SouthSideRyan

We've come a long way from what our Top 10 prospects looked like after the Garza trade. Any particular reason why his production dropped so much once he went to Tampa? I remember taking a look at Lee's number in Peoria years ago and thinking he was the potential leadoff man of the future. Solid Walk totals, punch out's not too high, and a quality base stealer. Combined with above average defensive range and I'll admit that at one time I was higher on Lee than Castro. I think he had a pretty significant leg injury (Broken leg?)

What about the rest of the money Cueto wants?

Not if you're Jake. Because turning down contract extensions from Theo turned out so well for Garza and Shark. When it comes to starting pitchers being offered long term contracts during arbitration years, there is absolutely something to be said for the expression "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Samardzija was awful this past year, and is lined up to get close to the same he would've with the extension, or he'll have the option to take a short-term deal and make bank the following year. Garza lost what 20M? I mean, is the thought process here that extensions from Theo are more valuable than extensions from other FOs? Or just that all pitchers should take extensions? Turning down contract extensions sure seemed to work out well for David Price, Johnny Cueto, Zack Greinke, Jordan ZImmermann, Clayton Kershaw, etc. Chris Sale could be looking at free agency next year and a 200M+ contract. Instead he'll be under control for 3/38 through his age 30 season. iirc estimates were in the 5/90 neighborhood, i'd be stunned if he gets that with the 1st rounder (worth ~$20m) also attached you're also discounting the good fortune he's enjoyed to make it to this point injury-free or he might have been in Justin Masterson territory for striking out on a real payday I recall 5/80(though I believe this included an arb year), and fangraphs has him at 4/64, so 5/74 with the last year of arb.

Not if you're Jake. Because turning down contract extensions from Theo turned out so well for Garza and Shark. When it comes to starting pitchers being offered long term contracts during arbitration years, there is absolutely something to be said for the expression "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". Samardzija was awful this past year, and is lined up to get close to the same he would've with the extension, or he'll have the option to take a short-term deal and make bank the following year. Garza lost what 20M? I mean, is the thought process here that extensions from Theo are more valuable than extensions from other FOs? Or just that all pitchers should take extensions? Turning down contract extensions sure seemed to work out well for David Price, Johnny Cueto, Zack Greinke, Jordan ZImmermann, Clayton Kershaw, etc. Chris Sale could be looking at free agency next year and a 200M+ contract. Instead he'll be under control for 3/38 through his age 30 season.

He blew it

The Dodgers are going to be good regardless. Let him sign there, and hopefully the Giants strike out on a TOR arm again this year.

Not if you're Jake.

To me, the overpay comes in the form of the opt-out after three years. He's the highest paid pitcher in history, it's probably tough to get much more money after that. Yeah, I hadn't seen that yet when I said that. It's almost pure downside for Boston in the sense that if he completely bombs, they're stuck with him. I guess, on the other hand, if he does well, getting out of 33-36 isn't the worst thing. It's a great thing. You aren't signing David Price to a 3 year contract, but if he doesn't break, the Red Sox just did. if he's just kinda good but not broken, he probably doesn't opt out of $125M/4, does he? Depends what kinda good means I guess? And where baseball economics go. ETA: Which yes is a total cop out response.

Maybe he gets another 7 years.

I'd guess somebody who wanted to sign him to 7/150

I mean, he lives in Nashville, which is where the Winter Meetings are. I thought it was a definite he'd sign during them. Why? You think he has a reason to line up his signing for marketing purposes at the GM meetings? He already put a deposit down on his booth.

To me, the overpay comes in the form of the opt-out after three years. He's the highest paid pitcher in history, it's probably tough to get much more money after that. Yeah, I hadn't seen that yet when I said that. It's almost pure downside for Boston in the sense that if he completely bombs, they're stuck with him. I guess, on the other hand, if he does well, getting out of 33-36 isn't the worst thing. It's a great thing. You aren't signing David Price to a 3 year contract, but if he doesn't break, the Red Sox just did.

To me, the overpay comes in the form of the opt-out after three years. He's the highest paid pitcher in history, it's probably tough to get much more money after that. I would not hesitate to give these guys opt outs. If I can get three years of a stud pitcher but he walks away for more money after, fine by me. Give me the three year of studliness for only money and I am all set. 100%

Dammit, he was the trade candidate I assumed we had the best shot at.

It was a fun 60 minutes of having a full team though.

Calling it "good fortune" implies that he had no control over it. I'm not as big a fan of Leake as others, but simply looking at FIP/xFIP(over several years) and hand-waving away results that differ(in either direction) is silly.

They might if you add some cash. wtf? No. You seem to have a seriously warped perception of Jason Hammel's value.

Jason Hammel's ceiling is to have easily the best year of his career at the age of 33?

They don't have one in 2016. http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2015/07/2016-competitive-balance-draft-results.html yeah but not because they don't qualify for one, just that they lost the lottery. Don't worry though, every other team in our division will get one next year. I'll gladly trade a competitive balance pick every year for the right to play in the Chicago market.

Same trade I've been proposing all offseason Soler+Hammel+5M to CLE for Danny Salazar+Justus Sheffield. Hammel is owed 9M+2M buyout in 2017 while Soler is owed 3M this year. Cubs come out ahead 9M. I love me some Salazar, but doesn't he have many of the same durability concerns as Hammel? You're opening up a big hole in the OF that would have to be filled and only making the rotation marginally better. I guess I like Hammel more than pretty much everyone else. Baez goes to 3B and Bryant becomes the everyday RFer in that scenario, so there is no hole. Salazar is also cheap, under control for a long time and has a much higher ceiling than Hammel. Which is why he wouldn't be traded with a prospect for Soler and Hammel's 1 year contract.

The odds are better than 50/50 that all are healthy at the end of spring. The odds of all five getting through the season are very small. If you're sending $11M to the pen when you're still constrained on payroll, isn't that a pretty awful use of resources? That $11m is a sunk cost, it doesn't bear on the decision. It's not a sunk cost of it can be traded

See, I think there's a lot of value in going from 91 to 94 on paper. You have both the WC/Divison factor, and being 94 on paper allows a playoff berth either negative variance. 91 is a big 3 game difference when Pythagoras goes sour

Did I miss the NSBB contest for who can say Shelby Miller sucks the most? Guy is basically Edwin Jackson!

Yikes, I think the road team is better in just about every game. I don't know what to think about that. ETA: 10 out of 14 road teams rated higher on KenPom. Exceptions: Maryland (21) @ UNC (6) Wisconsin (37) @ Syracuse (26) Indiana (25) @ Duke (5) Florida State (39) @ Iowa (20)

Maybe letting an interim chancellor fire the current AD to "move on"(while exonerating him of any wrongdoing in the multiple investigations that just ended) wasn't the best idea in the world