MarCakes21

I dont get this. Other than the money part, which is obviously big, why would Verlander cost more? You know you have to keep him for 2 years at whatever cost, he's likely a number 2 starter at best, and he was putting up fairly similar numbers as Scherzer. So assume the Mets eat the same amount of cost, but over 2.5 years rather than 1.5, and buy Verlander to $22mil per, would it really cost more than a ~50ish prospect (FYI, Acuna was likely climbing too).

I imagine there's a few things at play without the numbers here. He knows he can't live in the zone as much, which means he has to nibble more. That shows in the str%, and the resulting BB rate. When you can't get the swingstr% as much, you will get the increased exit velo and hard hit. Now, that being said, he clearly still knows how to pitc. He's got a 3.15ERA and 1.69 over past 6. Do you think he can show up for the big game? If they eat half his salary, can you stomach him at $21.5 mil per? Obviously depends on return cost, but what if it's "just" Ortiz play a lower level guy.

Assume the prospect cost is the same, which means obviously the Mets kick in some money, who would you rather have? Verlander or ERod? Reminder, 2 months of ERod, 2.5 years of Verlander.

Sewald was delt to the DBacks yesterday.

That's why I said assume prospect cost equal, who would you want. Not guess if they Mets are going to buy down cost and how much and what prospects could come back.

Assuming the prospect return is equal for ERod and Verlander, and money aside, who do people prefer for the rest of the season?

You said "Verlander has to approve any location he is traded to because he has a no trade clause. So if wouldn't sign somewhere, then he wouldn't be traded there either." The second part is not true. You don't know that he wouldn't sign here, just that he didn't sign here. And if he didn't even want to sign here, things may have changed by now.

This isn't true. If you can go to a first place team, its certainly attractive. Especially if you're 40 and want to win.

Understand the Angelos part, but would you part with only Hudson Haskin if it meant you could get Verlander for 1.5-2.5 years? Knowing he wouldn't sign here as a FA

I think the other way. He's much more shut down at the top, and I imagine they'll only give him three innings knowing in the playoffs, you have the bullpen rested behind him.

I keep thinking this is an offseason move, to make a swap young talent for young talent. Though I would do something like Cowser for Kirby approximately if that's on the table.

Seattle

What prospects would it take? I'm more skeptical about Verlander because I don't think the Mets are ready to sell yet, just re-tool. Robertson was on a 1 year, so he's a rental, easy sell.

SD seems to make sense. They're starting a light hitting 1B who is back down in Cronenworth. They want to win next year, and are trading 2 guys for 2+ months, for a guy with 3+ years left. They're in win now mode for the next 6-8 years through the primes of their guys

Mountcastle is Arb1 next year, controllable for 3 more, and shown great upside out of Walltimore. I think this is a guy who needs a change of scenary to be a top 10 first baseman. If the Padres want to believe that or not that's a different story. But knowing what you're getting is sometimes better than a prospect. And for 2+ months of a pitcher, doesn't seem terrible.

I still think that Mountcastle and Povich might be enough. Might need to throw in one more, and I realize that Mountcastle can carry this team, but he also gives them a refresh at 1B when we know they aren't in a rebuild. Might also need to throw in another lower level piece, but for two rentals, it seems like a comaprable package to what the ChiSox gave up.

I'd do this. No higher than Hall/Norby in prospect rankings though. Holliday, Kjerstad, Westburg, Cowser, Mayo stay home.

I still think that Hader/Snell makes the most sense. What package get them? What about Mountcastle and Povich?

Understanding Elias's approach, I think we have to get comfortable with him trading only pieces that aren't untouchable, and won't mortgage the future. Could be argued, but I think that would mean: - Santander/Urias/Frazier/Stowers from the 40 man - Wagner/Haskin/Johnson/Fabian/Preito (and below) from the minors. - maybe Norby/Ortiz/Beaver, but I think less likely What kind of return can you get with just these part.

Yes. Two guys without much of a home here. I was a fan of trading Mateo in the offseason and sliding Henderson to SS and not signing Frazier. But a little stuck now and Mateo won't get enough ABs to provide any return.

If we can get the kick in of his opt-in, I'd do it.

Yes, those are the numbers you're asking for. However, you need at least 10-15 HRs to go with that to balance the profile.

You suggest Stowers, whereas @Sports Guy says Beavers and Prieto. I agree that Stowers has fallen behind Cowser and Kjerstad, and maybe even behind Beavers/Prieto. I'd be all over a deal of Barlow for Stowers straight up if that's what it took.

I agree with you and his mindset too. But he at the same time understands he needs to augment. We as the OH haven't always agreed, but his signings generally haven't proven to be bad deals either.

What's too much? I'd easily pony up for Urias, with 6 years given his age and history. Though I'm sure ownership won't. What's he projected to get?