ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Dec 11, 2014 11:15:40 GMT -5
As suggested by no less an eminence than Cafardo, today. Figure that Ranaudo, one of Marrero, Coyle, Rijo, or Guerra, and a low-level guy rounds it out. Not that that really matters to your answer!
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2014 11:18:57 GMT -5
hell no is my choice
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Dec 11, 2014 11:25:07 GMT -5
Cafardo is really pushing this Hamels thing. How much is he getting paid?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Dec 11, 2014 11:27:16 GMT -5
I wouldn't move any of: betts-X-Devers-Swithart in a deal for Hamels
Margot would be a reluctant inclusion with Owens
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 11, 2014 11:32:21 GMT -5
I'd be livid.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Dec 11, 2014 11:48:08 GMT -5
No, but I would include him or Betts for Stasburg
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 11, 2014 13:45:19 GMT -5
Yes, because I love me some Vazquez, HOWEVER Amaro would have to add money to make the deal fair. I'm thinking $50 million.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by ianrs on Dec 11, 2014 13:46:23 GMT -5
Maybe if there is significant money coming back (and because I love CVaz).
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2014 18:10:02 GMT -5
Question grading 1-10 what does Vazquez and Swihart grade out as from a D/catcher skills point of view? From what I see Vazquez looks like 8/9 great D. Never seen Swihart play.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,825
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Dec 11, 2014 19:33:39 GMT -5
Question grading 1-10 what does Vazquez and Swihart grade out as from a D/catcher skills point of view? From what I see Vazquez looks like 8/9 great D. Never seen Swihart play. Vazquez is a plus defender and he's one of (if not the) best pitch framers in baseball. Swihart gets above average to plus grades on his fielding. His CS% this year was phenomenal. But, we don't have access to any of his pitch framing statistics, so tough to say how good he will be in that respect. That could be the big difference maker between the two defensively.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 11, 2014 20:11:13 GMT -5
Question grading 1-10 what does Vazquez and Swihart grade out as from a D/catcher skills point of view? From what I see Vazquez looks like 8/9 great D. Never seen Swihart play. If Vazquez were an 8 I would shudder to think what a 10 would look like. Perhaps he has a slight weakness at blocking pitches but if that weren't the case you would have to give him an 11.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Dec 12, 2014 0:18:32 GMT -5
Cafardo is really pushing this Hamels thing. How much is he getting paid? Cafardo is a buffoon. He probably doesn't know much about Swihart. Then again I flipped on the TV and saw Greg Dickerson compare Betts to WMB and wonder why we should believe that Betts is going to turn out any different that WMB. You could see John Tomasse thinking how dumb Dickerson sounded.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 12, 2014 0:34:51 GMT -5
They should fire Greg Dickerson. Betts has elite #'s in the minors for his age, WMB only had good numbers and was much older. You can't compare the two, its apples to oranges.
|
|
sdl
Rookie
Who the hell is Stan Papi?
Posts: 135
|
Post by sdl on Dec 17, 2014 22:08:07 GMT -5
My friend from Philly tells me they want a C in any potential Hamels deal and they have their eye on Swihart. The want a C...give them Dan Butler.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Dec 17, 2014 22:16:23 GMT -5
They should fire Greg Dickerson. Betts has elite #'s in the minors for his age, WMB only had good numbers and was much older. You can't compare the two, its apples to oranges.You're killing me: You can compare the two and it is an apples-to-apples comparison, one which shows that Betts to be much better. We know this because that's what you just did in the preceding sentence. Oh yeah and I would totally trade Swihart for Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Dec 18, 2014 1:20:30 GMT -5
Yes, but only if money is coming back.
|
|
|
Post by kmann on Dec 18, 2014 9:27:02 GMT -5
I am on record in another thread saying that I would trade Swihart for Hamels if the Phils eat 30% of the contract. Hamels at 5/$77 > Swihart (or at least I am willing to take that risk).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 18, 2014 9:51:38 GMT -5
Hamels's AAV is less than Lester's and he's better and signed for fewer years. What's the point of making Philly throw money in?
As for the question at hand: I'd need to think about it long and hard, and be even more familiar with both players than I currently am, but it's not one I'd immediately say yes or no to, which makes me think it's a fair trade potentially. This is assuming, of course, that there wouldn't be anyone above the, say, Devers/Margot tier included in the deal.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Dec 18, 2014 9:52:11 GMT -5
Why if you believe your rotation is solid enough to be a playoff team now not wait until the trade deadline in which you have lessened the dollar investment on Hamels and collected a half seasons of data on Swihart in AAA along with seeing the development of Owens, Barnes and Rodriguez? Many seem to be more concerned about having a staff front man for the playoff run which means you can defer the decision until later. I suppose if you believe Amaro is going to move him no matter what this offseason it forces your decision but it also forces his hand on what he can get. As for me I'm of the ilk to keep Swihart protected from a Hamels deal. His trajectory as a plus hitter as a C and strong defensive growth make him a rare commodity. I see too many other alternatives still available to move the systems best prospect. Either Shields in FA (Granted perhaps a small step below a Hamels quality) or one of the many final year of their deal starters remain as plausible alternatives.
Short version, NO.
Add: Reading through the Hamels thread I see that some of this has generally been discussed by dcsoxfan.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 18, 2014 11:11:25 GMT -5
Hamels's AAV is less than Lester's and he's better and signed for fewer years. What's the point of making Philly throw money in? The point of making Philly throw money in is to make the trade fair in terms of excess value, because as it happens Swihart also projects to be better than he gets paid to be, by a larger margin than Hamels does. What's so hard to understand about that?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2014 11:20:44 GMT -5
Why would a rich team like the Red Sox sell prospects? It's one of the few places they could effectively spend money. With all of the expiring contracts, they have less than $100 million committed in 2016 even after the spending spree. I'd rather pay more to hold onto Swihart. Even if the Phillies paid Hamels' entire contract to get us to include Betts, how do you replace Betts? I don't want to commit to overpaying for the decline of too many players.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Dec 18, 2014 11:25:13 GMT -5
Why would a rich team like the Red Sox sell prospects? It's one of the few places they could effectively spend money. With all of the expiring contracts, they have less than $100 million committed in 2016 even after the spending spree. I'd rather pay more to hold onto Swihart. Because they want Hamels, and Hamels is not available for Noe Ramirez + cash. Edit to reply to your edit: I didn't say I would do the same thing with Betts. The only reason this is acceptable with Swihart to me is that I believe Vazquez is likely the guy we should be keeping anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2014 11:39:22 GMT -5
Why would a rich team like the Red Sox sell prospects? It's one of the few places they could effectively spend money. With all of the expiring contracts, they have less than $100 million committed in 2016 even after the spending spree. I'd rather pay more to hold onto Swihart. Because they want Hamels, and Hamels is not available for Noe Ramirez + cash. Edit to reply to your edit: I didn't say I would do the same thing with Betts. The only reason this is acceptable with Swihart to me is that I believe Vazquez is likely the guy we should be keeping anyway. I'd insist on lesser prospects, not offset salary. And again, we aren't desperate for Hamels. Amaro is free to let him rot, which is what I have predicted that he'd do for a long time. Just like he blew it with Lee. I'd feel pretty safe in saying that Swihart exceeds Hamels' WAR by himself pretty quickly. I bet we could get someone a lot more valuable than Hamels if we wanted to put any/all the guys that Amaro wants on the table. Just look at how rare decent catchers are.
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Dec 18, 2014 12:23:03 GMT -5
I'd insist on lesser prospects, not offset salary. That's not necessarily a choice we have. I think part of this discussion is just in case RAJ balks at all of our 5 lesser prospects (below the Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart/Devers/Margot/Owens level) proposals. I think we'd all prefer to pay more money to the Phillies in order to include lesser prospects. But in the hypothetical event that RAJ insists on getting a better prospect, which is certainly not an indefensible assertion, money can be a mitigating factor. That's the only reason why I bring money into the equation, and it's the only reason why I think about including a player of the above tier in a deal. We don't need to do the deal, but I think that the Sox can be a much better team with Hamels, especially over the life of his contract.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 18, 2014 12:42:39 GMT -5
I'd insist on lesser prospects, not offset salary. That's not necessarily a choice we have. I think part of this discussion is just in case RAJ balks at all of our 5 lesser prospects (below the Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart/Devers/Margot/Owens level) proposals. I think we'd all prefer to pay more money to the Phillies in order to include lesser prospects. But in the hypothetical event that RAJ insists on getting a better prospect, which is certainly not an indefensible assertion, money can be a mitigating factor. That's the only reason why I bring money into the equation, and it's the only reason why I think about including a player of the above tier in a deal. We don't need to do the deal, but I think that the Sox can be a much better team with Hamels, especially over the life of his contract. We have a choice. We can tell him to go to hell, which I'd do.
|
|