Update on Hamels
- Thread starter adp98
- Start date
I guess I do need crayons.
The Sheilds signing will cost money and a prospect that would have been picked in round one 4 months from now. First round picks are elite prospects to any organizations. Simple fact.
Hamels will cost money, and probably two past high end picks. So not sure how I am arguing against myself. I think it's more that you are not understanding the true cost of Shields. When you sign a player, you lose the pick entirely. You dont get a sandwich pick. The Mets sign Cuddyer and lose the pick altogether. They went from 15 to 53 for their first pick. So, you lose a high level prospect, and you pay money. Getting Hamels means you probably lose two high level prospects and pay money for a younger, better player. It's not terribly hard math here. If the padres sign Shields, they lose the #13 pick, not a sandwich pick. That's an elite albeit young prospect most years.
This post was edited on 2/6 10:58 AM by Ninetynine5.0
First round picks can be high school kids who are 5 years from the majors or most likely guys who never make it. That's why teams are so loathe to part with kids who already show promise within the system. It becomes very obvious you don't understand the baseball system. This isn't the NFL draft we're talking about here in terms of first round drafts. Every first round pick does not = a prime prospect. Obviously you hope they pan out but we have 30 first round picks each year and nowhere near 30 become elite prospects. Not even close.
ADP, we all agree that the 1st round is no guarantee, not a prime prospect and can be years away from major league service. But you said and I'm not going back to quote but it's close enough, all it costs you is money and no prospects. That is flat out not true. So you are wrong and keep trying to cover it up by determining the worth of a 1st round pick. A 1st round pick is something and it's definitely something of value. The Red Sox built there World Series teams by letting other teams sign their FA's and getting picks. And if any pick was going to turn into a blue chip prospect it would be a 1st round pick. So by signing Shields you are losing your best chance at adding a nice piece to your roster. Sometimes they are high schoolers, but sometimes they are college arms that can be pro ready in a year. So signing Shields you get a worse, older pitcher for similary money and possibly longer than Hamels making the contract worse in every way and give up a very unknown but possible big talent. By trading Hamels you give up 2-3 relative unknowns that you feel good about and get a better pitcher on a better deal in his prime.
You just said you get a sandwich pick after you sign a FA. Stop.
No one is comparing this to the NFL, but a high pick is a highly values pick to any baseball organization. It's an inexact science but surely you can agree that the talent any team evaluates and picks with their first pick is considered a guy they believe will play in the majors some day. Again simple fact. IN any event, he's a talent high enough to be picked ahead of most of the pack, so he's a elite prospect, because that's what they are by nature.
Go down the list of any oranization in baseball - their highest rated prospects were almost all drafted very high, or signed via foreign free agency. So the padres pick this June, at 13, will be considered an elite talent. Fact. They lose him if they sign Shields and won't pick until the late 50's where they get a far less likely talent.
So the cost of Shields for SD is moeny and at least one high level prospect. #13 overall. The cost for Hamels is at least one high level kid, and probbaly a slightly lesser progressed talent but with good potential (think AA with great velocity but lacking control or someting ). Not a huge difference, just a year or two of development.
Love how you disregard every single thing else said showing how your were wrong and focus in on one sentence. And saying they built their World Series teams may have been strong even though Ellsbury and Bucholz were on 2 championship teams and Ellsbury batted .350 in 2007, had 52 steals and batted .300 and 2013 and by all intents and purposes was one of the top players on the team. Bucholz went 3-1 in 2007 which certainly helped them win the division by 2 games and was in All star in 2013 and didn't allow a run in his 1 WS start. Also, they definitely restocked there farm system with Compensatory picks by not only getting the 2 mentioned above who helped them win the WS, but also Henry Owens, Jackie Bradly Jr, Blake Swihart and MIchael Koepech. Oh and from the 2004 team I believe Trot Nixon was important. And they also selected David Murphy who they flipped in 2007 for Eric Gagne who made multiple playoff appearances and helped them win that WS.
So you are arguing that Bucholz and Elsbury were what build the 07 and 13 championship teams. Bucholz who wasn't on the post-season roster in 07 and didn't record a decision his entire playoff career. Note, was he a sandwhch pick? You have no idea what you're talking about here. Remember, I used to be a Sox fan. The Sox won in 13 because they went out and bought 5 guys in Free agency the preceding year.
This post was edited on 2/6 2:10 PM by adp98
This post was edited on 2/6 2:10 PM by adp98
So this is the championship team built through sandwich picks (Buchholz was a sandwich, Elsbury was not). See below on how the team was built:
I bring all that up because many think the 2013 Red Sox had their genesis at that time, with that trade. The Punto Deal freed up roster spots and budget room, both of which were required for the buying spree that would be the 2012-13 off-season. That off-season brought in, among others, Stephen Drew. Some, maybe including me, have spoken of that deal and, more germane to this article, the moves that followed it as the moves that made the successes of 2013 possible.
Now, I'm not so sure that's correct. I'm not saying it's wrong either. I guess I'm saying let's take a look. So let's take a look. Last off-season the Red Sox gave out 17 years worth of contracts to free agents totaling $126.45 million (according to Mike Napoli (1 year, $5 million)Koji Uehara (1 year, $4.5 million)
I bring all that up because many think the 2013 Red Sox had their genesis at that time, with that trade. The Punto Deal freed up roster spots and budget room, both of which were required for the buying spree that would be the 2012-13 off-season. That off-season brought in, among others, Stephen Drew. Some, maybe including me, have spoken of that deal and, more germane to this article, the moves that followed it as the moves that made the successes of 2013 possible.
Now, I'm not so sure that's correct. I'm not saying it's wrong either. I guess I'm saying let's take a look. So let's take a look. Last off-season the Red Sox gave out 17 years worth of contracts to free agents totaling $126.45 million (according to Mike Napoli (1 year, $5 million)Koji Uehara (1 year, $4.5 million)
No, I am actually arguing absolutely zero about the Red Sox. I am arguing that by signing Shields a team actually is giving something up that can have significant value and using Ellsbury, Bucholz, Nixon, Gagne, Henry Owens, Jackie Bradley Jr., Swihart and Koepech as examples. And again you focus in on Bucholz who went 3-1 and they won the division by 2 games and you conveniently leave out Ellsbury who was a stud. But again, that's all besides the point. Compensatory picks can clearly be very important to teams and if they were "sandwhich" picks (I'll look up later), it doesn't even get to the opportunity cost of who could have been selected with the real pick that was given up. Main point is signing Shields clearly isn't just giving up no prospects and paying him. You're give up something of potential high value as well. Don't really get why you keep mentioning sandwhich picks because it is completely irrelevant to the argument because the team signing loses their actual 1st round pick. What the team who lets the player go gets is completely inconsequential to what we're discussing.
Yes, I was wrong about them building two teams via this strategy that won World Series titles. What would have been corrected was that they implemented this strategy to get players who were integral parts on their world series teams and build out there farm system. Now can we get back to the original issue? Signing Shileds does have a pretty high cost besides $ amounts.
So what's it say about Hamels value in a trade if a team gives Shields similar money? We all agree Hamels is the better player. That's what we're debating here. San Diego for instance has the prospects to make that deal today.
If teams are willing to give up their 1st round pick and pay similar to more money for an older and worse pitcher than it should mean that Hamels value would be much higher because he'll be traded at the deadline when there will be no other way of acquiring a pitcher of his caliber.
I just tried to reread this and I have no idea what you are arguing about, but cap tip for keeping this going.
It's mainly because every time ADP loses a point he finds something else in what's said and starts arguing that, out of nowhere, without ever really resolving what was previously being argued. This way he can continue to be wrong about things without acknowledgment and make people forget about it. Hence the birth of moving the goal posts.
