PDA

View Full Version : "Let's Trade Cole Hamels"



Benihana
11-17-2011, 12:22 PM
From an ESPN Insider article (I don't have a subscription so I don't know if the Reds had a hypotethical proposal or not...)


"Let's trade Cole Hamels."

As Buster Olney wrote on Monday, it's certainly not a scenario the Philadelphia Phillies' front office wants to face, but it could be one that's at least discussed this winter.

Hamels turns 28 next month and will be a free agent after the 2012 season, and executives throughout baseball are skeptical about the Phillies' ability to keep the ace-level left-hander, considering the rest of their long-term salary commitments. Hamels is most definitely an ace. He's coming off his best season statistically and is in his prime. The Phillies should keep him, since aces don't exactly grow on trees, despite what it might seem like considering their rotation. Aces are also expensive, and if the Phillies decide to trade Hamels prior to the 2012 season, they will certainly find their phones burning up with prospective suitors.

If the Phillies put Hamels on the market, here's what they should be looking for:

1. A replacement in the rotation: Trading Hamels right now is not the best timing, as Roy Oswalt is leaving via free agency, which gives the Phillies two aces in Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay, and then some mortality in Vance Worley and Joe Blanton, with Kyle Kendrick the most likely candidate from within to fill the No. 5 slot. Ignore Kendrick's 2011 ERA (3.22), since pitchers who don't miss bats (4.6 K/9) cannot sustain such numbers. And while teams are highly reticent to trade pitching prospects, they become willing when a pitcher like Cole Hamels is on the table.

2. Bullpen help: Jon Papelbon is simply a Ryan Madson replacement/upgrade, Jose Contreras is old as Methuselah, and most inside the game expect a regression from Antonio Bastardo. Relievers are the most unpredictable commodity in the game, and depth there is always a good thing.

3. Middle infield insurance: Jimmy Rollins is a free agent and Chase Utley is coming off the two worst seasons since his 2004 rookie campaign while missing a combined 106 games during that time. Enough said.

4. Athletes with upside Because when it comes to your players, that's what the Phillies always look for. That's their draft mantra, and likely will be their mantra for trades as well.

So while advising against the idea of it, let's play along and trade Cole Hamels to some likely interested parties, with the help of a big league executive who quipped, "Hey, I love trading other people's players!"

What would that translate to from the Reds side?

How about Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Nick Masset, Paul Janish and Yorman Rodriguez?

Would you do that if you were the Reds? Would the Phillies?

Dan
11-17-2011, 12:26 PM
I'm not trading a big package for him unless he signs an extension. If he's going to be one-and-done, that's going to reduce the price for him big time.

_Sir_Charles_
11-17-2011, 12:53 PM
From an ESPN Insider article (I don't have a subscription so I don't know if the Reds had a hypotethical proposal or not...)



What would that translate to from the Reds side?

How about Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Nick Masset, Paul Janish and Yorman Rodriguez?

Would you do that if you were the Reds? Would the Phillies?

For ONE YEAR of Hamels? No thanks. Now if an extension was certain...I'd certainly have to consider it.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 02:09 PM
With Hamels in the fold, it would allow the Reds to contend for the World Series in 2012.

It would ALSO give them a chance to gauge where Votto really is, and have a Hamels' extension as a contingency plan if Votto doesn't sign long-term.

This also assumes we sign Phillips to an extension this offseason.

cumberlandreds
11-17-2011, 02:15 PM
I would do that trade in a heartbeat for Hamels. But I seriously doubt they would do it. I think they would want an everyday player that is in MLB now. Hamilton doesn't fit that and Janish is uh.... well not an everyday player. Depending on how long they think Howard is going to be out Alonso might work. But I'm afraid they would want Bruce included with a bunch of prospects. Don't think I would do that.

MattyHo4Life
11-17-2011, 02:42 PM
With Hamels in the fold, it would allow the Reds to contend for the World Series in 2012.

I agree, this is the type of move you make if you want to be a World Series contender. Hamels is a true TOR and will take a lot to get him. If winning the World Series is the goal, then this is a player you target. This is the type of trade that Jocketty is known for making.

dfs
11-17-2011, 02:55 PM
How about Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Nick Masset, Paul Janish and Yorman Rodriguez?

Would you do that if you were the Reds? Would the Phillies?

For a year of Hamels?

Yeah. Yeah, I think I would do that.

I don't want to give up on Homer Bailey, but I think it's 50/50 that in the next year Cole Hamels will produce more value than the pre-free agency Homer Bailey.

Billy Hamilton....yeah, I know there is a lot of smoke around him as a prospect, but I'll be surprised if he sticks to the middle infield. I think he's more likely to become Vince Coleman than a really good player.

Masset...well, y'all know Masset. That would be the hard part of it, but do you give up a failed potential closer who still has potential for a real starting pitcher? Sure, you do.

Paul Janish. His career as a red is pretty much over. He's bench fodder that you don't want to give 200 at bats to at this point. Yeah, I can part with that if only to clear off a roster spot.

Yorman....Yorman, did not look good in Dayton and frankly (this is from the outside looking in) I don't know if Yorman wants to be a professional baseball player at this point. Dayton got better when Yorman got moved out of centerfield and then Dayton get even better when they started to limit Yorman's play. Again, it's too early to give up on a prospect, but (from the outside) I wouldn't mind giving up on this one.

All that said, From the Phillies point of view, I don't think I make that trade. I think I can get mo better players. A lot of the value of the reds package is in potential and the Phillies aren't at a point in the success cycle where long term future potential is really interesting to them.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 02:58 PM
I would do that trade in a heartbeat for Hamels. But I seriously doubt they would do it. I think they would want an everyday player that is in MLB now. Hamilton doesn't fit that and Janish is uh.... well not an everyday player. Depending on how long they think Howard is going to be out Alonso might work. But I'm afraid they would want Bruce included with a bunch of prospects. Don't think I would do that.

I just put it to the criteria the article provided:

1. A replacement in the rotation (Bailey)
2. Bullpen help (Masset- although I would rather sub Volquez here)
3. Middle infield insurance (Janish)
4. Athletes with upside (Hamilton, Rodriguez)

Doesn't say they need an everyday position player coming back. If they did have interest in Alonso, I would do Alonso and Bailey straight up for Hamels.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 03:00 PM
I agree, this is the type of move you make if you want to be a World Series contender. Hamels is a true TOR and will take a lot to get him. If winning the World Series is the goal, then this is a player you target. This is the type of trade that Jocketty is known for making.

Yep, and as a longtime Cardinals fan, you would know both:

1. The type of move you make if you want to be a World Series contender
2. The type of trade that Jocketty is known for making

Dan
11-17-2011, 03:06 PM
What if Chapman was included in the trade?

Bailey
Chapman
Hamilton
Heisey

camisadelgolf
11-17-2011, 03:12 PM
From an ESPN Insider article (I don't have a subscription so I don't know if the Reds had a hypotethical proposal or not...)



What would that translate to from the Reds side?

How about Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Nick Masset, Paul Janish and Yorman Rodriguez?

Would you do that if you were the Reds? Would the Phillies?
If I were the Reds? Hell yeah. The Phillies? No way. First of all, Hamels isn't going anywhere unless the Phillies are out of it by the All-Star break. That would be one of the most shocking things in baseball. But let's say the Phillies are somehow out of it in July . . .

Is that a fair deal? I don't think so, but a lot of people might. However, you have to keep in mind that the Reds would be competing with at least a dozen other teams, and I'm sure that offer would be topped easily.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 03:16 PM
If I were the Reds? Hell yeah. The Phillies? No way. First of all, Hamels isn't going anywhere unless the Phillies are out of it by the All-Star break. That would be one of the most shocking things in baseball. But let's say the Phillies are somehow out of it in July . . .

Is that a fair deal? I don't think so, but a lot of people might. However, you have to keep in mind that the Reds would be competing with at least a dozen other teams, and I'm sure that offer would be topped easily.

It's interesting that the first two responders to the thread said "No way" to the proposed trade from the Reds' standpoint.

While it is true a lot of teams would be in competition, the Phillies may be reluctant to deal Hamels to a team they see as a true competitor, which could ironically/theoretically include teams like the Red Sox, Rangers, and Yankees (as well as the Cardinals, Brewers and Braves) before it included the Reds. Therefore, I could see the Reds having a realistic shot.

bucksfan2
11-17-2011, 04:42 PM
From an ESPN Insider article (I don't have a subscription so I don't know if the Reds had a hypotethical proposal or not...)



What would that translate to from the Reds side?

How about Homer Bailey, Billy Hamilton, Nick Masset, Paul Janish and Yorman Rodriguez?

Would you do that if you were the Reds? Would the Phillies?

When was the last time a trade with this much talent moved for one player?

I don't think any GM in baseball trades his two biggest upside players in one deal. And then even adding two important pieces to the puzzle.

dougdirt
11-17-2011, 04:47 PM
I don't think the Phillies would be interested in Alonso, even with Howard out. Howard is signed for a long time and then they are just creating a situation where they have a guy who should be playing every day when Howard gets back that then they either need to play out of position or try to trade.

I would be incredibly hesitant to trade both Hamilton and Rodriguez in the same deal, especially for a one and done type of player like I expect Hamels to be.

Hamels is one of my favorite pitchers in the game and I would love to land him. Walt better at least be going to the Phillies at the winter meetings and asking what its going to take.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 05:02 PM
Keep hoarding prospects and the Reds can keep finishing third.

We could have had Greinke for less last year.

The difference between the Brewers, Cardinals and the Reds? The Brewers and Cardinals are willing to trade prospects to win.

In the last three years, the Brewers have traded "top prospects" Matt LaPorta, Brett Lawrie, Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar and Jeremy Jeffress.

The Cardinals have traded "top prospects" Brett Wallace, Colby Rasmus, Chris Perez, and several others.

In exchange the Brewers got Zack Greinke, Shaun Marcum, and CC Sabathia. The Cardinals got Matt Holliday, Edwin Jackson, Mark DeRosa, and two World Series titles.

The Reds were willing to trade a "top prospect" for an impact player once in the last three years. It got them a division title they wouldn't have otherwise won. Other than that, I see a whole lot of status quo for the Reds.

I'm not saying you should always trade prospects for impact players, but you need to know when to pull the trigger (and it needs to happen more than once every three years). Otherwise, you will never get your team to the next level. Unless they can extend Phillips and Votto, most are in agreement that the Reds have two years to compete for a World Championship before they will have to take on a Herculean rebuilding effort. 2012 is one of those years. Make it happen Walt.

bucksfan2
11-17-2011, 05:19 PM
Keep hoarding prospects and the Reds can keep finishing third.

We could have had Greinke for less last year.

The difference between the Brewers, Cardinals and the Reds? The Brewers and Cardinals are willing to trade prospects to win.

In the last three years, the Brewers have traded "top prospects" Matt LaPorta, Brett Lawrie, Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar and Jeremy Jeffress.


In exchange the Brewers got Zack Greinke, Shaun Marcum, and CC Sabathia.

The Reds were willing to trade a "top prospect" for an impact player once in the last three years. It got them a division title they wouldn't have otherwise won. Other than that, I see a whole lot of status quo for the Reds.

The Brewers also built their team up based upon prospects like Fielder, Braun, Weeks, Hart, Gallardo, etc. Its a happy medium you need to meet going from building from within with prospects and dumping the farm to win right away.

I am not against trading the prospects for big leauge players. But the trades being suggested for one year of Hamels seem to be astronomically high. When the Brewers traded for Greinke and Marcum they got at least 2 seasons of the player in the trade.

dougdirt
11-17-2011, 05:29 PM
Keep hoarding prospects and the Reds can keep finishing third.

The Reds were willing to trade a "top prospect" for an impact player once in the last three years. It got them a division title they wouldn't have otherwise won. Other than that, I see a whole lot of status quo for the Reds.

Yeah, we could have Erik Bedard and Joe Blanton right now! Of course we wouldn't have Cueto and Votto either. Of course, as you said, you need to know who and when to trade. But the idea that you "can't hoard prospects" isn't always a truth. You can and you can even win by doing so (Rays).

The Reds DID trade a top prospect once. That doesn't mean they weren't willing to other years.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 05:35 PM
The Brewers also built their team up based upon prospects like Fielder, Braun, Weeks, Hart, Gallardo, etc. Its a happy medium you need to meet going from building from within with prospects and dumping the farm to win right away.

I am not against trading the prospects for big leauge players. But the trades being suggested for one year of Hamels seem to be astronomically high. When the Brewers traded for Greinke and Marcum they got at least 2 seasons of the player in the trade.

And the Reds built their team based upon prospects like Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Bailey, Leake, Stubbs, Heisey, etc.

It IS a happy medium. The Reds have plenty of "core" players who they brought up through the farm system. Now it's time to sprinkle in some outside impact talent. Because we can't afford to play in FA, the only way to do it is to cash in some current prospects.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 05:39 PM
Yeah, we could have Erik Bedard and Joe Blanton right now! Of course we wouldn't have Cueto and Votto either. Of course, as you said, you need to know who and when to trade. But the idea that you "can't hoard prospects" isn't always a truth. You can and you can even win by doing so (Rays).

Didn't the Rays trade AWAY the #1 prospect in all of baseball for a pitcher who put them over the top?


The Reds DID trade a top prospect once. That doesn't mean they weren't willing to other years.

Clearly they weren't willing to do enough to get any of the available players, like Greinke, Marcum, Lee, Oswalt, Pence, Jimenez, Shields, etc. In my mind, that is not doing ENOUGH.

dougdirt
11-17-2011, 06:14 PM
Didn't the Rays trade AWAY the #1 prospect in all of baseball for a pitcher who put them over the top?
No. They traded away a major leaguer with 800 plate appearances, who during that time had a K/BB of 5.6. Unless we are not talking about Delmon Young, in which case, inform me.



Clearly they weren't willing to do enough to get any of the available players, like Greinke, Marcum, Lee, Oswalt, Pence, Jimenez, Shields, etc. In my mind, that is not doing ENOUGH.

That is certainly your opinion, but you don't have a clue as to what was offered or what was requested. If the Reds had to offer Mesoraco, Alonso and other parts to "match" some of the offers that were accepted because our "top guys" were better than other teams "top guys", but the other teams were going for the teams top guys, that doesn't mean we weren't doing enough, it means that we weren't going to get fleeced.

I have heard trade offers before that were turned down from scouts I talk with that in my opinion and theres, were clearly better than the offers that the other teams took. Sometimes the other side simply see's things differently than your team does and things don't work out.

Now of course, maybe the Reds simply didn't make the right guys available, as you are suggesting.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 06:22 PM
No. They traded away a major leaguer with 800 plate appearances, who during that time had a K/BB of 5.6. Unless we are not talking about Delmon Young, in which case, inform me.



That is certainly your opinion, but you don't have a clue as to what was offered or what was requested. If the Reds had to offer Mesoraco, Alonso and other parts to "match" some of the offers that were accepted because our "top guys" were better than other teams "top guys", but the other teams were going for the teams top guys, that doesn't mean we weren't doing enough, it means that we weren't going to get fleeced.

I have heard trade offers before that were turned down from scouts I talk with that in my opinion and theres, were clearly better than the offers that the other teams took. Sometimes the other side simply see's things differently than your team does and things don't work out.

Now of course, maybe the Reds simply didn't make the right guys available, as you are suggesting.

If it happens once or even twice, it could be a fluke. I didn't get too bent out of shape after we missed out on Cliff Lee, because that was once. But then, Dan Haren, Zack Greinke, Shaun Marcum, Roy Oswalt, Hunter Pence, Ubaldo Jimenez all change teams, and the Reds are nowhere to be found. According to all of the national publications, the Reds have had one of the best (and deepest) farm systems in baseball. So what gives?

You can't tell me every one of those teams was demanding an outlandish return from the Reds, only to take a lesser return from somebody else EVERY time. Once or twice, I get it- it can happen. But I just named SEVEN trades that the Reds should have been in on, and in the end they just couldn't seal the deal. IMO, the Indians paid too much for Jimenez. But virtually every other deal was easily beatable in my mind by the Reds, if they chose to make the right players available. That leads to only one conclusion in my mind.


People often say that #1 pitchers are never available in trades. Well I just named 6 that have been traded in the last three years, all with multiple years on their contract.

Clearly there is a market and a precedent to acquire such players. The Reds just haven't been willing to pay it, and that is why they (and Walt) have failed.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 06:29 PM
No. They traded away a major leaguer with 800 plate appearances, who during that time had a K/BB of 5.6. Unless we are not talking about Delmon Young, in which case, inform me.



He was traded the same year (2007) Baseball America named him the #3 prospect in all of baseball. He was #1 in the prior year (2006). He had just turned 22 years old at the time of the trade.

Argue all you want over semantics, but you get the gist of what I am suggesting.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 06:31 PM
And if you want to go back a little bit more than 3 years, there is Johan Santana, Josh Beckett, Dan Haren (again), Javier Vazquez (several times) and several others.

There is SO much evidence as to what it takes to trade for a #1 starter. The Reds can certainly get it done without giving up Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Cueto, Leake, and probably even Mesoraco and Chapman. Do they have the guts to actually pull the trigger? That is another question. If the answer is no, they are not going to be winning any championships anytime soon.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, I proposed Hamilton and Rodriguez. That's exactly one of our top 10 prospects- hardly "blowing a hole" in our future, and clearly worth the risk in going for a Championship.

dougdirt
11-17-2011, 06:48 PM
If it happens once or even twice, it could be a fluke. I didn't get too bent out of shape after we missed out on Cliff Lee, because that was once. But then, Dan Haren, Zack Greinke, Shaun Marcum, Roy Oswalt, Hunter Pence, Ubaldo Jimenez all change teams, and the Reds are nowhere to be found. According to all of the national publications, the Reds have had one of the best (and deepest) farm systems in baseball. So what gives?
I don't think there was ever a chance for Oswalt or Pence because they were in the division. I also don't think we were ever considering trading Mesoraco. So that means the best chip we had was Alonso, so we also needed to be trading him to a team who didn't already have a first baseman. That meant no Dan Haren, who required a solid MLB pitcher and a very strong pitching prospect (which at the time, the Reds didn't really have outside of Chapman, who they also weren't trading). The Royals had no need at all for Alonso with Billy Butler and Eric Hosmer in tow. So now the Reds needed to match two B+ pitching prospects, which they didn't have even one of aside from Chapman who wasn't being traded, a B type outfield prospect and a B type shortstop prospect/young player. The Reds didn't really match up with this trade if that is the kind of package that the Royals were looking for. Marcum took Brett Lawrie, a B+ (at the time) type of prospect. The Reds had that with Alonso or Mesoraco, but they weren't trading Mesoraco. So Marcum could have been an option. Then there was Ubaldo Jimenez. Took some top pitching prospects, which the Reds probably didn't have, but I guess there may have been a work around there. So really, we are looking at what, two actual options at this point of all the ones you listed? And I probably wouldn't have gone after Jimenez.... drop in velocity scares me, big time.

Benihana
11-17-2011, 06:57 PM
I don't think there was ever a chance for Oswalt or Pence because they were in the division. I also don't think we were ever considering trading Mesoraco. So that means the best chip we had was Alonso, so we also needed to be trading him to a team who didn't already have a first baseman. That meant no Dan Haren, who required a solid MLB pitcher and a very strong pitching prospect (which at the time, the Reds didn't really have outside of Chapman, who they also weren't trading). The Royals had no need at all for Alonso with Billy Butler and Eric Hosmer in tow. So now the Reds needed to match two B+ pitching prospects, which they didn't have even one of aside from Chapman who wasn't being traded, a B type outfield prospect and a B type shortstop prospect/young player. The Reds didn't really match up with this trade if that is the kind of package that the Royals were looking for. Marcum took Brett Lawrie, a B+ (at the time) type of prospect. The Reds had that with Alonso or Mesoraco, but they weren't trading Mesoraco. So Marcum could have been an option. Then there was Ubaldo Jimenez. Took some top pitching prospects, which the Reds probably didn't have, but I guess there may have been a work around there. So really, we are looking at what, two actual options at this point of all the ones you listed? And I probably wouldn't have gone after Jimenez.... drop in velocity scares me, big time.

I gave you 7 examples of guys we should have made a play for in the last 18 months. You can keep making excuses or you can get things done. Get busy living or get busy dying. Crap or get off the pot. Put up or shut up.

You forget that Travis Wood was a very attractive chip at one point, probably more attractive at the time than Tyler Skaggs. Reds stuttered, other teams pounced.

Heisey/Sappelt, Hamilton, and a B pitching prospect was clearly better than what the Brewers paid for Greinke. Reds slept, Brewers won the division.

You admit we could've/should've made a play for Marcum. Cliff Lee has been discussed ad nauseum. Pence, Oswalt, blah blah blah. There's always excuses.

The problem is you follow the minor leagues too closely (I actually say that as a compliment), and as a result you tend to get attached/put too much weight on prospects. Your website is called "redsminorleagues.com" You don't think you might be slightly biased in a conversation about the merits of trading prospects for players?

dougdirt
11-17-2011, 07:47 PM
The problem is you follow the minor leagues too closely (I actually say that as a compliment), and as a result you tend to get attached/put too much weight on prospects. Your website is called "redsminorleagues.com" You don't think you might be slightly biased in a conversation about the merits of trading prospects for players?

No, I don't. My site is called REDSminorleagues.com for a reason. I love the Reds. I want them to win.

Mario-Rijo
11-17-2011, 09:32 PM
Keep hoarding prospects and the Reds can keep finishing third.

We could have had Greinke for less last year.

The difference between the Brewers, Cardinals and the Reds? The Brewers and Cardinals are willing to trade prospects to win.

In the last three years, the Brewers have traded "top prospects" Matt LaPorta, Brett Lawrie, Lorenzo Cain, Alcides Escobar and Jeremy Jeffress.

The Cardinals have traded "top prospects" Brett Wallace, Colby Rasmus, Chris Perez, and several others.

In exchange the Brewers got Zack Greinke, Shaun Marcum, and CC Sabathia. The Cardinals got Matt Holliday, Edwin Jackson, Mark DeRosa, and two World Series titles.

The Reds were willing to trade a "top prospect" for an impact player once in the last three years. It got them a division title they wouldn't have otherwise won. Other than that, I see a whole lot of status quo for the Reds.

I'm not saying you should always trade prospects for impact players, but you need to know when to pull the trigger (and it needs to happen more than once every three years). Otherwise, you will never get your team to the next level. Unless they can extend Phillips and Votto, most are in agreement that the Reds have two years to compete for a World Championship before they will have to take on a Herculean rebuilding effort. 2012 is one of those years. Make it happen Walt.

:thumbup:

vaticanplum
11-20-2011, 12:16 PM
Ladies and gentlemen: There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

That is the single most important thing you need to know about developing a team.

dougdirt
11-20-2011, 02:22 PM
Ladies and gentlemen: There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

That is the single most important thing you need to know about developing a team.

That axiom is old and outplayed.

chicoruiz
11-20-2011, 06:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaticanplum
Ladies and gentlemen: There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

That is the single most important thing you need to know about developing a team.


That axiom is old and outplayed.

I'd prefer, There IS such a thing as a pitching prospect, but our ability to identify them lags far behind our ability to identify hitting prospects.


Not as catchy, though....

vaticanplum
11-20-2011, 07:44 PM
That axiom is old and outplayed.

So if it's old, it's not valid? Pitching prospects are consistently overrated by teams while proven, still young players are passed up while they wait for the prospects to develop. And very few of them do. And even fewer end up being top-of-the-rotation guys.

dougdirt
11-20-2011, 07:54 PM
So if it's old, it's not valid? Pitching prospects are consistently overrated by teams while proven, still young players are passed up while they wait for the prospects to develop. And very few of them do. And even fewer end up being top-of-the-rotation guys.

I also said outplayed, meaning it isn't valid. Here is the list of Pitchers who graced the Baseball America Top 20 between 2006 and 2010
Stephen Strasburg
Brian Matusz
Neftali Feliz
Madison Bumgarner
Martin Perez
Jeremy Hellickson
David Price
Tommy Hanson
Brett Anderson
Trevor Cahill
Joba Chamberlain
Clay Buchholz
Clayton Kershaw
Franklin Morales
Homer Bailey
Jake McGee
Wade Davis
Phil Hughes
Andrew Miller
Tim Lincecum
Yovani Gallardo
Mike Pelfrey
Francisco Liriano
Chad Billingsley
Justin Verlander
Matt Cain

There are plenty of good to really good pitchers on that list. There are some misses and some guys who have been hit and miss.

757690
11-20-2011, 08:11 PM
I also said outplayed, meaning it isn't valid. Here is the list of Pitchers who graced the Baseball America Top 20 between 2006 and 2010
Stephen Strasburg
Brian Matusz
Neftali Feliz
Madison Bumgarner
Martin Perez
Jeremy Hellickson
David Price
Tommy Hanson
Brett Anderson
Trevor Cahill
Joba Chamberlain
Clay Buchholz
Clayton Kershaw
Franklin Morales
Homer Bailey
Jake McGee
Wade Davis
Phil Hughes
Andrew Miller
Tim Lincecum
Yovani Gallardo
Mike Pelfrey
Francisco Liriano
Chad Billingsley
Justin Verlander
Matt Cain

There are plenty of good to really good pitchers on that list. There are some misses and some guys who have been hit and miss.

There are 17 pitchers in bold. According to this list, over the last 5 years, half the teams have had one decent pitching prospect that they might regret trading for an established starter.

There might be such a thing as a pitching prospect, but they seem to be very rare. Rare enough that teams really shouldn't hesitate to trade them for established starters when they can.

dougdirt
11-20-2011, 08:27 PM
There might be such a thing as a pitching prospect, but they seem to be very rare. Rare enough that teams really shouldn't hesitate to trade them for established starters when they can.

I think that we need to take a few things into account.... first, is the pitchers contract that they are trading for. Anything less than two years on the deal and its probably a very bad idea. Then of course is the money. Even studs like Tim Lincecum and Justin Verlander have made a combined $50M for their combined 354 starts through this point in their careers. Sure, those two guys are not the likely bet even for this group of successes. But the free agent marketplace would be paying roughly $260M for that kind of production, or about $210M more than these teams were able to get that production for, thus allowing them to use precious resources elsewhere.

This game we play in doesn't have fair rules that all teams abide by. Until it does, simple ideas like the one you proposed can't just be taken at face value, because a whole lot more goes into the equation.

Heck, think about how much flack the Reds have taken because they didn't draft Lincecum. Imagine if they had and then traded him for a solid #3 starter.

membengal
11-20-2011, 08:34 PM
Still not a fan of selling huge assets for rentals.

757690
11-20-2011, 09:07 PM
I think that we need to take a few things into account.... first, is the pitchers contract that they are trading for. Anything less than two years on the deal and its probably a very bad idea. Then of course is the money. Even studs like Tim Lincecum and Justin Verlander have made a combined $50M for their combined 354 starts through this point in their careers. Sure, those two guys are not the likely bet even for this group of successes. But the free agent marketplace would be paying roughly $260M for that kind of production, or about $210M more than these teams were able to get that production for, thus allowing them to use precious resources elsewhere.

This game we play in doesn't have fair rules that all teams abide by. Until it does, simple ideas like the one you proposed can't just be taken at face value, because a whole lot more goes into the equation.

Heck, think about how much flack the Reds have taken because they didn't draft Lincecum. Imagine if they had and then traded him for a solid #3 starter.

I agree that when trades are available, it is far more complicated than what I said. But my point stands that if you trade a pitching prospect for a known quantity (that fits into the payroll) that can help you reach the playoffs every year for 10 years, you will come out ahead over the course of those 10 years.

dougdirt
11-20-2011, 09:16 PM
I agree that when trades are available, it is far more complicated than what I said. But my point stands that if you trade a pitching prospect for a known quantity (that fits into the payroll) that can help you reach the playoffs every year for 10 years, you will come out ahead over the course of those 10 years.


Well that scenario isn't even possible. No team has that many pitching prospects of that caliber or they wouldn't need to be trading for pitchers.

757690
11-20-2011, 09:22 PM
Well that scenario isn't even possible. No team has that many pitching prospects of that caliber or they wouldn't need to be trading for pitchers.

You're right.

Change it to do it 10 times over 30 years, and the point is the same. It's a calculated risk that doesn't have to work out every time.

And just for the record, I have no problem with the Reds holding on to their prospects this long. I agree with you that their hasn't been a smart opportunity yet to trade them.

REDblooded
11-21-2011, 07:59 AM
These arguments are comical.

Doug is killing you guys.