Backtobanks

Doing it on the field is different than projections.

Not only should we wait to see what we have in Baez, but it might be a good idea to make sure Russell is as good as advertised in the ML. He certainly looks like a future ML star, but other top prospects have failed at the ML level.

As great a ballplayer and person as he was, you do have to think he was the perfect person to be taken advantage of in his later life. He was friendly, trusting, not very well-educated, famous, and elderly.

Unfortunately it looks like all of the people in his personal life never understood the goodwill that Ernie espoused all of his life.

This is for "bold" predictions, not tame predictions. :lol:

Yeah the Amaro factor really puts a halt on things. Cameron put a decent article up on Fangraphs today basically saying that the Phillies should be using the money committed to Lee as a way of 'buying' young talent. There's nothing in Amaro's history to show he would be willing to think outside the box like that, or make reasonable valuations on what everything is worth, but if he was willing to pick up a good chunk of that contract for the purpose of acquiring talent, it could be worth a discussion. From MLBTR: Cameron thinks the Phillies should bite the bullet and swallow the entire $25MM owed to Lee this season, leaving an acquiring club to cover the $12.5MM buyout or $27.5MM club option for next season. If the Phillies eat enough money, they should receive at least one notable prospect in exchange for the ace.

That sounds like a great plan. Any three of them are totally replaceable. DO YOU SEE THE INHERENT PROBLEM YOUR STATEMENT CREATES I sure don't see any problem that my statement creates. Re-signing Fowler covers CF for probably 4 years to eliminate Almora and McKinney. We already have an Castro, Baez, Russell, and La Stella to handle SS eliminating Torres. La Stella and Watkins should be able to handle the utility role that Alcantara is expected to fill. Vogelbach is probably destined to be a DH. 4 years of Hamels certainly eases the pain of losing Johnson. Add to that the fact that all of them are prospects which means they might not reach their potential. Meanwhile, adding Hamels gives us one of the top rotations in the ML for the next 3-4 years. The problem is that three easily replaceable players are easily replaceable for a reason, and won't net you Cole Hamels. And Logan Watkins is terrible and can't handle anything. Not to mention he's already out until 2016. Vance is the one who suggested the trade, not me. My comment was that it was a great idea if the Phillies would accept because we weren't giving up anybody that wasn't replaceable. Also, I never said that I thought the Phillies would accept any version of that deal. As for Watkins, it certainly wouldn't be hard to replace his name with any other mediocre utility IF.

That sounds like a great plan. Any three of them are totally replaceable. DO YOU SEE THE INHERENT PROBLEM YOUR STATEMENT CREATES I sure don't see any problem that my statement creates. Re-signing Fowler covers CF for probably 4 years to eliminate Almora and McKinney. We already have an Castro, Baez, Russell, and La Stella to handle SS eliminating Torres. La Stella and Watkins should be able to handle the utility role that Alcantara is expected to fill. Vogelbach is probably destined to be a DH. 4 years of Hamels certainly eases the pain of losing Johnson. Add to that the fact that all of them are prospects which means they might not reach their potential. Meanwhile, adding Hamels gives us one of the top rotations in the ML for the next 3-4 years.

That sounds like a great plan. Any three of them are totally replaceable.

I have trouble believing that it would have any real effect because the pitcher would then have an effect on the 5-7 spots, plus usually anybody that would be hitting 9th probably isn't much of an offensive threat anyhow.

Hopefully Germen is using his frequent flier miles.

From MLBTR: To be sure, plenty of time remains for the market to re-develop and the cost to go back up, to say nothing of a (perhaps unlikely) scenario in which Shields waits to see if injuries or other issues crop up this spring. But if Shields’s AAV does indeed fall below the expected $18MM to $19MM range, a three year pact could well land at or below the $50MM mark. Of course, as the above discussion shows, even reaching that threshold at this point in the offseason timeline would actually represent a rather unusual achievement.

Maybe not one of Zimmermann/Price/Cuerto, but someone like Anderson/Porcello/Fister would give us a rotation of Lester, Shields, Arrieta, Hammel, Anderson/Porcello/Fister, and Hendricks as depth for 2016 - 2018. Next off season you know that some of the "big spenders" (Red Sox, Nationals, Yankees, etc.) will have money to spend and will be more than willing to spend it.

Laughter happens. He's getting at least 4/80 guaranteed. It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have his perfect offer from a team he wants to play for or else he would be signed by now. I agree that the overwhelming majority of players take the highest bid, but sometimes a player will leave money on the table for other reasons (location, AL/NL, losing team/contending team, etc.) A serious discussion with the FO explaining the likelihood of agreeing to the option because of increased revenue in the next few years might convince him that a 4 year/$82 million contract on a contending team is the best way to go. Now that the Cubs have shown they are willing to give out a big contract, I'd rather they wait until next offseason and go after a bunch of other pitchers who, while more expensive, I feel will also be much better. We lock into Shields at $20 per for three seasons after this, and I have my doubts that they will be willing to have three starters making $20 million or more in their rotation for multiple years. I understand that not all the top free agents will be available by next offseason, but I feel there will be enough that it's best to wait. I think it's worth a shot if Shields makes us a playoff team this year. Signing one good pitcher next year would give us a rotation of 4 very good/excellent starters for at least 2016 -2018.

Laughter happens. He's getting at least 4/80 guaranteed. It's pretty obvious that he doesn't have his perfect offer from a team he wants to play for or else he would be signed by now. I agree that the overwhelming majority of players take the highest bid, but sometimes a player will leave money on the table for other reasons (location, AL/NL, losing team/contending team, etc.) A serious discussion with the FO explaining the likelihood of agreeing to the option because of increased revenue in the next few years might convince him that a 4 year/$82 million contract on a contending team is the best way to go.

Laughter happens. He's getting at least 4/80 guaranteed. If he turns it down, we're no worse off than we are now. He might think about joining a team that could be on the verge of appearing in a WS and not having the pressure of being the #1 starter.

Maybe the FO ought to talk to Lester about renegotiating his contract. Signing Shields would certainly put us up with the favorites for playoffs in 2015 and probably make us World Series favorites in 2016 & 2017.

From MLBTR:James Shields, the top free agent still available, has lost his leverage and is in the worst possible spot as most teams have exhausted their payroll space and are more willing to identify reasons to dismiss an available player, opines ESPN’s Buster Olney in an Insider piece (subscription required). The longer a premium free agent like Shields remains unsigned, Olney notes, the more his negotiating strategy and leverage position are picked apart. Offer him 18/20/22 with a $22 mutual million option and see what happens.

The reason I became a Cub fan. RIP Ernie.

If we paid half of Jackson's salary, we could save $11 million over 2 years and another team would have a BOR starter for about $5 million per year.

I still think that Jackson, Wood, and Castillo have some trade value with us eating some salary. Jackson and Wood at the right price are innings eaters and can fill out the BOR for some teams. Castillo has value as a lefty masher, but the other GMs know they have Theo over a barrel because of Montero/Ross. It's just a matter of settling on what we send over in money and what we will accept in return.

For what team?

From MLBTR: In addition to pursuing free agent starter James Shields, the Diamondbacks are looking at the trade market for a starter and/or catcher, Jon Morosi of FOX Sports reports. Arizona would be interested in moving an outfield bat, and at least one club (the Orioles) has inquired on David Peralta and Ender Inciarte.

From MLBTR: The Indians have a handful of left-handed outfielders, which leads Pluto to believe David Murphy will be traded. Murphy is owed $6MM in 2015. This is my speculation, but we learned earlier today that the Giants could turn to the trade market for a left-handed outfielder. Murphy might be an interesting trade target - LH, veteran, no long term commitment.

Why would you doubt it? Do you think Cubs management planned on bringing in Ross whether they signed Lester or not? I'd find that a lot more doubtful than Lester wanting his personal catcher to go wherever he goes. It's pretty obvious that Theo wanted to get rid of Castillo since he went after Martin and then traded for Montero, so yes it's possible that Theo might have signed Ross because of his defense. All Theo had to do was tell Lester he would do his best to sign Ross and then let someone outbid him. Also, Lester managed to do pretty well (1.9 WAR, 1.07 WHIP, 2.35 ERA in 76 innings) without his "personal" catcher in Oakland.