Is it time to add?

[ettin]

57 minutes ago, floplag said:

and any of those are even rumored to be available?  if so i havent read it.   And how do we even get into that conversation with our farm?
Whatever im done, like i said you guys want it both ways, and it doesnt exist.  

Now you have me really confused flop. You say you want Verlander but he will cost prospects so how is that any different from the list of guys I suggested? All will cost prospects of some sort so if we improve what is the difference?

And yes most of those names HAVE been rumored in trade conversations. Simply Google "<insert player's name> trade rumors" and you'll see. The only one that isn't in any particular rumor is Suarez, he is just a guy I think would be a good fit.

I'm not even sure why you are arguing with me other than throwing up a mass defense against anyone questioning the sacredness of Verlander.

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, ettin said:

Now you have me really confused flop. You say you want Verlander but he will cost prospects so how is that any different from the list of guys I suggested? All will cost prospects of some sort so if we improve what is the difference?

And yes most of those names HAVE been rumored in trade conversations. Simply Google "<insert player's name> trade rumors" and you'll see. The only one that isn't in any particular rumor is Suarez, he is just a guy I think would be a good fit.

I'm not even sure why you are arguing with me other than throwing up a mass defense against anyone questioning the sacredness of Verlander.

well then were both confused cause thats not what i intended at all, but no, im not getting pulled back into this again.  its not about Verlander, its about the master plan, ill leave it at that

[GrittyVeterans]

Stanton would legitimately be worth it because you get at least 4 prime seasons out of him. Verlander's contract will be an albatross soon, I'd pass

I don't really understand the hesitation with Stanton though. Why not just give him Hamilton's money and then use the rest of the budget on the bullpen?

The bottom line is if you can get a 50 HR bat to hit behind Trout's .450 OBP for a couple prospects, you do it

[floplag]

34 minutes ago, Stradling said:

This is the part I take exception with.  If we don't want to part with our best prospects for a bloated contract then we won't part with them for anyone is basically what you're getting at.  I'd rather had the Angels go after a Granderson type.  

You miss the point, the boated contract means we DONT have to part with top guys, i would think thats obvious, unless the contract gets paid down as ive said multiple times.  

I get it, youd rather go for bargain basements guys who will not have the impact the other guys will and save the farm in its entirety, i fully understand your view.  Youd rather play it safe, i get it.  The problem with it is that  it sacrifices the now, which im not in favor of.  

Granderson doesnt makes us more than we are significantly in comparison to Stanton for example.   If thats all you are willing to do, then there is no point in doing anything in my view. 

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, floplag said:

You miss the point, the boated contract means we DONT have to part with top guys, i would think thats obvious, unless the contract gets paid down as ive said multiple times.  

I get it, youd rather go for bargain basements guys who will not have the impact the other guys will and save the farm in its entirety, i fully understand your view.  Youd rather play it safe, i get it.  The problem with it is that  it sacrifices the now, which im not in favor of.  

Granderson doesnt makes us more than we are significantly in comparison to Stanton for example.   If thats all you are willing to do, then there is no point in doing anything in my view. 

No I don't want bargain basement guys, I just don't want to be impulsive and get a Verlander that is overpaid, then not have that money to spend on free agency for players in their prime and not past it.  I would prefer to try and trade for Stanton in the off season when you could include players that don't have to pas through waivers to acquire him.  That being said I'd MUCH rather have Stanton than Verlander.  What I DO like about Verlander is he gives you a guy capable of shutting down a team in a wild card game, just not sure that is worth $60 million. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

5 hours ago, totdprods said:

Why wouldn't he? He's done it once before (albeit several, several seasons ago, 2003?), and they were on pace to go over last year after they brought in Lincecum and Chacin. 

Arte always said hed go over it for the right players.....

[DMVol]

22 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Arte always said hed go over it for the right players.....

The right player seems rather elusive....

[ten ocho recon scout]

3 hours ago, DMVol said:

The right player seems rather elusive....

I was just making a joke (to mask the pain) that we almost went over the tax for lincecum and chacin