Bob Sacamano

Some of the guys will pan out and some won't for sure but I'm not counting every single prospect we have to hit their ceilings. Some will, some will be acceptable MLB players and some will suck. I would love for them to be able to spend around any areas they are weak in. Getting one would be amazing. There's no way they are getting 2.

I'm just not a big fan of that because it handicaps your spending in the short term. If none of the prospects (or not enough rather) take major strides in the duration of those 5 years, you've handicapped your spending. And then assuming they play about level to where they are now, they are gone and we don't even get to take advantage of them making a lesser salary. It really makes no sense to structure 2 deals like that unless you are also willing to go over the luxury tax number to fix holes. There's a possibility their deals could be front-loaded, but not that extreme.

Just speculation mostly.

Too many teams rebuilding. The market is clearly a buyer's market. They might as well go for it again.

No because the same team isn't going to give out the 2 biggest free agent contracts in one off-season. I'm amazed that people keep misinterpreting the headline.

Technically, from a Reds perspective. it would be Senzel for Syndergaard and from a Mets perspective, Syndergaard for Moncada. Breaking it out like that makes no sense for the Mets.

Could not have said this any better myself.

That was 100% going to happen. MLBTR predicted he would sign at 4 years/$60m.

The thing that sucks about that idea is with opt-outs, they could definitely leave for more if the contract is front heavy.

I think the opt-outs would come after their age 30/31/32 age seasons. So 4 years guaranteed to be around.

This class was also supposed to have Blackmon and a lot of people (here at least) predicted Kershaw would opt-out and be an option for the Yankees.

Yeah, if it's true they want to keep costs low and add a big piece, they would have to pretty much non-tender Russell, trade Schwarber, and trade at least half of the remaining contract of Chatwood and an interesting prospect or two to a rebuilding team that needs innings and can take a chance on that type of arm (Royals? Tigers? Padres in that big ballpark?).

Right. Because theoretically, the prospects that come up and are productive will be cheap enough for them to make a big splash and add another piece or two if needed. If they're not willing to spend then this whole thing was pointless.

People keep saying they want to sign both together due to the headline or quote. It's all about wanting to sign one of them.

Yes, that last part is the key.

Having interest in both isn't about signing both. It's hoping you can land one. No way they dish out money for both.

Yes. 100% and its pretty obvious.

Less likely due to money.

Yeah that would be awesome but you're completely ignoring having to pay both. No shot they would do that.

I honestly have no idea. If Eloy can be at least average defense in RF, I'm perfectly fine with Harper in LF.

How's Eloy's defense supposed to be? If you had each in a corner, you'd pretty much have to have Engel out there next year in the 9-spot.

I agree. You don't break up that rotation. Especially when the division is weak.

Wow, that's perfect lol I can picture him saying exactly that lol

As I said above, that doesn't suggest rebuild. It would be moving contracts/money and reallocating it. Trading Kluber should/would get them a few top prospects likely close to helping out. Think of a swap with the Yankees where they could get Frazier back for him and they have a corner OF bat. Not saying that's a perfect deal but an example. If it was a rebuild, you'd see Bauer, Salazar, Lindor and Ramirez on that list of guys they would listen on.

It does for him if they offer the most money.