Reasonable Trade Discussion

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

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.

Not "guaranties"?

[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?

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.

Not "guaranties"?

Guarantodes

[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.

Not "guaranties"?

I never see it that way in the loan docs. Sometimes in boiler plate docs it's "Guarantor(s)," but that refers to the individuals, not the documentation.

[CBStew]

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.

Not "guaranties"?

I never see it that way in the loan docs. Sometimes in boiler plate docs it's "Guarantor(s)," but that refers to the individuals, not the documentation.

This is less fun than first year Contracts, which was my least favorite course.

[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?

"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.

Not "guaranties"?

Guarantodes

Guarabanzo beanz

[CT III]

Guarantee void in Tennessee

[InternetApex]

Nuke this fucking thread hard.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Nuke this fucking thread hard.

Seriously.  The most active discussion today has been about how to spell guaranty.

When I saw CT jumped in I thought for sure he was going to dull it down even further by adding "surety" (suretee?) to the conversation.  He spared us.

First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Nuke this fucking thread hard.

Seriously.  The most active discussion today has been about how to spell guaranty.

When I saw CT jumped in I thought for sure he was going to dull it down even further by adding "surety" (suretee?) to the conversation.  He spared us.

First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

Surety you can't be serious.

[Eli]

First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

I dunno. Have you seen tonight's lineup?

[Saul Goodman]

First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

I dunno. Have you seen tonight's lineup?

cf Fowler
1b Rizzo
3b Bryant
ss Castro
rf Denorfia
lf Szczur
c Ross
p Hendricks
2b Russell

Ok, that's ... not optimal.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

First pitch can't come soon enough tonight.

I dunno. Have you seen tonight's lineup?

cf Fowler
1b Rizzo
3b Bryant
ss Castro
rf Denorfia
lf Szczur
c Ross
p Hendricks
2b Russell

Ok, that's ... not optimal.

Jesus Christ, Soler, get the fuck back NOW.  

[Oleg]

The Padres are 5 games under 500.  I would not object to Justin Upton in LF for The Cubs.

[Slaky]

The Padres are 5 games under 500.  I would not object to Justin Upton in LF for The Cubs.

Weren't the Cubs explicitly on his No Thanks list?

[Oleg]

The Padres are 5 games under 500.  I would not object to Justin Upton in LF for The Cubs.

Weren't the Cubs explicitly on his No Thanks list?

I don't know.  But can't his brother just tell him how awesome Maddon is?