hamels: no and i don't believe philly truly wants to unload him imo, they're just throwing him out there with a ridiculous price tag in case someone is stupid/desperate enough to bit lester: maybe depends what we have to give up and whether or not he would sign an extension under no circumstances would i part with joc, seager or urias for a two month rental... lee and/or others maybe price: perhaps, but only if the price is right <what i did there, do you see it? and he is two years younger than the others...
I mean it all really depends on what you're giving up. If you have to trade the same package of prospects for each one, I'd go with Price.
We'll have to give up the house for Price Lester, for a 2-3 month rental and with him already saying he would re sign with the Sox, they can't expect much
Assuming the same cost for Hamels and Price, i'd prefer Hamels. He is signed for 4 more years (owed $90M in that time) with a team/vesting option for a 5th year. While Price is obviously only controlled for next season, and should they wanna sign him long-term he will surely cost 6/$150M, perhaps 7 years and close to $200M.
This is why Id prefer Hamels as well. Theres no way they can demand as much as they want for Hamels with that contract unless they pay some of it. No one in their right mind is going to give up 3-4 top spects and pay that salary.
Ruben Amaro was saying they want 3/4 top prospects and they will pay like $10M at tops This guy is nuts lolololololololol
I'm going with Lester... and only by signing him in the off-season so we keep all our prospects!! Although, I would prefer to sign Scherzer anyway over Lester :thumbsup: Kershaw/Greinke/Scherzer/Ryu/#5 starter until Urias comes up to be probably the #4 starter in this rotation.. :woot:arty:
The price the Dodgers still aren't willing to pay is any of their top three prospects -- Corey Seager, Julio Urias or Joc Pederson. To land a difference-maker like David Price, Jon Lester or Cole Hamels, it would take two of them. That's even less likely, considering ownership's commitment to restoring in-house development. LINK
I'd take Price. I like the year of team control with no long term commitment. Plus he's just better than the other two. I can't remember the last time our starting 5 was still intact this late in the season. 96 of our 106 starts from 5 guys, and 4 starters I would trust in the playoffs. Another starter would make our rotation beyond dominant and be nice insurance down the stretch, but not at the cost of our top CF and/or 3B prospect. CF has been our biggest embarrassment this year, and 3B our biggest embarrassment of the last decade. Virtually anything but the 3 prospects listed... And if that doesn't get it done, it doesn't get it done.
There is no way I give up 2 of our top 3 prospects for a rental like Lester. And the only way I do it for Price is with an extension, which isn't going to happen. What they are asking for Hamels is insane
Yeah, I mean anyone that pays remote attention to the Dodgers knew they weren't going to sell the farm for one of these guys. Let's improve that damn bullpen though.
Like others have said if the package is the same then it's gotta be Price. In reality, I don't want any of them. Other clubs are asking too much. Well maybe not too much but more than I'd be willing to give up. I would do Kemp for Lester straight up. No cash goes anywhere. Boston takes a chance that Kemp brings back his superstar stats for the remainder of his contract much like we did with Gonzo. They also most likely resign Lester in the off-season. We get an ace to be our #3 for 2 months and we get out from under the Kemp contract. The problem is this is a very one-sided trade as far as risk with us taking almost none and Boston really rolling the dice. I'd almost rather do Ethier and cash for Lester though. Maybe some combination of minor league players not named Urias, Seager, or Pederson to go with him. I'm also usually pretty bad at trade ideas. Someone is probably going to point out how for one reason or another these are impossible trades.
