Master Index of Archived Threads


The Trading-Harvey Thread

d'Kong76 Nov 22 2015 07:57 PM

Good Gosh, I can't help but feel it's the time and golly golly Miss Molly what might the Mets get for him!

Lefty Specialist Nov 23 2015 07:34 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Not. Going. Anywhere.

Frayed Knot Nov 23 2015 07:51 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Lefty Specialist wrote: Not. Going. Anywhere. I. Agree. Entirely.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 23 2015 08:13 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

I don't think so either, but the Mets should be open to the idea anyway.

Ceetar Nov 23 2015 08:28 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

I mean, you'd have to get a damn awesome package. And even then, it's probably prospects. So it's the wrong time. I hate trading established stars for even high-upside prospects. risky. At least with 3 years of control left. Maybe next season, or if the Mets aren't in the hunt at the deadline in 2017.

d'Kong76 Nov 23 2015 08:45 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

There's been a few things written about it but that drum didn't beat very long. Most sensible people are saying he goes to ar- bitration and gets six-or-so-million-dollar-one-year deal. Wasn't there a really long stretch where the Mets were like one of the very few teams that managed to avoid arbitration with players or am I think of something else? Still, I think this thread will surface from time to time over the winter and throughout 2016.

Ceetar Nov 23 2015 09:02 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

d'Kong76 wrote: There's been a few things written about it but that drum didn't beat very long. Most sensible people are saying he goes to ar- bitration and gets six-or-so-million-dollar-one-year deal. Wasn't there a really long stretch where the Mets were like one of the very few teams that managed to avoid arbitration with players or am I think of something else? Still, I think this thread will surface from time to time over the winter and throughout 2016. they had a streak going yes. In truth, few players actually hit arbitration. The estimated salaries are so predictable that in most cases teams settle somewhere close to that.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 23 2015 10:44 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Ceetar wrote: I mean, you'd have to get a damn awesome package. And even then, it's probably prospects. So it's the wrong time. I hate trading established stars for even high-upside prospects. risky. At least with 3 years of control left. Maybe next season, or if the Mets aren't in the hunt at the deadline in 2017. What if it's, say, a close-to-fully-cooked someone like Addison Russell, or Byron Buxton?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 23 2015 10:47 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

I'm extremely open to this. I doubt it occurs myself, but a Betts or Bogaerts or Buxton and we can talk. Buxton would be great because it'll send Hovvey to Minnesota.

seawolf17 Nov 23 2015 11:05 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I'm extremely open to this. I doubt it occurs myself, but a Betts or Bogaerts or Buxton and we can talk. Buxton would be great because it'll send Hovvey to Minnesota. I'm open also. I understand that's potentially a PR snafu, but he's one of your best chips and if you can get a stud bat back, well...

Ceetar Nov 23 2015 11:11 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Ceetar wrote: I mean, you'd have to get a damn awesome package. And even then, it's probably prospects. So it's the wrong time. I hate trading established stars for even high-upside prospects. risky. At least with 3 years of control left. Maybe next season, or if the Mets aren't in the hunt at the deadline in 2017. What if it's, say, a close-to-fully-cooked someone like Addison Russell, or Byron Buxton? I dunno, I think I might be more skeptical of guys that weren't impressive in their first taste of the majors. Granted they're young, but that last step is the hardest. I mean, you're talking a top 10 NL pitcher here. You're only really hoping Buxton or Russell could approach that, and that's not worth a couple of years of control. Throw someone else in.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 23 2015 11:28 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: I mean, you'd have to get a damn awesome package. And even then, it's probably prospects. So it's the wrong time. I hate trading established stars for even high-upside prospects. risky. At least with 3 years of control left. Maybe next season, or if the Mets aren't in the hunt at the deadline in 2017. What if it's, say, a close-to-fully-cooked someone like Addison Russell, or Byron Buxton? I dunno, I think I might be more skeptical of guys that weren't impressive in their first taste of the majors. Granted they're young, but that last step is the hardest. I mean, you're talking a top 10 NL pitcher here. You're only really hoping Buxton or Russell could approach that, and that's not worth a couple of years of control. Throw someone else in. Why do you say that the Mets would probably be limited to receiving prospects for Harvey?

Ceetar Nov 23 2015 11:55 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why do you say that the Mets would probably be limited to receiving prospects for Harvey? Because I think most trades end up being like that, especially in the offseason when there are free agent answers as well. A Harvey for Tulowitski swap might be interesting though. These are the ones that I'd be more willing to do, I just think it becomes so much tougher to actually pull off because there are a lot more no-trade clauses and the union/agents are more involved, etc.

d'Kong76 Nov 23 2015 12:01 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Ceetar wrote: A Harvey for Tulowitski swap might be interesting though. That made my eyes hurt.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 23 2015 01:54 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Why do you say that the Mets would probably be limited to receiving prospects for Harvey? Because I think most trades end up being like that, especially in the offseason when there are free agent answers as well. A Harvey for Tulowitski swap might be interesting though. These are the ones that I'd be more willing to do, I just think it becomes so much tougher to actually pull off because there are a lot more no-trade clauses and the union/agents are more involved, etc. Well, that, and because Tulowitzki makes about twelveteen jillion times more skrilla per annum. A lot more than ShortStintOfftheDL-- or someone similar-- would need to come our way for that to happen.

d'Kong76 Nov 23 2015 02:17 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

ShortStintOfftheDL and HalfUsedCoorsBathwater is really not where anyone should be going. We're talking historic bowl us over or nothing. Tulo? hahaha

Nymr83 Nov 23 2015 03:28 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

I'm not looking to trade Harvey this offseason, but if he were to get traded I'd want to it to be something like "Hey Pirates, McCutchen is due 13 mil this year and 14 mil next year... any interest?" If were aren't getting a guy like that I'd just say fuck it and keep him at least another year.

Frayed Knot Nov 23 2015 04:19 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

OK, so let's put it out there then: If you were to trade Harvey this winter, [u:kzsqt8m7]What Player[/u:kzsqt8m7] would you want back in a [u:kzsqt8m7]Straight Up[/u:kzsqt8m7] deal?

d'Kong76 Nov 23 2015 04:29 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Straight up ain't gonna cut it in the bowled-over department.

themetfairy Nov 23 2015 04:45 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Bryce Harper

d'Kong76 Nov 23 2015 04:50 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Now THAT would bowl us over!

Frayed Knot Nov 23 2015 04:57 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

themetfairy wrote: Bryce Harper Looked at one way, the swapping two high-maintainence Boras clients who would be free to walk three seasons from now doesn't really solve the "problems" that getting rid of Harvey is designed to accomplish. But on an overall basis, yeah, I guess you'd want the everyday player over the pitcher.

TransMonk Nov 23 2015 05:03 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Frayed Knot wrote: OK, so let's put it out there then: If you were to trade Harvey this winter, What Player would you want back in a Straight Up deal? Jose Altuve

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 23 2015 06:44 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Nov 23 2015 09:17 PM

I'd go for: Harper Trout Goldschmidt Pollock Betts Donaldson Bryant Arenado Rizzo Stanton I'd be open to considering: Altuve Bogaerts Bautista Machado Posey Votto

dgwphotography Nov 23 2015 06:44 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Frayed Knot wrote: OK, so let's put it out there then: If you were to trade Harvey this winter, What Player would you want back in a Straight Up deal? Mike Trout Giancarlo Stanton

HahnSolo Nov 23 2015 07:31 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

I don't get the hypothetical straight up Stanton-for-Harvey deal. Guy is always hurt and is owed about 600 trillion dollars for the next 46 years. This team wouldn't pick up the Tulo contract, and there going to turn around and grab one that is almost 3 times longer and more costly? If you want to go straight-up, I'd say go for someone pre-big payday, so I'd advocate the Rizzos, Bryants, Betts' and Bogaerts' of the world.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 23 2015 07:46 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: I'd go for: Harper Trout Goldschmidt Pollock Betts Donaldson Bryant Arenado Rizzo Stanton I'd be open to considering: Altuve Bogaerts Bautista Machado Votto That's pretty much the caliber you'd go for /looks up Pollock.../ Yeah, like him

Frayed Knot Nov 23 2015 08:22 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Pushing back on some of these. - No to Bautista. Already 35 y/o and can walk after next season - I'd back off Votto too because I like to think we're doing this exercise with real life conditions in mind. 32 y/o with NINE years still to go on a @ $20mil/per contract, that's a bigger risk than Stanton's deal. - Bryant? - Maybe, but you'd be taking a chance on a guy with ONE year under his belt and 200 Ks. Hopefully he adjusts to pitchers quicker than the other way around, but that's a helluva risk. - Bogaerts - Hope we'd be getting the 2015 model and not the 2014

Edgy MD Nov 23 2015 09:13 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

I think a Votto/Stanton contract is the sort of thing that would be on the other end of such a deal. Money, money, but Votto's a Hall-of-Famer.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 23 2015 10:09 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

I did my list in a hurry, and meant to put Stanton on the "consideration" list, as in, "acceptable if inclusive of large cash consideration." Bautista probably shouldn't have been on either list. But... A trade there wouldn't be entirely foolish, necessarily. Bautista's more of a straight up win-now move, of course, but he'd be a hell of a rental; in an across-the-board down-era for offenses, he's 40 home runs, yearly (30-35 even if he misses a damn month). Figuring that Harvey is unlikely to sign anything like a FA-year buyout deal, you're essentially giving 3 years of arb-eligible Harvey for Player X /Package X. Toss in the right high-upside kicker, and Bautista makes a little more sense for a team that's offense-short , pitching-rich, and simultaneously trying to win now AND remain financially flexible.

Nymr83 Nov 24 2015 12:09 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

no way on Bautista given age or Votto given that franchise-killing contract. Here my list: YES: Trout, Harper, Goldschmidt, McCutchen, Bryant, Rizzo, I'd have to think about it: Donaldson, Machado, Boegarts, Betts, Stanton NO (prominent guys who were mentioned): Votto, Pollock, Arenado, Bautista,

Edgy MD Nov 24 2015 06:39 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

I don't think Votto's is necessarily a franchise-killing contract. Eventually, the Mets are going to get locked into such deal with somebody? Why not him?

Frayed Knot Nov 24 2015 07:10 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Edgy MD wrote: Why not him? Because he's already 32 y/o and the deal has nearly a full decade to go.

Edgy MD Nov 24 2015 07:29 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

He's also one of the best hitters of the last 25 years and has led the league in walks his last four full seasons. Combined with a .311 batting average, it gives him some Bondsian OBPs. And OBP is a skill that ages better than others. And it's eight guaranteed years left on his deal, not ten.

Frayed Knot Nov 24 2015 07:59 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Just not big on dealing a top pitcher PLUS committing $200 million* in escalating per/year salaries to a guy starting the season in which he turns 33 and moves to a less hitter-friendly park. * $199 over eight seasons including the buyout option that gets you out of year nine - otherwise $212/9

Benjamin Grimm Nov 24 2015 08:50 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

If the Mets are going to trade Harvey, I'd want them to get a position player who's under 30 and has at least three, and preferably four, years of team control ahead of him. And of course, he'd have to be really really good as well.

Edgy MD Nov 24 2015 10:38 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Frayed Knot wrote: Just not big on dealing a top pitcher Me, neither. But it's the Trading-Harvey thread. Frayed Knot wrote: PLUS committing $200 million* in escalating per/year salaries Sure, but A-Rod was getting the kind of money in 2003 that this guy will see in the 2020's. Taking the "million" away. If the Mets think Curtis Granderson is worth $16, is it unfathomable that Joey Votto is worth $25? to a guy starting the season in which he turns 33 You're going at this hard now. He turns 33 on September 10, yeah, but he'll play the bulk of the season as a 32-year-old. and moves to a less hitter-friendly park. This is universally true of almost every trade proposed here. But walks travel better than many other offensive traits. I'm pretty much ready to stand pat (ducks) this offseason, but it seems to me this is the sort of deal the Mets would be looking for if they dangled their Harvey.

metsmarathon Nov 24 2015 11:55 AM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

If we're going to trade harvey for a guy with a $200m contract, why not keep Harvey and give him the money?

Edgy MD Nov 24 2015 12:45 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Because good pitching, and excellent pitching in particular, is a lot harder to sustain over a career than outstanding offensive performance.

Frayed Knot Nov 24 2015 12:59 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Edgy MD wrote: Sure, but A-Rod was getting the kind of money in 2003 that this guy will see in the 2020's. Taking the "million" away. If the Mets think Curtis Granderson is worth $16, is it unfathomable that Joey Votto is worth $25? As is usually the case with these type of contracts, it's not the per/year figures that gives me pause it's the length. If that's a four, five, or maybe even six year deal going forward at those same numbers then I'd have a different take on things.

Vic Sage Nov 24 2015 04:40 PM Re: The Trading-Harvey Thread

Edgy MD wrote: Because good pitching, and excellent pitching in particular, is a lot harder to sustain over a career than outstanding offensive performance. yup. and GMs know this too, so no, we're not getting perennial MVP candidates very much in their prime like Trout or McCutcheon, in exchange for ANY of our pitchers. That's just silly. You'll either get a package of blue chip type prospects, or a 30+ All-star with a big contract (with maybe a lesser prospect or 2). Nobody is giving up an all-star hitter, 27 or younger, with years of team control left, for a great pitcher of a similar age, coming off 1.5 years recently missed due to TJ surgery. I'd like Mookie Betts, a quality CFer (and 2bman), with power and top of the order speed, 23, with years of control left, very much ready to become the next McCutcheon. Would Boston do that? I doubt it. They'd probably prefer to give up Boegarts, who i'd be interested in, but only if they gave us a good prospect or 2, as well. But that's the kind of deal i'd want to make: somebody young who already has demonstrated major league ability, with high upside that's about to bust out, with long-term control. Carlos Correa, Lindor, Bryant. Certainly preferable to 30+ guys with huge contracts who have already leveled off or are starting to break down.