I don't want to trade Hamels, short of a Mike Trout level prospect. Not worth it. I'd rather have an Ace like Hamels for the next 3-4 years regardless of what else and how they go about it. Given modern metrics which put less emphasis on W's for sp-ers - it's hard to find a guy with Hamels pedigree. 30 is not old. Doc and Cliff had stellar years in their early 30's. Every team, even one rebuilding needs that Ace.

Keep em.

A Mike Trout level prospect only? A Trout type player comes around once in a generation and you;d only trade Hamels for one? Madness.

Everyone on this team should be available in a trade

Burnett, Diekman, Buchanan and a few others are visiting Alcatraz right now, bein prison pals

I don't know. Hamels threw what? 133 pitches in 7 innings early this season. After that he got great instead of getting hurt. He might be extremely special. He threw hardly any innings as a a young man. It might be the best thing ever.

BigEd76 wrote:Burnett, Diekman, Buchanan and a few others are visiting Alcatraz right now, bein prison pals

Should be focused on winning, not sightseeing!

etched Chaos wrote:A Mike Trout level prospect only? A Trout type player comes around once in a generation and you;d only trade Hamels for one? Madness.

I'm with PTK here and would argue that Hamels is a "Troul-level player", which trumps a "Trout-level prospect" every time. Even if a lot of people think there's a guy who's gonna be as good as Trout at the MLB level doesn't mean he's gonna be.


Maybe we should trade him to Taney for Mo'ne

Trout is the only Trout-level player.

put quotes around it though and then its ok

Hamels is a clownfish-level player...a bum!

Bucky wrote:

etched Chaos wrote:A Mike Trout level prospect only? A Trout type player comes around once in a generation and you;d only trade Hamels for one? Madness.

I'm with PTK here and would argue that Hamels is a "Troul-level player", which trumps a "Trout-level prospect" every time. Even if a lot of people think there's a guy who's gonna be as good as Trout at the MLB level doesn't mean he's gonna be.


Maybe we should trade him to Taney for Mo'ne

A Trout-level player? We're talking Chase Utley with good knees type production here, the Doc with a working arm type production, non-old Pujols production. We'd all (if we're sane) give up Hamels in a heartbeat if it meant we got someone of that ilk back. Hummus will give you consistently 4 WAR a season, you're not going to see anything above a high 4 from him considering his track record. A trout-level player would be looking to double that for you, ace or not, you're a madman if you keep Hamels with a Trout type player in the bargain.

he didn't say "trout-type PLAYER" he said "trout-level PROSPECT". therein lies the rub.

Bucky wrote:he didn't say "trout-type PLAYER" he said "trout-level PROSPECT". therein lies the rub.

I don't know if there's a difference, Trout is so young that you can still call him a prospect today, that's how scarily good he is. But still, as far as prospects go Trout is the bloody holy grail, 29 GM's in the league would give Hummus for the prospect and the one exception would be the dumb schmuck trading for Hummus.

My favorites, fucking laff riot commenced:

" I wish he was pouring a bucket full of black widow spiders on himself."

"I hope u cross the street in front of tony Stewart"

"If Ruben's getting involved those poor people with ALS are screwed. He'd probably trade an actual cure for a jar full of leeches."

"I'll bet he overpaid for the bucket."

"Too bad it wasnt a bucket of anvils"

"That ice bucket is also 35 yrs old and can't hit"

"Amaro just gave the ice bucket a five year extension."

702 wrote:The comments are fucking hilarious.

I am disappointed no-one cracked a vesting option joke.

i think roger freed was a trout-level prospect

Before the 2010 season, Trout was considered the Angels' third best prospect and 85th in all of baseball by Baseball America.

To be fair, after that year ESPN rated him their #1 prospect. But he was still far from a sure thing. Confirmation bias is a fickle broad.

Bucky wrote:

Before the 2010 season, Trout was considered the Angels' third best prospect and 85th in all of baseball by Baseball America.

To be fair, after that year ESPN rated him their #1 prospect. But he was still far from a sure thing. Confirmation bias is a fickle broad.

Except the whole 10 WAR season as a 20 year old, which by my reckoning is still an age you can call someone a prospect . Though it is funny that he's had far better seasons as a Major Leaguer than he did in the minors, just shows prospects are a funny business.

OK, I guess that is the disconnect. I don't look at age- a 'prospect' to me is someone who hasn't produced at the ML level yet. And yes, prospects are a funny game- on that we agree. That's why I side with PTK on this.

angels picked trout with the pick they got from the yankees for teixeira, something you should always remind yankees fans