Reasonable Trade Discussion

[Saul Goodman]

TPD? Fuck it's silent in here. Anyway I don't know where Brett is getting this idea that the Cubs can't take on salary. I don't buy that at all. It's like everyone forgot the Cubs put a claim in on Hamels last year when he was owed even more than he's owed now. I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

[Powdered Toast Man]

TPD? Fuck it's silent in here. Anyway I don't know where Brett is getting this idea that the Cubs can't take on salary. I don't buy that at all. It's like everyone forgot the Cubs put a claim in on Hamels last year when he was owed even more than he's owed now. I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

Can't? Or won't? I think the Cubs will add pitching, but on the back end of the rotation. I feel like it's more likely they wait until winter to take on salary on a more top of the rotation pitcher.

[Eli]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

[Saul Goodman]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

Even I am not sure they can afford $75 million to three pitchers.

I would prefer going after Hamels today because 1) There's no guaranty you can get one of Price et al after this season; and 2) I'd like to see them move some players because not all of them will have available positions on the ML roster.  If the season ends and no trade is made, by all means go after Price et al and hoard the players for another deal.

[Eli]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

[Powdered Toast Man]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

[Eli]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It was a set up to remind us that he's a banker and you fell for it.

[ChuckD]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

[Brownie]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.

Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

[ChuckD]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.

Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

Mike Olt and Kris Bryant can be used interchangeably, too. But if using one of them rustles so many jimmies, why not use the perfectly non-jimmie-rustling alternative?

[Bort]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.

Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

Mike Olt and Kris Bryant can be used interchangeably, too. But if using one of them rustles so many jimmies, why not use the perfectly non-jimmie-rustling alternative?

Octopodes is a technically correct plural for octopuses, but I don't use it because I'm not a common Chuck.

[Chuck to Chuck]

I don't think acquiring Hamels (who makes sense because he's more than a rental, when by all accounts this team will be better going forward) and signing a FA pitcher this offseason are mutually exclusive.

They're not going to have Lester, Hamels AND another big-name FA pitcher. That'd be about $75-80 million a year tied up for three pitchers.

Why not if they can afford it (and they absolutely can)?  Isn't that the whole point of amassing an army of cost-controlled talent everywhere else on the roster?

"Can" afford it and "willing to pay" are totally different. Even with a $200 million payroll (which is double their current payroll), that's still a pretty unbalanced use of resources.

They could afford it were this 2019 and they had a new TV deal in place. They don't and there's no guaranty they will.  I'd still bet they get a few billion for the broadcast / streaming rights, but 4 years is an eternity in this media environment.

Are you spelling guarantee like that to be different or is that a real thing?

It's a banking/finance thing. But Chuck never misses an opportunity to Chuck.

Yeah, I don't get "guarantee." It's not "warrantee." I do use guaranty and guarantee interchangeablee.

But they're not interchangeable. Guaranty is a very specific contract/covenant to pay a debt in the case of the debtor not being able to pay, where guarantee is a pledge or contract to perform as stated, including paying a debt.

Guarantee can also be used as a verb. I don't believe guaranty is.

Forget it, Merriam-Webster says they can be used interchangeably. Chuck is right. Broken clocks and all that?

Mike Olt and Kris Bryant can be used interchangeably, too. But if using one of them rustles so many jimmies, why not use the perfectly non-jimmie-rustling alternative?

Octopodes is a technically correct plural for octopuses, but I don't use it because I'm not a common Chuck.

I almost always use "guaranty" when I'm talking singular because you have to use "guarantees" when going with the plural.