Theo Epstein Sploosh Thread

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels.  I'd do that.

Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.

You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.

Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer.

I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.

It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.

I'll take Scherzer and Masteron over Scherzer and Hamels if it means giving up Baez and Edwards for the latter (agreed that Vogelbach's worthless).   Whose gonna bat .230 and hit 25 homeruns from second base next year if you deal Baez?  Alcantara?  Then who plays CF?  

It seems the whole exercise of this organization is to collect power bats in a post-steroid era.  Start dealing those bats for pitching--even top-tier pitching--and they lose that edge.  More importantly, I don't know how adding Hamels and Lester/Scherzer/Shields suddenly makes them a contender next year anyway when they begin the season with question marks at 3B, 2B, CF and LF (under this scenario)

I'd prefer to see how this team does next year, save the risk-taking (as far as dealing goes) for 2016 and beyond. I understand you may be incurring your own risk if Baez, Soler, Russell and Schwarber all backslide and lower their value next year, but that's the kind of risk I'd prefer taking for now because I think they're all really good.

[PenFoe]

Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels.  I'd do that.

Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.

You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.

Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.

I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.

It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.

Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.

We're all going to regress, but I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.


Dude is consistently fantastic, he's *only* 30, and he's got a pretty realistic contract remaining. 

Other than him seeming like a complete douche, I'll take him in a heartbeat. 

My concern is not specific to Hamels but to any pitcher with thousands of innings on his arm. I don't believe in trading top prospects for that. If you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in. There was talk about trading for young arms like the Mets have seemingly stockpiled. That I'd think about.

So, you want to pay for the guys that are either coming off of or about to get Tommy John Disease?  Seems like a wash.

[InternetApex]

Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels.  I'd do that.

Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.

You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.

Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer.

I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.

It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.

I'll take Scherzer and Masteron over Scherzer and Hamels if it means giving up Baez and Edwards for the latter (agreed that Vogelbach's worthless).   Whose gonna bat .230 and hit 25 homeruns from second base next year if you deal Baez?  Alcantara?  Then who plays CF?  

It seems the whole exercise of this organization is to collect power bats in a post-steroid era.  Start dealing those bats for pitching--even top-tier pitching--and they lose that edge.  More importantly, I don't know how adding Hamels and Lester/Scherzer/Shields suddenly makes them a contender next year anyway when they begin the season with question marks at 3B, 2B, CF and LF (under this scenario)

I'd prefer to see how this team does next year, save the risk-taking (as far as dealing goes) for 2016 and beyond. I understand you may be incurring your own risk if Baez, Soler, Russell and Schwarber all backslide and lower their value next year, but that's the kind of risk I'd prefer taking for now because I think they're all really good.

I agree with Huey. You guys want to burn the whole thing down before it's even had a chance to take full shape.

[PenFoe]

All this said, I don't want to trade any of the prospects.  
I just want the Cubs to spend money.

But, if they're going to trade prospects, I'm totally cool with Cole Hamels.  

But fuck it, I hope they never trade ANY of these guys and that they take the best college hitter again in next year's draft.

[InternetApex]

Yesterday, Arguello threw out Baez, Vogelbach, CJ Edwards for Hamels.  I'd do that.

Same. I don't think the Phillies would though.

You'd give up three prospects, one of them elite to roll the dice on Hamels' elbow, shoulder, back not exploding? Don't.

Vogelbach is total flotsam to the Cubs. Edwards is probably a future reliever (albeit likely a very good one). And I would miss Baez, but Hamels is still very good (and has been very durable, despite some injury questions) and basically the same age as Lester and Scherzer. What's left on his deal is a good value and shouldn't be prohibitive given how low the Cubs' payroll obligations are in the next few years.

I guess my willingness sort of depends on if they can sign Lester or Scherzer first. If they can get one of those guys, a Hamels trade becomes a go-for-it move and gives them a top three of Lester/Scherzer, Hamels and Arrieta. That makes them immediate contenders.

It's a risk, but the Cubs are going to have to take a risk at some point.

Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.

We're all going to regress, but I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.


Dude is consistently fantastic, he's *only* 30, and he's got a pretty realistic contract remaining.  

Other than him seeming like a complete douche, I'll take him in a heartbeat.  

My concern is not specific to Hamels but to any pitcher with thousands of innings on his arm. I don't believe in trading top prospects for that. If you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in. There was talk about trading for young arms like the Mets have seemingly stockpiled. That I'd think about.

So, you want to pay for the guys that are either coming off of or about to get Tommy John Disease?  Seems like a wash.

Not if they're under your control for cheap. 

[PenFoe]

All this said, I don't want to trade any of the prospects.  
I just want the Cubs to spend money.

But, if they're going to trade prospects, I'm totally cool with Cole Hamels.  

But fuck it, I hope they never trade ANY of these guys and that they take the best college hitter again in next year's draft.

Realistically, they shouldn't have to trade anyone until Schwarber is 100% not a catcher and/or Almora is ready, because they can handle both Russell and Bryant in the lineup right now with openings in LF and 3B, no matter how awesome Chris Coghlan is.

[Eli]

Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.

They're not paying for past performance. But his past performance gives you an indication that he's likely to be good in the future, too.

If you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in.

If you trade for a good player and he gets hurt, so be it. The means by which he was acquired are irrelevant and are simply a sunk cost.

[ChuckD]

I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.

• He's due for a decline.
• He's owed $22.5M each of the next four years.
• He's never put up $22.5M worth of production.

[InternetApex]

Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.

They're not paying for past performance. But his past performance gives you an indication that he's likely to be good in the future, too.

If you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in.

If you trade for a good player and he gets hurt, so be it. The means by which he was acquired are irrelevant and are simply a sunk cost.

No way. Money + Prospects is a greater sunk cost than simply money. And money grows on trees.

[PenFoe]

I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.

• He's due for a decline.
• He's owed $22.5M each of the next four years.
• He's never put up $22.5M worth of production.

Isn't the going-rate these days about $5-6MM/win? 

He's put up 27.8 WAR over the past 5 seasons.

That's an average of 5.56 WAR. At $5MM/win, that's $27.8 million.

Is my math wrong? 

Dude is awesome.

I guess my question is - how/why is Hamels any more due for a decline than say, Lester or Scherzer, who will probably cost around the same annual money and probably for more years. 

[Eli]

Paying for past performance is one thing I don't think Jepstink fancies. Paying in money AND assets for a guy who is bound to regress just seems extreme. A risk worth taking would involve throwing Fuck You Money at Scherzer/Lester/Shields/Price. You don't have to be risky AND stupid.

They're not paying for past performance. But his past performance gives you an indication that he's likely to be good in the future, too.

If you sign one as a free agent and he gets hurt, well, fuck but it's just money. Giving away that money AND assets isn't something I'm interested in.

If you trade for a good player and he gets hurt, so be it. The means by which he was acquired are irrelevant and are simply a sunk cost.

No way. Money + Prospects is a greater sunk cost than simply money. And money grows on trees.

But fewer and fewer good players are available for just money. And if Hamels were a free agent, he'd get more years and dollars than the 4/$90m he's owed. Probably by a fairly large margin. So the prospects you trade are what allows you to get Hamels at a discounted cost.

[Eli]

There's also a risk in only signing the Mastersons and McCarthys of the world and that risk is they suck and your team isn't very good.

[PenFoe]

Eli and I are gonna get matching Hamels shirseys and it's gonna be so sweet.

[InternetApex]

I don't get the specific concern over Hamels.

• He's due for a decline.
• He's owed $22.5M each of the next four years.
• He's never put up $22.5M worth of production.

Isn't the going-rate these days about $5-6MM/win? 

He's put up 27.8 WAR over the past 5 seasons.

That's an average of 5.56 WAR. At $5MM/win, that's $27.8 million.

Is my math wrong? 

Dude is awesome.

I guess my question is - how/why is Hamels any more due for a decline than say, Lester or Scherzer, who will probably cost around the same annual money and probably for more years. 

Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels. Lester has tossed about 200 fewer and has been ridden HARD (||) the past two seasons. I'm not all that excited about Lester over the length of what I expect his next deal will be. This is all just me saying don't trade Baez for a top line starter with the way that pitching injuries have affected the game in the past few years. If they are serious about testing for HgH, run, don't walk away from big money for any pitchers with high mileage.  

[Eli]

Scherzer has pitched 600 fewer innings than Hamels.

Mostly because he's had injuries.