Trent Steele wrote:

Wheels Tupay wrote:This may be the wrong attitude to have, but I do not like the idea of having the main piece of a Hamels trade being a catcher. They just get hurt too often and it is really important to get something of value back here to start the rebuild with.

Agree. See, e.g., the prior post.

Agree with you both, but I have an uneasy feeling the Phils disagree, hence my earlier speculation of what the package might be. I also have a feeling that the Sox may be bluffing on Swihart and that they prefer keeping Vazquez.

Grotewold wrote:

Steaks wrote:The Red Sox have the players to get Hamels, but sources say they are reluctant to trade catcher Blake Swihart, pitcher Henry Owens, outfielder/second baseman Mookie Betts and infielder Xander Bogaerts. According to sources, the Phillies would have to have one of these players to part with Hamels. The Phillies are particularly high on Swihart.

man fuck that. we should get at least 2 if not 3 of those guys. meanwhile, red sox boards everywhere are unbearable right now with all the "we're gonna swindle RAJ, just wait" posts

Wheels Tupay wrote:This may be the wrong attitude to have, but I do not like the idea of having the main piece of a Hamels trade being a catcher. They just get hurt too often and it is really important to get something of value back here to start the rebuild with.

Catchers don't get hurt any more than pitchers do, and hitting on one could greatly expedite our rebuild. But I don't know enough about Swihart or Boston's true intentions to have an opinion

td11 wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

Steaks wrote:The Red Sox have the players to get Hamels, but sources say they are reluctant to trade catcher Blake Swihart, pitcher Henry Owens, outfielder/second baseman Mookie Betts and infielder Xander Bogaerts. According to sources, the Phillies would have to have one of these players to part with Hamels. The Phillies are particularly high on Swihart.

man fuck that. we should get at least 2 if not 3 of those guys. meanwhile, red sox boards everywhere are unbearable right now with all the "we're gonna swindle RAJ, just wait" posts

Eh, I don't think that can happen. But I wouldn't do a deal with Boston without getting either Betts or Boegarts.

Grotewold wrote:Catchers don't get hurt any more than pitchers do, and hitting on one could greatly expedite our rebuild. But I don't know enough about Swihart or Boston's true intentions to have an opinion

I don't want a pitcher either. I want young BATS

td11 wrote:man fuck that. we should get at least 2 if not 3 of those guys. meanwhile, red sox boards everywhere are unbearable right now with all the "we're gonna swindle RAJ, just wait" posts

I still don't think it's a good fit. But their rotation is definitely top-lighter than I realized now without Lester

Trent Steele wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Catchers don't get hurt any more than pitchers do, and hitting on one could greatly expedite our rebuild. But I don't know enough about Swihart or Boston's true intentions to have an opinion

I don't want a pitcher either. I want young BATS

Swihart projects to hit well, no?

I would much rather have Boagerts or Betts, too, but don't think that's happening. Don't know what else is out there, though, or whether it pays to wait on Hamels

I just don't see the Sox dealing Boegarts. Plus, since our best prospects right now are a ss and 3B, I'd prefer Amaro focus more on Betts.

Sucks that the Phillies reportedly won't eat any Hamels money. And bad contracts we could take back? Victorino? I'd rather not block an outfield spot with nostalgia, but if it means better prospect(s)

feel like you need swihart, but only in addition to betts or boegarts, not in place of them.

Grotewold wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:

Grotewold wrote:Catchers don't get hurt any more than pitchers do, and hitting on one could greatly expedite our rebuild. But I don't know enough about Swihart or Boston's true intentions to have an opinion

I don't want a pitcher either. I want young BATS

Swihart projects to hit well, no?

I would much rather have Boagerts or Betts, too, but don't think that's happening. Don't know what else is out there, though, or whether it pays to wait on Hamels

I think he's viewed as decent bat with very high defensive value. Maybe I'm underrating him. Callis thinks he's the best C prospect since Buster Posey, so that's something. Maybe I'm being stupid.

One thing that's become clear over the last few years is that although teams are running out of their shoes to lock up young hitting talent, they are much more cautions in giving long-term deals to arb-eligible pitchers. Accordingly, there is a significantly higher availability of high-end SP talent on the market (both FA and trades)than there is hitting talent. Scherzer, Lester, Samardjzia, Hamels, Gee, Santana, etc.

Which, if you're a high payroll team like the Phillies, means (1) you shouldn't trade your assets for young pitching since it can be bought every year with the only advantage you have (money); (2) you should trade anything you can for young hitting; and (3) Hamels value is probably less than we think it should be. Basically, I'm 100% opposed to any pitcher-led deal for Hamels.

especially since i think they can get a potential #4/5 for byrd and will have a shot at a fairly advanced college pitcher in the draft to go along with nola.

Trent Steele wrote:One thing that's become clear over the last few years is that although teams are running out of their shoes to lock up young hitting talent, they are much more cautions in giving long-term deals to arb-eligible pitchers. Accordingly, there is a significantly higher availability of high-end SP talent on the market (both FA and trades)than there is hitting talent. Scherzer, Lester, Samardjzia, Hamels, Gee, Santana, etc.

Which, if you're a high payroll team like the Phillies, means (1) you shouldn't trade your assets for young pitching since it can be bought every year with the only advantage you have (money); (2) you should trade anything you can for young hitting; and (3) Hamels value is probably less than we think it should be. Basically, I'm 100% opposed to any pitcher-led deal for Hamels.

Makes a lot of sense

I'd offer Hamels to the Dodgers for Joc Pederson, Dee Gordon, and a starting pitching prospect... dump Howard in the AL, try to get Wil Myers from Tampa maybe for Revere and prospects... move Chase to 1st... put Franco at 3rd... Asche to left... dump Dom... get prospects for Byrd... give Nola every chance to join the rotation... maybe find one or two #2 or 3 starters to join Lee, Nola, and Buchanan... maybe a guy like Latos in Cincinnati or Cashner from SD...

C-Ruiz, Rupp
1b- Utley
2b- Gordon
SS- Rollins (Till Crawford)
3b- Franco
OF- Asche, Pederson, Myers

Just musing on a cold Wed morning

ReadingPhilly wrote:feel like you need swihart, but only in addition to betts or boegarts, not in place of them.

100% agree. get this "pick one out of the four" shit the fuck outta here. hamels' deal is a downright bargain at 5/110 or whatever that's remaining

JFLNYC wrote:I just don't see the Sox dealing Boegarts. Plus, since our best prospects right now are a ss and 3B, I'd prefer Amaro focus more on Betts.

We can't have too much middle IF talent. SS can always be moved to 2B.

We have so many long-term needs as an organization that we should be position agnostic.

Trent Steele wrote:I think he's viewed as decent bat with very high defensive value. Maybe I'm underrating him. Callis thinks he's the best C prospect since Buster Posey, so that's something. Maybe I'm being stupid.

One thing that's become clear over the last few years is that although teams are running out of their shoes to lock up young hitting talent, they are much more cautions in giving long-term deals to arb-eligible pitchers. Accordingly, there is a significantly higher availability of high-end SP talent on the market (both FA and trades)than there is hitting talent. Scherzer, Lester, Samardjzia, Hamels, Gee, Santana, etc.

Which, if you're a high payroll team like the Phillies, means (1) you shouldn't trade your assets for young pitching since it can be bought every year with the only advantage you have (money); (2) you should trade anything you can for young hitting; and (3) Hamels value is probably less than we think it should be. Basically, I'm 100% opposed to any pitcher-led deal for Hamels.

Theo Epstein realized this 2-3 years ago. I agree wholeheartedly.

Titlehungry wrote:I'd offer Hamels to the Dodgers for Joc Pederson, Dee Gordon, and a starting pitching prospect... dump Howard in the AL, try to get Wil Myers from Tampa maybe for Revere and prospects... move Chase to 1st... put Franco at 3rd... Asche to left... dump Dom... get prospects for Byrd... give Nola every chance to join the rotation... maybe find one or two #2 or 3 starters to join Lee, Nola, and Buchanan... maybe a guy like Latos in Cincinnati or Cashner from SD...

C-Ruiz, Rupp
1b- Utley
2b- Gordon
SS- Rollins (Till Crawford)
3b- Franco
OF- Asche, Pederson, Myers

Just musing on a cold Wed morning

Wil Myers? What world do we have enough to get him?

Saw today the Rays are listening on him... coming on injury and down season


http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball ... rs/2209633

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:I just don't see the Sox dealing Boegarts. Plus, since our best prospects right now are a ss and 3B, I'd prefer Amaro focus more on Betts.

We can't have too much middle IF talent. SS can always be moved to 2B.

We have so many long-term needs as an organization that we should be position agnostic.

Betts' primary position is as a middle INF.