Bleacher Bums Forum

Heh.  If I remember correctly, it was the Rangers who outbid us for him back when.  Is that right?

Cole Hamels has always worn #35.   That has been Lester Strode's number since 2007.

Lester has both 34 and 35?

I guess you'd have to imagine the PTBNL would be better than Lacy.  Hard to think Lacy would be the lead prospect in a deal like this, even with Hamels not pitching well and with us covering some salary.

I guess you'd have to imagine the PTBNL would be better than Lacy.  Hard to think Lacy would be the lead prospect in a deal like this, even with Hamels not pitching well and with us covering some salary.

PTBNL in trades like this often are determined in part based on how well the named player or players do.  Hamels does well, and TX picks from list A made up of a few decent prospects.  Hamels stinks and they pick from list B which is made up of guys the Theocracy might be considering giving their releases to right now.

Appears to be little more than a salary dump, with Hamels not likely to produce anything more than league average pitching.... but even league average would be better than what they have been getting from the 5th spot and should help win a couple more games with the Cubs' lineup.  Hamels is not really likely to play a role in the post season rotation, but he is insurance in case another starter is lost, and if he is just good enough as a starter to reduce wear on the bullpen, then could be of serious value during the playoffs.

Looks like a good move for both teams.

I guess you'd have to imagine the PTBNL would be better than Lacy.  Hard to think Lacy would be the lead prospect in a deal like this, even with Hamels not pitching well and with us covering some salary.

Steele and Marquez are the only 2 lefties in the org that throw hard.  I hate trading on of them.

By the way, I wonder what the point of this provision is?  No matter how well Hamels pitches the rest of the year, the Cubs aren't likely paying him $20 million out of pocket next year, so the Rangers are stuck paying $8 million regardless.

About the only thing this accomplishes is takes away the Cubs' opportunity for it to essentially be a $14 million financial decision next year, which probably would be a feasible move for us if Hamels finished the season strong.  Seems kind of like a scudzy move on the Rangers part, or perhaps Hamels' agent played a role in how this got structured.

That made me think that Steele couldn't be the return, because being able to get him for Chatwood's salaray would be a possible benefit.  He might be cheaper on the open market though.

I actually think that is a positive report. 

2013-2014 his ERA was better that his FIP/xFIP

2015 he was just excellent, 3.23/2.90/3.01.

2016-2018 has been the real underperformance.

Forget about actual performance, and forget about the fact that this is a guy you have been arguing to get for years now, but just focus on the three time periods:  2013-2014 is time period A; 2015 is time period B; 2016-2018 is time period C.

It is now the middle of 2018.

Which one is most likely most predictive of future performance? A, B or C?

Hard to image how in abstraction you would weight A or B more heavily than C.