We now understand that defense is overwhelmingly important in a C. If Vazquez is as good as we think defensively, he's starting (somewhere) if he hits at all.
Savin Hillbilly said:
Why should we have any trouble avoiding a monster 6-7-8 year free agency deal? Is anything compelling us to sign one?
Right, Posey came to mind, but that isn't a situation where Vazquez is more than a backup. I was thinking about where a big bat was the number two catcher.nvalvo said:
In recent years, San Francisco has had both Buster Posey and excellent young backup catchers in Hector Sanchez (before his concussions) and Andrew Susac. Posey tends to play about 110 games behind the plate and another 35 more at 1B and DH.
So that's about a 75/25 split across 140-ish games. It's not exactly what you were looking for, as Posey is clearly the starter at C, but it's not so far off, either. If the Giant played in the AL and had the DH more often, I think you might see Posey DH more, too, especially as Susac has blossomed.
CSteinhardt said:If Ben starts calling around the league and asking teams to offer the best player they're willing to give up for Swihart + Owens, I'm confident he'd be offered something better than Hamels.
Adrian's Dome said:
Like who?
Your entire post is assumption - you assume to know exactly what Amaro values highly or what Ben's offering (or has offered,) and you don't.
You can call it assumption or you can call it inference. Both of these GMs have track records from which we judge their tendencies.Adrian's Dome said:
Like who?
Your entire post is assumption - you assume to know exactly what Amaro values highly or what Ben's offering (or has offered,) and you don't.
I mean, sure, there's no reason to be "upset", as getting upset about another team acting stupidly is a waste of energy. But lets not ignore the obvious stupidity at work.LahoudOrBillyC said:I don't understand why people get all upset about negotiations. First off, we don't really know who is offering what. Second, teams should offer deals that would be good for them. Amaro holding out for the best possible deal for him is not stupid, it is laudable. He is made mistakes (as all GMs have) but this is not one of them.
As for the Red Sox, make offers that would help the team. The Red Sox currently have an enviable glut of major league players, and absolutely should attempt, as a start, to use that glut to acquire someone like Hamels. If RAJ does not want to make that deal, fine. There is no insult, no stupidity. Just two selfish entities trying to find a deal that helps both teams.
Adrian's Dome said:
Like who?
Your entire post is assumption - you assume to know exactly what Amaro values highly or what Ben's offering (or has offered,) and you don't.
This is not true. We've talked about it already in this thread. You yourself cite the Russell deal from last year. The year before, Shields brought back Myers, a consensus top 5 prospect (higher than Swihart). RAJ might be reaching for the moon, but it's not unjustifiable based on these two recent deals.PrometheusWakefield said:Big pitchers don't get you top prospects any more. ....
Snodgrass'Muff said:I just don't see why anyone is optimistic about Lee being worth trading for. He's going to turn 37 before the season ends and his 2014 was ended by an elbow injury which included his velocity dropping two mph when he came back in July for three starts before being shut down for the year. There is simply no realistic cost at which I'd be comfortable absorbing his contract, or even a significant portion of it and there is no way that Amaro is going to simply give him away AND eat a huge chunk of it.
Rasputin said:
Because he's been good and has a short contract. If he's not effective before the deadline, just cross him off the list, but if he is effective, he can answer the short term problem with a short term solution.
Players and teams take injury risk all the time. Scherzer and Lester each did last year, risking multi-generational wealth. Teams can bear that risk more easily than players.bankshot1 said:While Amaro may not be under the gun to do something now, nor accept $0.90 on the dollar, IMO the Phillies carry an additional risk and cost (to injury risk-and losing the value of 1/2 season to the acquirer) in holding Hamels until the trade deadline. There's the cost of tanking the season, and starting the rebuilding process in July rather than in Feb/March when other trades or assessing organizational needs could be better planned for (like planning for the draft in June). Assessing that cost might narrow the spread..
Danny_Darwin said:Can there possibly be anything else to say on this topic at this point? Hamels is a good pitcher who can help the Red Sox. His contract and age make him a bit of a risk, so they'd probably rather avoid dealing Swihart for him if they can help it, and since they aren't desperate (and he's got them on the no-trade list, further complicating issues). Amaro is asking a lot for him, and some would argue that he's right to.
Barring new revelations, nobody is going to change her/his mind about any of this. Did I miss anything?
All the poster is saying is that if Lee is relatively healthy and effective he presents a viable trade option greater than acquiring Hamels. Peavy was in a similar spot as Lee and the price tag was a major league ready SS.Snodgrass'Muff said:
He was good before missing most of 2014 with an elbow injury and while he was younger. Even if he's effective before the deadline, the fact that he's as old as he is and missed most of last year with that injury means that the first pitch he throws for the Red Sox could also be his last. That contract may be short, but it's also for huge dollars and I just can't see an acceptable price for taking on that contract given the risk. The risk for injury to a pitcher that age is already high enough to make acquiring him a worrisome proposition. Add in 2014's troubles and unless Amaro is handing him away for free and is eating a significant portion of that control to boot, I want no part of it.
I don't think it's going to be an issue, because I'll be very surprised if he both resembles the old Cliff Lee and is healthy come the end of June, but it baffles me that someone might think it's the most likely scenario.
Don't you mean "Remus" instead of Reuben? That is the "R" winter storm coming after Pandora and Quantum, both of which surely cannot be far off. Discontent indeed.Sprowl said:The main board has reached that point in the offseason where the signing and trading is done, barring a few last-minute holdouts, and spring training has not yet begun. The snowbound turn to baseball, and baseball says Not Yet. This is the Drew v2.0 thread of 2015, where the same five themes repeat themselves interminably. The Hamels icejam is the winter of our discontent, and Ruben isn't melting tomorrow.
SoxJox said:Don't you mean "Remus" instead of Reuben? That is the "R" winter storm coming after Pandora and Quantum, both of which surely cannot be far off. Discontent indeed.