Guthrie traded to Rockies for Hammel & Lindstrom

[ChaosLex]

Thanks for visiting us Dan. Hope you can turn around this franchise because that's about the cheeriest way of looking at that trade. You forgot to mention we just threw away a 1st round supplemental pick as well by trading Guthrie. You also failed to mention that Hammel has never pitched more than 177.2 innings in any season and only has one season ever where he was a starter an entire season. Guthrie on the other hand has thrown 200 or more inning the last three season over 190 the year before that three year stretch. Guthrie has pitched in the hardest Division in baseball with some of the worse fielding teams in all of baseball behind him. Hammel is not going to be facing a pitcher every nine batters and pitching in New York and Boston is going to be a lot tougher than San Diego and Los Angeles.

I hope you are right, but when your only hope is for Hammel to return to being a 4.81 ERA pitcher (2010 ERA) that's not a ton of upside. Alfredo Simon throws hard too. I don't want him in my rotation in the AL East. As for Lindstrom, he seems like s decent middle reliever, but he's being paid $3.6 million. That's going to go over well with your closer (JJ) who is making $2.63 million next year.

I could be wrong, but I thought under the new CBA we wouldn't be entitled to a supplemental pick.

[byrdz]

This trade has upside, downside and no side.

But was it neccassary?

Just keep him and see where things stand in July...or even June. Trade him early if you can.

This is strange coming from someone who has wanted Guthrie traded seemingly since we got him from the Indians.

[Sports Guy]

I could be wrong, but I thought under the new CBA we wouldn't be entitled to a supplemental pick.

Sure we can....It depends on how he would have pitched though.

Now, if we traded him this July, the team getting him wouldn't get a pick.

[Sports Guy]

This is strange coming from someone who has wanted Guthrie traded seemingly since we got him from the Indians.

And as it turned out, I was right that he should have been dealt at almost any point in the past(outside of his 5 ERA season).

However, at this point, if this is all you could get, hold onto him and see what happens the first few months.

If Hammel can get back to where he was, we might get lucky. Same with Lindstrom. Of course, while he was good last year, he has been very mediocre in the past...that's what relievers like him do. they suck sometimes and are good others.

[Barnaby Graves]

This is strange coming from someone who has wanted Guthrie traded seemingly since we got him from the Indians.

You don't suppose the return factors into the desirability of a trade, do you?

[Lucky Jim]

Don't you think it's possible that this isn't necessarily an indication on DD's philosophy, or view on risks as you put it, but rather an indication of DD doing his best to operate within the guidelines that Buck and PA have mandated (IE: Trying to win now while also building toward the future). In other words, he could justify trading Guthrie because he was able to save a little money and also get very similar production.

Of course that is all speculative, but I think it's possible.

Sure, it's possible. But they didn't really save any money and traded a popular player.

[Lucky Jim]

I could be wrong, but I thought under the new CBA we wouldn't be entitled to a supplemental pick.

If he signed for somewhere around $12-13m next year we would, from what I understand. Seems unlikely.

[Tony-OH]

And as it turned out, I was right that he should have been dealt at almost any point in the past(outside of his 5 ERA season).

However, at this point, if this is all you could get, hold onto him and see what happens the first few months.

If Hammel can get back to where he was, we might get lucky. Same with Lindstrom. Of course, while he was good last year, he has been very mediocre in the past...that's what relievers like him do. they suck sometimes and are good others.

Such a simple point missed by so many. Ashamed really. Of course considering we were hearing rumors of the orioles interest in Kyle McClellan, maybe we should be happy with trade that comes out as a wash.

[Tony-OH]

If he signed for somewhere around $12-13m next year we would, from what I understand. Seems unlikely.

I don't understand. I know the CBA changed, but I didn't hear that it changed for the losing team based off of salary. I know a team that trades for a guy in his walk year doesn't get a compensation pick, but what are you hearing about salary?

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

Sure we can....It depends on how he would have pitched though.

Now, if we traded him this July, the team getting him wouldn't get a pick.

I was under the impression we would have to have offered him upward to $12.4m next offseason to receive the pick (average of top 125 MLB players). Is he going to get that?

[Lucky Jim]

I don't understand. I know the CBA changed, but I didn't hear that it changed for the losing team based off of salary. I know a team that trades for a guy in his walk year doesn't get a compensation pick, but what are you hearing about salary?

Ha. Tony, I misstated. Multi-tasking. I noted it correctly, earlier but flubbed it now that I'm eating, working and posting.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

I don't understand. I know the CBA changed, but I didn't hear that it changed for the losing team based off of salary. I know a team that trades for a guy in his walk year doesn't get a compensation pick, but what are you hearing about salary?

The Elias system of ranking free agents as Type A, Type B or Type C (unranked) will no longer be used to gauge compensation for the teams losing free agents.

The only way a team will receive compensation for losing a free agent is if they make a guaranteed qualifying one year contract equal to the average salary of the top 125 highest paid players. This is approximately $12.4M for this year.

http://mlbreports.com/2011/11/25/cba/

[Tony-OH]

http://mlbreports.com/2011/11/25/cba/

Thanks. It will be interesting to see what Guthrie can command on the open market if he has a good year. I agree though that $12.4 million a year is probably a bit high.

[Lucky Jim]

I was under the impression we would have to have offered him upward to $12.4m next offseason to receive the pick (average of top 125 MLB players). Is he going to get that?

Ha. Tony, I misstated. Multi-tasking. I noted it correctly, earlier but flubbed it now that I'm eating, working and posting.

Actually, I was right. Argh.

A free agent will be subject to compensation if his former Club offers him a guaranteed one-year contract with a salary equal to the average salary of the 125-highest paid Players from the prior season. The offer must be made at the end of the five-day free agent “quiet period,” and the Player will have seven days to accept the offer.

[eddie83]

http://mlbreports.com/2011/11/25/cba/

So common sense says that next year that number would rise again, right?