The Trading-Harvey Thread

[Guest d'Kong76]

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]

Not. Going. Anywhere.

[Frayed Knot]

Lefty Specialist wrote: Not. Going. Anywhere.

I. Agree. Entirely.

[Benjamin Grimm]

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

[Ceetar]

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.

[Guest d'Kong76]

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]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ceetar wrote: A Harvey for Tulowitski swap might be interesting though.

That made my eyes hurt.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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.

[Guest d'Kong76]

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

[nymr83]

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]

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?

[Guest d'Kong76]

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

[Guest themetfairy]

Bryce Harper

[Guest d'Kong76]

Now THAT would bowl us over!

[Frayed Knot]

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]

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

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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

Edited November 23, 2015 by Guest

[dgwphotography]

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]

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.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

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]

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]

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.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

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.