DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Bums Forum
HTML https://bbf.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Archives
*****************************************************
#Post#: 196538--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: guest61 Date: October 2, 2014, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And I hope the best for Javy as any Cub fan would.
I just wouldnt bet on it.
#Post#: 196539--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: Jes Beard Date: October 2, 2014, 4:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am actually less bothered by the cursing than I am by the
incoherence.
What in the world was he trying to say?
#Post#: 196623--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: CUBluejays Date: October 3, 2014, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Nation is reporting that the Phils might be interested
in moving Hamels this off season. I wonder what the asking
price will be and Hamels would likely add the Cubs to his
no-trade list what his demands will be. For me, signing Lester
is the better option.
#Post#: 196673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: ben Date: October 3, 2014, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agreed...Lester would just cost BIG money...Hammels from Phils
would cost BIG money (not as BIG as Lester's, but big) AND
multiple excellent prospects.
#Post#: 196675--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: craig Date: October 3, 2014, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That makes sense. I do think Hamels is a better pitcher,
though. Over last five seasons, Hamels has had ERA+ >130 four
times, Lester only twice, this year being the first since 2010.
But of course price is kinda significant. And better past
doesn't prove Hamels will be better future, I get that.
#Post#: 196679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: brjones Date: October 3, 2014, 4:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hamels doesn't give you much surplus value, though...he's going
to be paid what he's worth over the rest of his contract. So I
think that will keep the price down somewhat. That's especially
true if the Cubs and Red Sox are the two primary suitors (as
rumored)--neither team is likely to be willing to empty their
minor league system for him.
A wild card for the Cubs this offseason is how the front office
values Baez at this point. I don't think he has lost much trade
value yet, but I do think he has shown holes big enough that the
front office could have serious concerns. It wouldn't surprise
me that much if they were willing to move him with a couple of
depth players this offseason for Hamels (or someone else who
provides premium value).
#Post#: 196680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: CUBluejays Date: October 3, 2014, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Bleacher Nation was expecting that the Cubs would have to pick
up his option making him a 5 year, $110-114 million (multiple
various options). Throw in the prospect cost of one of the big
4+ and that is a huge price. The difference in production is
less than it looks. Lester and Hamels have mostly been 3-4 fWAR
pitchers over their careers. Hamels has been better, but not
enough to make up the difference in prospect costs.
#Post#: 196683--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: craig Date: October 3, 2014, 4:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well then, get them both! :) (I have the crazy idea of being
willing to leap up into the 19th or even 15th highest payroll in
baseball!)
I agree with your point, though, br. If you were to build a
package centered around Baez, and pad it with, say, Almora and
Underwood or whomever, some buyers might really like a package
like that.
I have no idea, of course. Maybe Theo loves all of our guys
hugely; and maybe some potential buyer likes Baez and Almora
much less than Theo does.
But there are some trade possibilities that we could put
together, depending on how other teams like our guys, that
wouldn't exactly cripple the rebuilding plan. If you had to
settle for building your infield with "only" Rizzo, Castro,
Bryant, Russell, and Alcantara, that wouldn't exactly be a
massive sellout of the rebuilding plan, would it?
#Post#: 196685--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: DelMarFan Date: October 3, 2014, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote] I don't think he has lost much trade value yet.[/quote]
This is what I talk about when I refer to selling low. I'm not
opposed to trading Baez, but not now, because he right smack dab
in the middle of the Period of Suckitude Upon Advancing Levels
that we had every reason to believe that he would have (and is
almost certainly the reason why they brought him up when they
did). Baez's advancement pattern tells us that what we have
seen is not what he is going to be, but that doesn't stop us
from panicking over every strikeout. If we're wondering about
him, gotta think the guys on the other side of the trade would
have reason to not give good value right now.
#Post#: 196690--------------------------------------------------
Re: Cubs in '15 (09/14 - 08/15)
By: craig Date: October 3, 2014, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Del, I expect buyers will see it pretty much as you do. So I
don't think trading would be selling low, I think he could be
traded fairly. That there would be some fair-value exchange
that made sense for the Cubs, not likely.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page