Give the Phillies back Villar, Singleton, Santana... and Moran/Marisnick (what we got in the Cosart trade). It'll be like we traded Hunter Pence for Cole Hammels! (and yes, I know Villar was part of the Oswalt, not Pence trade).
I meant he's clearly on the way out of his prime. This is his 10th season in the big leagues. Obviously he's still putting up good numbers, I just question whether he'll be able to sustain that same success through the next 3, 4 seasons when we'll really need him. He'd be 32 by the time we're truly competitors...that's my only concern.
I'm down with a Hamels deal as long as it doesn't include Dallas or McHugh. I'm sure if Philly is talking with us about Cole, they are coming after one of those two. I'd only be willing to put Appel in a deal if I was going to have a front three of Hamels, Keuchel and McHugh.
Andy Pettite was pitching the Astros into the World Series when he was 32. More years without steroids = pitching will dominate even more. The only concern on Hammels should be injury... his stuff will age well as he's still more finesse/control than power.
I'd think Id be okay with Appel for Hamels. Hamels, Keuchel, McHugh, Feldman not a bad rotation with Folty, Obie, Peacock, McCullers, Velasquez in the mix. Plus having 1.2 and 1.5 it's not inconceivable for there too be two Appel level pitchers available in those slots. Luhnow has done just a really solid job in free agency the last two winters that Crane has approved payroll advance. Fowler, Qualls, Lowrie, Feldman, Gregerson, Neshek. Just really productive vets that will help the team moving forward
Way too many fans here aren’t taking into account the money side and focusing only on on-field production. If you really want to think of Hamels trade value, you have to factor in his salary. Let’s say he’s just as good as Jon Lester. Lester signed for 6yr/$155mil. Hamels, assuming we pick up his option, will be 5yr/$110mil. Even if we assume that Lester’s year 6 is worthless, that’s basically saying Hamels is $45mil(5yr into future) savings between him and Lester. Now let’s look at Mark Appel. He’s slated to be likely 2nd starter with likely average of mid-rotation starter. He’ll cost nothing for years 1-3. For comparison, $45mil converted to current value would probably in the Scott Feldman territory, who signed for $30mil last year. And the above comparison is based on Hamels being equal to Lester and only thinking of Appel as a mid-rotation starter. It also doesn’t factor in the fact that his first two arbitration years likely won’t be too costly either. And that he’s younger with less injury risk. tl;dr version – If the Astros want a top of the rotation starter, they should give a top FA pitcher loads of money instead of trading Appel for one that makes slightly less.
Problem is there are very few TOR guys available in free agency, and for equal money it's not likely they would choose to come here right now. If we could trade for one and become contenders, it could go a long way towards changing that
The free agent targets that chose not to sign with the Astros this off season (Miller, Roberts, Headley) did so despite the Astros reportedly being the top bidder.... that is what he is referring to.
Am I to correctly interpret this as, Paying Hamels + Feldman type of pitcher(annual $10mil/yr) at ~$160mil over 5 years is what will turn us into a contender But... Paying Lester ~$160mil(an extra premium for sucking) over 6 years and keep Appel for bargain basement price is just Astros unable to compete with the big money clubs?
First, you presume that free agent would actually choose to come here... secondly, you presume that Appel is at least a middle of the rotation starter. There's still a distinct probability that Appel can't be a big league rotation guy... doesn't mean he won't make the big leagues (if he can't be a starter, he'll likely be in the bullpen... and probably succeed there), but this game is littered with guys who had even better stuff than Appel as a prospect that didn't end up making it. Sure, if you knew Appel was going to be a for-sure MLB starter, let alone a top of the rotation-like starter, they wouldn't make the move... it is a gamble, but you do have to give up value (even if its potential value) to get value. Lastly, I don't see the Astros making any deal for Hammels that leaves them on the hook for the entire deal... they'd have the Phillies kick in a serious amount of $$$ if they're having to send over multiple top 10 prospects back.
Sure, the latter is desirable... but what makes you think Lester would agree to come here? This team is better set up to trade for somebody than it is to sign a free agent.... basically that's the mostly likely way they'll land a big name, and at that point they'll be paying that player as if they had signed him as a free agent (but they get to avoid the wooing/leverage/mis-information/clown show that usually accompanies any free agent negotiation).
As others noted, you'd have to compete against other teams for Lester. If the Astros were willing to pay $160MM, other teams might up their bid. Secondly, you don't have to go pay a Feldman type $10MM/yr. The Astros already hopefully have their #2 and #3, and they have a ton of potential #4 and #5's in the minors. So you hope one of those pans out, and then you have the $10MM/yr to spend on someone else. The question is just what prospects would be required to get Hamels in a trade.
Exactly. Yes it would be preferable to sign a guy and not give up prospects, but we have to deal with reality sometimes
I don't even know how to respond to this. Not every team operate like Mark Cuban in front of Morey. Boston stopped at around $130. Other teams stopped at around $150. If the Astros offered $160, why in the world would teams suddenly step into the bidding again to offer $170? I know I haven't been following baseball much since the Astros demise, but even I have some common sense on how FA bidding works.
I see in GARM, when players take the most money to stay with their teams, like Bosh and Melo, the general response is that obviously money trumps winning. Then I see here, when I propose the Astros overbids on FAs, the response is that no one takes money from a loser. Does this mean baseball players and normal human beings think differently?
No, it means there are no salary caps in baseball so the free agent markets are completely different than the NBA.
ding! ding! ding! you have assumptions, based on lack of knowledge, which you are calling "common sense" (and implying that others therefore lack said "common sense"). you would do well to have a listen for a while instead of questioning the intellectual capacity of others.
I don't know how the CBA makes the following possible. Red Sox bids $130 Cubs bid $155 Red Sox withdraws turns into Red Sox bid $130 Cubs bid $155 Astros bid $160 Red Sox bids $170 cause Astros suck
