

http://nypost.com/2014/08/14/from-instagram-pics-to-open-defiance-harvey-testing-mets-nerve/ What would you give up for him?

That's what I'm picturing. We wouldn't be looking at him as a starter. At least I hope not.

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/dempster-happy-trade-landed-cubs-building-block-hendricks You guys ready for him to be back next year? Because I think it's going to happen.

I think Wada takes Villanueva's swing role next year.

He's not built his arm strength all the way back up yet, was hitting 92 earlier. Getting thru 6 with far less than his best stuff is an obvious positive. I'm just glad he's back. If Iowa does make the playoffs, I could see him and Pierce get moved up for that.

The funny thing is that the playoff spot and a 4-year reign in the central would be based on the rotation if you're looking at a track record of ML success rather than potential. If you actually read what we've been arguing about, no one is suggesting not adding elite pitching. We're arguing different ways to accomplish it.

The funny thing is that the playoff spot and a 4-year reign in the central would be based on the rotation if you're looking at a track record of ML success rather than potential. YES THAT IS THE FUNNY THING amitheonlyonewhodoesntseethefunnything? Just "oh shitted" in a conference call. Thanks man.

And Sulley, I would LOVE to get Lester AND Hamels. I just don't think they'll add 2 high priced guys in a single offseason. Lester and a trade for Wheeler or some other young cost controlled pitcher? Sure. But not 2 20 mill types when they've repeatedly said this 18-24 month window.

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? Turn it around, do you think they'll wait and let some of the big bidders get taken out of the trade market after they sign up Scherzer/Lester/Maeda? That's not their call. My point is I can't see any of the Cubs, Red Sox, and Dodgers giving up the required haul until they miss out on the FA.

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?

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.

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.

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.