The Mariners are all in for Victor Martinez - 4 years @ $18m per.. they like him more than Cruz and he's less $. They are also gonna try to lock up Kyle Seager but he wants Freddie Freeman $.
but he'll be 34 or 35 when he's a free agent. As I said above he does have some tread on his tires but because of his age when he signed this contract you're not really getting the over the hill years.
You aren't getting the surplus value in his contract though, thats for sure. Why would you give up a top 5 prospect in baseball to get the less valuable years of a pitchers contract when you can sign a pitcher without doing so?
RE: I wasn't even talking about the Stanton contract as absurd, really
I'm talking about fairly average players like Chase Headley possibly getting 4/$50 mill contracts. It's ludicrous, and it's even more ludicrous with the dipshit luxury tax.
It is pretty high but the players are the product, and so for elite talent who has dealt with pre-arb and early arb salaries I don't get that animated about even $10-$12 for serviceable players because you're talking about revenue streams in the hundreds of millions of dollars and a prime of unrestricted earnings of maybe 4-5 years, tops.
He is signed for 4 more years at essentially 24MM per year. You are getting all the negative year values of his contract by WAR/year, and giving up a top prospect for it. On top of that, the market is there if you want to spend 24MM per year for a top starter, you have 3 guys who will give you roughly the same value, some with a lot less wear on their arms and without the injury history Hamels has. Never mind the fact that Hamels has a vesting option for a 5th year, the contract is not some kind of bargain. It simply makes no sense to give up a guy like Russell, a top 5 prospect in all of baseball at its most premium position, for Hamels.
Additionally, Samardzija might be a worse pitcher then Hamels, but there is plenty of evidence that you will get more in season in a trade to a contender, as well as even more evidence that top starters aren't worth all that much in trade value. You should be looking at the A's deal as an outlier of a GM going all in because he can't financially do it otherwise, rather then the true value of a starter. The Cubs are flush with cash, and if they really valued that arm more then the SS, why wouldn't they have just kept Samardzija who has 1100 less innings on his arm and will cost a lot less?
Look at what Price got or Fister got in the trade market. Lester was traded for almost nothing. Again, the contract for Hamels isn't really a positive here, he's getting market value for the next couple of years then will be overpaid, its the same as signing any free agent.
The one caveat to this is if the Phillies kick in a bunch of money to the contract, but so far all signs point to they haven't been willing to do that.
Don't get me wrong- I love Hamels, he's a great pitcher, definitely a top 15 starter in baseball if not a good amount higher, I just don't see the precedent for the trade market in giving up a Russell for Hamels.
You make a lot of good points, but I think the Cubs can and should afford to take on Hamels contract even though it will result in a negtive WAR. They are in a unique situation where their positional players will all put up a positive WAR since they are all on really good contracts or cheap. There is no reason for the Cubs not to progess to the point where they arent in the playoff picture in a few years. They need SP. And they need an ace.
They are eventually going to have to trade someone because you cant have Baez, Bryant, Russell, and Castro - my guess is they try to trade Castro, but wind up trading Russell for that stud pitcher.
Lets just say they trade Russell, Alcantra, McKinney and Edwards for say Hamels/Ruiz. They will have Rizzo, Baez, Castro, Bryant in the IF. Soler/Lake/and a guys name who is slipping my mind. Then you sign Lester, and all of a sudden you have a very very interesting team.
You make a lot of good points, but I think the Cubs can and should afford to take on Hamels contract even though it will result in a negtive WAR. They are in a unique situation where their positional players will all put up a positive WAR since they are all on really good contracts or cheap. There is no reason for the Cubs not to progess to the point where they arent in the playoff picture in a few years. They need SP. And they need an ace.
They are eventually going to have to trade someone because you cant have Baez, Bryant, Russell, and Castro - my guess is they try to trade Castro, but wind up trading Russell for that stud pitcher.
Lets just say they trade Russell, Alcantra, McKinney and Edwards for say Hamels/Ruiz. They will have Rizzo, Baez, Castro, Bryant in the IF. Soler/Lake/and a guys name who is slipping my mind. Then you sign Lester, and all of a sudden you have a very very interesting team.
Few things here:
1) WAR has nothing to do with contract at all. You are greatly misunderstanding what WAR is if you think its weighted by what a player is paid.
2) That would literally be an overpay of Mark Texiera proportions. There is no deal available even remotely close to the one you are proposing. You are asking for their, according to BP, #1 and #6 prospect, plus Alcantra who is #7 on the under 25 list(and Mckinney isn't even ranked on under 25, so Alcantra would be their #4 prospect according to BP) plus a good arm in Edwards for Hamels and a 35 year old catcher? It would easily be one of the single worst trades in MLB history.
3) They don't HAVE to do anything. Bryant can move to RF, Russell to 3rd, Alcantra can be a super utility guy, The Cubs aren't going to make a trade just because.
4) Again, if they need an ace, they can go out and sign one. Need two? Go sign two. What is the rush? They can be the youngest team in baseball for a few years, while still being competitive, without trading just to trade.
5) Russell isn't going anywhere, end of story. The most likely player to be dealt is Baez, simply because he's got the biggest bust potential, but he also is a potential mega star.
You make a lot of good points, but I think the Cubs can and should afford to take on Hamels contract even though it will result in a negtive WAR. They are in a unique situation where their positional players will all put up a positive WAR since they are all on really good contracts or cheap. There is no reason for the Cubs not to progess to the point where they arent in the playoff picture in a few years. They need SP. And they need an ace.
They are eventually going to have to trade someone because you cant have Baez, Bryant, Russell, and Castro - my guess is they try to trade Castro, but wind up trading Russell for that stud pitcher.
Lets just say they trade Russell, Alcantra, McKinney and Edwards for say Hamels/Ruiz. They will have Rizzo, Baez, Castro, Bryant in the IF. Soler/Lake/and a guys name who is slipping my mind. Then you sign Lester, and all of a sudden you have a very very interesting team.
Few things here:
1) WAR has nothing to do with contract at all. You are greatly misunderstanding what WAR is if you think its weighted by what a player is paid.
2) That would literally be an overpay of Mark Texiera proportions. There is no deal available even remotely close to the one you are proposing. You are asking for their, according to BP, #1 and #6 prospect, plus Alcantra who is #7 on the under 25 list(and Mckinney isn't even ranked on under 25, so Alcantra would be their #4 prospect according to BP) plus a good arm in Edwards for Hamels and a 35 year old catcher? It would easily be one of the single worst trades in MLB history.
3) They don't HAVE to do anything. Bryant can move to RF, Russell to 3rd, Alcantra can be a super utility guy, The Cubs aren't going to make a trade just because.
4) Again, if they need an ace, they can go out and sign one. Need two? Go sign two. What is the rush? They can be the youngest team in baseball for a few years, while still being competitive, without trading just to trade.
5) Russell isn't going anywhere, end of story. The most likely player to be dealt is Baez, simply because he's got the biggest bust potential, but he also is a potential mega star.
Believe it or not, I have actually have read up a lot on some WAR statistics in regards to salary on another website. Very informative stuff. Any any large contract you sign more often than not turns into a negative.
The one thing I did for get to add is that if they trade Hamels/Ruiz, they would have to take on money. Huge oversihgt on my part, but if they ate say 50-60 million of the combined contracts, then you could ask for more prospects.
The one thing I disagree with you on is that they could just sign stud pitchers. Well they "could", but doesnt mean they will/can. Schrezer/Lester may want to stay in the AL. What if the Yankees or Sox offer more money? The one thing a lot of Phillies fans agree on is that they should not trade Hamels until Schrezer/Lester sign. Because if Boston/Cubs miss out on both, they may want to add pieces to the puzzle.
So back to the Cubs - they have a lot of desirable players. This much we agree upon. Now I am only basing it off from what I have heard. But I have heard that..
Bryant - untouchable
Soler - nearly untouchable
Russell - Need to be blown away.
Now guys like Edwards, Alacantra, and Mckinney will in be discussions for if they do trade for a stud pitcher. Now the Phillies are serious contenders for Tomas. So if they sign him, they wont need Alacnatra. But if the Cubs do want Hamels, and reports are that they seriously do... They are going to have to give up 1 of their big 3. And I think Russell is the one they will give up. I would prefer Soler because the Phillies have a SS coming up in 2 year to take Rollins spot.
But a trade of hypothetically being Soler/Edwards/McKinney is not out of realm of possibilities. You're right that the Cubs dont have to trade any of them. I hope the Phillies are in the mindset as well. They dont have to trade Hamels this offseason. They have him for at least 4 more years. Thats why if the ydo trade him this winter, they should get a substantial return - because why trade him if you dont have too right away? (Amaro jokes aside)
Believe it or not, I have actually have read up a lot on some WAR statistics in regards to salary on another website. Very informative stuff. Any any large contract you sign more often than not turns into a negative.
The one thing I did for get to add is that if they trade Hamels/Ruiz, they would have to take on money. Huge oversihgt on my part, but if they ate say 50-60 million of the combined contracts, then you could ask for more prospects.
The one thing I disagree with you on is that they could just sign stud pitchers. Well they "could", but doesnt mean they will/can. Schrezer/Lester may want to stay in the AL. What if the Yankees or Sox offer more money? The one thing a lot of Phillies fans agree on is that they should not trade Hamels until Schrezer/Lester sign. Because if Boston/Cubs miss out on both, they may want to add pieces to the puzzle.
So back to the Cubs - they have a lot of desirable players. This much we agree upon. Now I am only basing it off from what I have heard. But I have heard that..
Bryant - untouchable
Soler - nearly untouchable
Russell - Need to be blown away.
Now guys like Edwards, Alacantra, and Mckinney will in be discussions for if they do trade for a stud pitcher. Now the Phillies are serious contenders for Tomas. So if they sign him, they wont need Alacnatra. But if the Cubs do want Hamels, and reports are that they seriously do... They are going to have to give up 1 of their big 3. And I think Russell is the one they will give up. I would prefer Soler because the Phillies have a SS coming up in 2 year to take Rollins spot.
But a trade of hypothetically being Soler/Edwards/McKinney is not out of realm of possibilities. You're right that the Cubs dont have to trade any of them. I hope the Phillies are in the mindset as well. They dont have to trade Hamels this offseason. They have him for at least 4 more years. Thats why if the ydo trade him this winter, they should get a substantial return - because why trade him if you dont have too right away? (Amaro jokes aside)
You are misunderstanding the relationship between WAR and salary. Salary is not included in the WAR calculation. The relationship is that a 1 WAR player is worth roughly 7MM in free agency. If you are paying a 3 war player 15 million, then you are underpaying that player relative to WAR. Over the life of a contract, say Cole Hamels contract at 6/144, the player has produce more then the rough value of the WAR related for the contract to be considered a positive value contract.
So for example, Hamels 144 would need to have roughly 20 WAR over his contract to be worth its value. In the 2 years the contract has been going, he has produced 7.9 FWAR. That would mean, over the next 4 years of his contract, he would need to average 3 FWAR per year for the contract to be considered having produce excess value.
The problem with then dealing for the contract, is that regression is more likely then progression, as it has for the last 4 years in a row. So while he is likely to produce positive value over the LIFETIME of the contract, that value has already occurred. Hamels has lost roughly .3 FWAR each year in the last 3 years. If you extrapolate that over the next 4 years, by the time the contract is in its final season, without the option, meaning he will be overpaid relative to the value of 1 WAR.
In other words, in 2013 and 2014, Hamels was underpaid. In 2015 and 2016 he probably will be roughly paid accurately. In 2017 and 2018, he will be overpaid.
This is why his contract is a negative. The excess value in a contract is in the early years. The Phillies have already extracted the value of the contract, and in future years it will be an overpay. The Cubs aren't going to overpay in prospects while overpaying on a contract as well.
Its also why pre free agent years are so valuable for teams.
To put in context, when Mike Trout signed his extension, he had been worth 20.6 FWAR. Based on the 7MM per WAR calculation, those 2 years were worth 140MM alone.
The idea of a Soler straight up for Hamels trade MIGHT have some semblance of reality. Ruiz has no value to the Cubs.
Again though, the Phillies would still have to kick in some serious dollars for that to even be considered, and the Cubs certainly wouldn't have to add in any other players.
Yeah but that assumes the past is like the present...
and that the value of WAR is constant (a 3 WAR player vs a 5 WAR player, how much rarer is the latter than the former). I'm not sure that with the changes to the way business has been done recently those assumptions hold true.
RE: Yeah but that assumes the past is like the present...
and that the value of WAR is constant (a 3 WAR player vs a 5 WAR player, how much rarer is the latter than the former). I'm not sure that with the changes to the way business has been done recently those assumptions hold true.
Sure, parts of it will change but really just the prices will change. There are studies done in terms of team building, and some think its better to spend the money on 2 3 WAR players then 1 6 WAR player and 1 0 WAR player, and then some that say the opposite.
Regardless, Hamels is far more likely to be a 3 or less WAR player at age 34 then a 5 WAR player, no?
But B-WAR uses RA9 and F-WAR uses FIP in its calculations, so they end up with different values. On the positional player side, B-WAR uses total zone and F-WAR uses UZR for its defensive stats, and they both use different metrics for running as well.
Really though, most front offices are using their own proprietary systems that aren't available to the public, as they have access to a bunch of stuff we don't. Except the Phillies, they don't believe in saber metrics.
love this deal for the Rays. Hellickson is so overrated it's insane. He's a below average MLB starter for his career and they got 2 legit young prospects
love this deal for the Rays. Hellickson is so overrated it's insane. He's a below average MLB starter for his career and they got 2 legit young prospects
quick sandy call Arizona and offer flores and Montero for owings
basing this on very, very little (just quotes) and this trade but I have a feeling Stewart will end up a shitty GM. I just get the vibe he's a "I'll do whatever I damn well please" GM
He lickcome is overrated. But is it such a terrible deal when a team trades its 12th and 14th prospect for a major league starting pitcher? Two A ball players? If they were near major league ready guys, different story, but A ballets are lottery tickets.
Problem is Sandy is actually trying to acquire major leaguers for the Gee's and Colons. If he shot lower, he'd move them too.
A Grandy (perhaps pus Colon or Gee) for Andrus trade? Salary offset for the next 3-4 years and a quality SS comes in while getting rid of a future headache contract ourselves. While keeping our prospects to develop/trade.
Fangraphs article on a potential Hamels to Red Sox deal
. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-design-a-red-sox-cole-hamels-trade/ - ( New Window )
Well there is no way the Phillies do a deal with anyways and if they did the Red Sox would get ab absolute steal. A proven ace is worth more than prospects in the 10-20 range.
Red Sox will be off the table anyways, since they are about to sign Lester anyways.
. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-design-a-red-sox-cole-hamels-trade/ - ( New Window )
Well there is no way the Phillies do a deal with anyways and if they did the Red Sox would get ab absolute steal. A proven ace is worth more than prospects in the 10-20 range.
Hamels is only worth what teams are willing to offer for him. He's good, but he gets paid like a good pitcher. Why give up a bigtime prospect for Hamels when you can pay a bit more and get one of the premuim FAs without giving up such a prospect?
That's the real question. But what if the premium FA pitchers sign for close to 30 and 7-8 years each? Scherzer has fWARs of 4.5, 6.4, and 5.6 the last 3 years. That is $35+ million in value each year, so I dont see him taking something close to the $22 million like Hamels makes unless it is for stupid term (7-10 years).
Sandoval is still considered likely to go to the Sox...
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
No surprise that Gregorius is #DBacks SS drawing most interest; Owings coming off shoulder surgery (but expected back for spring training).
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
No surprise that Gregorius is #DBacks SS drawing most interest; Owings coming off shoulder surgery (but expected back for spring training).
Eric,
Pretty sure this just means they would deal Gregorius despite Owings injury not that teams prefer Gregorius. I'm not a Didi fan at all. Montero for him? Probably. Beyond that? No thanks. Owings probably costs you Wheeler or Thor so pass on that as well.
has 3 SS if you include Ahmed. Owings hit .261/300/.406 with 8 steals in 91 games. He was also above average in the field. Didi is older by 2 years (25 next season) and has absolutely stunk every change he's been given at the MLB level (he had a RIDICULOUS first month in the bigs which actually inflates his stats) and despite reported "plus" speed has 3 steals in 191 MLB games and 4 in 112 AAA games. Beyond Montero no thank you and I don't think Montero brings him back in this market.
Kiley McDaniel @kileymcd 2m2 minutes ago
The reporting on Yasmany Tomas is consistent with what I'm hearing except for one thing: I've been hearing SD is still in the mix up to $70M
He had 54 SBs last year. 97 H, of them 14 were 2Bs, 2 3Bs and 11 HRs. So he probably stole 2B the majority of the times he got to 1B. He hit .236 at AA and he strikes out too damned much, but I'd be surprised if SOMEONE isn't willing to grab him as a 4th OF and try to hold onto him for a year.
Mike Puma @NYPost_Mets 3m3 minutes ago
Mets have hired former Yankees farm director Pat Roessler for vaccant coaching position. Will be assistant hitting coach + other duties.
I wrote that the other GM's aren't dummies or rubes
You aren't getting the surplus value in his contract though, thats for sure. Why would you give up a top 5 prospect in baseball to get the less valuable years of a pitchers contract when you can sign a pitcher without doing so?
It is pretty high but the players are the product, and so for elite talent who has dealt with pre-arb and early arb salaries I don't get that animated about even $10-$12 for serviceable players because you're talking about revenue streams in the hundreds of millions of dollars and a prime of unrestricted earnings of maybe 4-5 years, tops.
Additionally, Samardzija might be a worse pitcher then Hamels, but there is plenty of evidence that you will get more in season in a trade to a contender, as well as even more evidence that top starters aren't worth all that much in trade value. You should be looking at the A's deal as an outlier of a GM going all in because he can't financially do it otherwise, rather then the true value of a starter. The Cubs are flush with cash, and if they really valued that arm more then the SS, why wouldn't they have just kept Samardzija who has 1100 less innings on his arm and will cost a lot less?
Look at what Price got or Fister got in the trade market. Lester was traded for almost nothing. Again, the contract for Hamels isn't really a positive here, he's getting market value for the next couple of years then will be overpaid, its the same as signing any free agent.
The one caveat to this is if the Phillies kick in a bunch of money to the contract, but so far all signs point to they haven't been willing to do that.
Don't get me wrong- I love Hamels, he's a great pitcher, definitely a top 15 starter in baseball if not a good amount higher, I just don't see the precedent for the trade market in giving up a Russell for Hamels.
You make a lot of good points, but I think the Cubs can and should afford to take on Hamels contract even though it will result in a negtive WAR. They are in a unique situation where their positional players will all put up a positive WAR since they are all on really good contracts or cheap. There is no reason for the Cubs not to progess to the point where they arent in the playoff picture in a few years. They need SP. And they need an ace.
They are eventually going to have to trade someone because you cant have Baez, Bryant, Russell, and Castro - my guess is they try to trade Castro, but wind up trading Russell for that stud pitcher.
Lets just say they trade Russell, Alcantra, McKinney and Edwards for say Hamels/Ruiz. They will have Rizzo, Baez, Castro, Bryant in the IF. Soler/Lake/and a guys name who is slipping my mind. Then you sign Lester, and all of a sudden you have a very very interesting team.
Quote:
You make a lot of good points, but I think the Cubs can and should afford to take on Hamels contract even though it will result in a negtive WAR. They are in a unique situation where their positional players will all put up a positive WAR since they are all on really good contracts or cheap. There is no reason for the Cubs not to progess to the point where they arent in the playoff picture in a few years. They need SP. And they need an ace.
They are eventually going to have to trade someone because you cant have Baez, Bryant, Russell, and Castro - my guess is they try to trade Castro, but wind up trading Russell for that stud pitcher.
Lets just say they trade Russell, Alcantra, McKinney and Edwards for say Hamels/Ruiz. They will have Rizzo, Baez, Castro, Bryant in the IF. Soler/Lake/and a guys name who is slipping my mind. Then you sign Lester, and all of a sudden you have a very very interesting team.
Few things here:
1) WAR has nothing to do with contract at all. You are greatly misunderstanding what WAR is if you think its weighted by what a player is paid.
2) That would literally be an overpay of Mark Texiera proportions. There is no deal available even remotely close to the one you are proposing. You are asking for their, according to BP, #1 and #6 prospect, plus Alcantra who is #7 on the under 25 list(and Mckinney isn't even ranked on under 25, so Alcantra would be their #4 prospect according to BP) plus a good arm in Edwards for Hamels and a 35 year old catcher? It would easily be one of the single worst trades in MLB history.
3) They don't HAVE to do anything. Bryant can move to RF, Russell to 3rd, Alcantra can be a super utility guy, The Cubs aren't going to make a trade just because.
4) Again, if they need an ace, they can go out and sign one. Need two? Go sign two. What is the rush? They can be the youngest team in baseball for a few years, while still being competitive, without trading just to trade.
5) Russell isn't going anywhere, end of story. The most likely player to be dealt is Baez, simply because he's got the biggest bust potential, but he also is a potential mega star.
Quote:
In comment 11977342 Sgrcts said:
Quote:
You make a lot of good points, but I think the Cubs can and should afford to take on Hamels contract even though it will result in a negtive WAR. They are in a unique situation where their positional players will all put up a positive WAR since they are all on really good contracts or cheap. There is no reason for the Cubs not to progess to the point where they arent in the playoff picture in a few years. They need SP. And they need an ace.
They are eventually going to have to trade someone because you cant have Baez, Bryant, Russell, and Castro - my guess is they try to trade Castro, but wind up trading Russell for that stud pitcher.
Lets just say they trade Russell, Alcantra, McKinney and Edwards for say Hamels/Ruiz. They will have Rizzo, Baez, Castro, Bryant in the IF. Soler/Lake/and a guys name who is slipping my mind. Then you sign Lester, and all of a sudden you have a very very interesting team.
Few things here:
1) WAR has nothing to do with contract at all. You are greatly misunderstanding what WAR is if you think its weighted by what a player is paid.
2) That would literally be an overpay of Mark Texiera proportions. There is no deal available even remotely close to the one you are proposing. You are asking for their, according to BP, #1 and #6 prospect, plus Alcantra who is #7 on the under 25 list(and Mckinney isn't even ranked on under 25, so Alcantra would be their #4 prospect according to BP) plus a good arm in Edwards for Hamels and a 35 year old catcher? It would easily be one of the single worst trades in MLB history.
3) They don't HAVE to do anything. Bryant can move to RF, Russell to 3rd, Alcantra can be a super utility guy, The Cubs aren't going to make a trade just because.
4) Again, if they need an ace, they can go out and sign one. Need two? Go sign two. What is the rush? They can be the youngest team in baseball for a few years, while still being competitive, without trading just to trade.
5) Russell isn't going anywhere, end of story. The most likely player to be dealt is Baez, simply because he's got the biggest bust potential, but he also is a potential mega star.
Believe it or not, I have actually have read up a lot on some WAR statistics in regards to salary on another website. Very informative stuff. Any any large contract you sign more often than not turns into a negative.
The one thing I did for get to add is that if they trade Hamels/Ruiz, they would have to take on money. Huge oversihgt on my part, but if they ate say 50-60 million of the combined contracts, then you could ask for more prospects.
The one thing I disagree with you on is that they could just sign stud pitchers. Well they "could", but doesnt mean they will/can. Schrezer/Lester may want to stay in the AL. What if the Yankees or Sox offer more money? The one thing a lot of Phillies fans agree on is that they should not trade Hamels until Schrezer/Lester sign. Because if Boston/Cubs miss out on both, they may want to add pieces to the puzzle.
So back to the Cubs - they have a lot of desirable players. This much we agree upon. Now I am only basing it off from what I have heard. But I have heard that..
Bryant - untouchable
Soler - nearly untouchable
Russell - Need to be blown away.
Now guys like Edwards, Alacantra, and Mckinney will in be discussions for if they do trade for a stud pitcher. Now the Phillies are serious contenders for Tomas. So if they sign him, they wont need Alacnatra. But if the Cubs do want Hamels, and reports are that they seriously do... They are going to have to give up 1 of their big 3. And I think Russell is the one they will give up. I would prefer Soler because the Phillies have a SS coming up in 2 year to take Rollins spot.
But a trade of hypothetically being Soler/Edwards/McKinney is not out of realm of possibilities. You're right that the Cubs dont have to trade any of them. I hope the Phillies are in the mindset as well. They dont have to trade Hamels this offseason. They have him for at least 4 more years. Thats why if the ydo trade him this winter, they should get a substantial return - because why trade him if you dont have too right away? (Amaro jokes aside)
Quote:
In comment 11977517 dep026 said:
Quote:
Believe it or not, I have actually have read up a lot on some WAR statistics in regards to salary on another website. Very informative stuff. Any any large contract you sign more often than not turns into a negative.
The one thing I did for get to add is that if they trade Hamels/Ruiz, they would have to take on money. Huge oversihgt on my part, but if they ate say 50-60 million of the combined contracts, then you could ask for more prospects.
The one thing I disagree with you on is that they could just sign stud pitchers. Well they "could", but doesnt mean they will/can. Schrezer/Lester may want to stay in the AL. What if the Yankees or Sox offer more money? The one thing a lot of Phillies fans agree on is that they should not trade Hamels until Schrezer/Lester sign. Because if Boston/Cubs miss out on both, they may want to add pieces to the puzzle.
So back to the Cubs - they have a lot of desirable players. This much we agree upon. Now I am only basing it off from what I have heard. But I have heard that..
Bryant - untouchable
Soler - nearly untouchable
Russell - Need to be blown away.
Now guys like Edwards, Alacantra, and Mckinney will in be discussions for if they do trade for a stud pitcher. Now the Phillies are serious contenders for Tomas. So if they sign him, they wont need Alacnatra. But if the Cubs do want Hamels, and reports are that they seriously do... They are going to have to give up 1 of their big 3. And I think Russell is the one they will give up. I would prefer Soler because the Phillies have a SS coming up in 2 year to take Rollins spot.
But a trade of hypothetically being Soler/Edwards/McKinney is not out of realm of possibilities. You're right that the Cubs dont have to trade any of them. I hope the Phillies are in the mindset as well. They dont have to trade Hamels this offseason. They have him for at least 4 more years. Thats why if the ydo trade him this winter, they should get a substantial return - because why trade him if you dont have too right away? (Amaro jokes aside)
You are misunderstanding the relationship between WAR and salary. Salary is not included in the WAR calculation. The relationship is that a 1 WAR player is worth roughly 7MM in free agency. If you are paying a 3 war player 15 million, then you are underpaying that player relative to WAR. Over the life of a contract, say Cole Hamels contract at 6/144, the player has produce more then the rough value of the WAR related for the contract to be considered a positive value contract.
So for example, Hamels 144 would need to have roughly 20 WAR over his contract to be worth its value. In the 2 years the contract has been going, he has produced 7.9 FWAR. That would mean, over the next 4 years of his contract, he would need to average 3 FWAR per year for the contract to be considered having produce excess value.
The problem with then dealing for the contract, is that regression is more likely then progression, as it has for the last 4 years in a row. So while he is likely to produce positive value over the LIFETIME of the contract, that value has already occurred. Hamels has lost roughly .3 FWAR each year in the last 3 years. If you extrapolate that over the next 4 years, by the time the contract is in its final season, without the option, meaning he will be overpaid relative to the value of 1 WAR.
In other words, in 2013 and 2014, Hamels was underpaid. In 2015 and 2016 he probably will be roughly paid accurately. In 2017 and 2018, he will be overpaid.
This is why his contract is a negative. The excess value in a contract is in the early years. The Phillies have already extracted the value of the contract, and in future years it will be an overpay. The Cubs aren't going to overpay in prospects while overpaying on a contract as well.
To put in context, when Mike Trout signed his extension, he had been worth 20.6 FWAR. Based on the 7MM per WAR calculation, those 2 years were worth 140MM alone.
The idea of a Soler straight up for Hamels trade MIGHT have some semblance of reality. Ruiz has no value to the Cubs.
Again though, the Phillies would still have to kick in some serious dollars for that to even be considered, and the Cubs certainly wouldn't have to add in any other players.
Sure, parts of it will change but really just the prices will change. There are studies done in terms of team building, and some think its better to spend the money on 2 3 WAR players then 1 6 WAR player and 1 0 WAR player, and then some that say the opposite.
Regardless, Hamels is far more likely to be a 3 or less WAR player at age 34 then a 5 WAR player, no?
Thats B-WAR, which has a different monetary calculation then the one I used above, which used F-WAR.
Really though, most front offices are using their own proprietary systems that aren't available to the public, as they have access to a bunch of stuff we don't. Except the Phillies, they don't believe in saber metrics.
Source: #DBacks working on Hellickson trade with #Rays
Source: OF Justin Williams to #Rays in Hellickson deal. Hellickson to DBacks done.
Source: #Rays getting shortstop Andrew Velazquez in Hellickson deal.
Link - ( New Window )
Andrew Velazquez is a little man with explosive tools. 70 runner. 60 arm. Contact issues, but manageable, and surprising sock for his size.
quick sandy call Arizona and offer flores and Montero for owings
BREAKING: #Dbacks trade No. 12 prospect @squezhao and No. 14 prospect Justin Williams to #Rays for RHP @JHell58.
Since 2010 143 SP have a lower FIP than Hellickson
Problem is Sandy is actually trying to acquire major leaguers for the Gee's and Colons. If he shot lower, he'd move them too.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-design-a-red-sox-cole-hamels-trade/ - ( New Window )
Well there is no way the Phillies do a deal with anyways and if they did the Red Sox would get ab absolute steal. A proven ace is worth more than prospects in the 10-20 range.
Red Sox will be off the table anyways, since they are about to sign Lester anyways.
Quote:
. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-design-a-red-sox-cole-hamels-trade/ - ( New Window )
Well there is no way the Phillies do a deal with anyways and if they did the Red Sox would get ab absolute steal. A proven ace is worth more than prospects in the 10-20 range.
Hamels is only worth what teams are willing to offer for him. He's good, but he gets paid like a good pitcher. Why give up a bigtime prospect for Hamels when you can pay a bit more and get one of the premuim FAs without giving up such a prospect?
No surprise that Gregorius is #DBacks SS drawing most interest; Owings coming off shoulder surgery (but expected back for spring training).
No surprise that Gregorius is #DBacks SS drawing most interest; Owings coming off shoulder surgery (but expected back for spring training).
Eric,
Pretty sure this just means they would deal Gregorius despite Owings injury not that teams prefer Gregorius. I'm not a Didi fan at all. Montero for him? Probably. Beyond that? No thanks. Owings probably costs you Wheeler or Thor so pass on that as well.
Link - ( New Window )
The reporting on Yasmany Tomas is consistent with what I'm hearing except for one thing: I've been hearing SD is still in the mix up to $70M
No wayyyyyy. I was called an idiot the other day for saying that, and told that other GMs aren't dumb enough to fall for that. Lol
LInk - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Mets have hired former Yankees farm director Pat Roessler for vaccant coaching position. Will be assistant hitting coach + other duties.