Herrera could be dealt but Davis should be untouchable

Yep. A team that is a contender doesnt trade its closer unless you have a guy like Wade Davis pitching the 8th to promote.

Yeah, the return on Davis might not be that overwhelming, either.

The Giles return is pretty tremendous for the Phillies because the Astros get Giles for 5 years. Same type of thing comes into play with Herrera (who has three years of service time remaining - edit: was reading his clock time wrong).

It would be tough to lose Herrera, but the prospect of adding two Yordano Ventura-level players (What the Astros got in Velasquez and Appel, plus a few more pieces) is tougher to pass up, IMO.

Maybe you COULD get a Joc Pederson and Jose De Leon-type return from the Dodgers for Herrera. That would be fairly similar, if slightly lesser, than what the Phillies got for Giles.

Puig?

Probably in straight-up swap territory at that point. It might work. Not sure Moore would have interest in Puig, at all.

He places such a premium on leadership types...

**** puig.

Greinke punked him

Herrera to the Dodgers makes quite a bit of sense

I've got no problem with guys taking the $, everyone of us has done it. They get peanuts as minor leaguers and they're cut/traded/benched constantly. Look at Christian Colon or Dyson - they should be (or could be) starters and getting service time + proving themselves but management blocks them. Etc

If Gordon or whoever leaves, great. They only earned their big $ by playing well for us.

Me neither. My point is that it's pretty rare to see players of Gordon's talent giving their prime years to the hometown team.

Sure, it worked out for both sides, but there's a reason national writers have coined it as a hometown discount (it's probably the best example of such a signing over the last five years).

I think Gordon's consistency and excellence over the past four seasons have also affected people's memories, too.

It is a deal that looks great in hindsight, but Alex signed that extension after his breakout 2011. He had only one "GREAT" season in the majors, and the Royals guaranteed him $52 million.

If he had proven unable to adjust once the league adjusted to his offensive approach changes, KC could been on the hook for a lot of guaranteed cash for little return.

I understand this analysis, but I simply don't feel like this is how the market works anymore.

Do you think that Scott Boras would ever recommend that his clients sign away two of their prime seasons?

If this were the prevailing logic, I feel like Moore would have had zero problems giving Cain and Moose extensions after their breakout years.

I don't feel like the analysis on the Gordon deal is merely hindsight, at the time many writers said it was a phenomenal deal for KC.

I'd def listen for Herrera

On top of cost control Herrera is a versatile reliever. He can be a fireman or give you 2 innings.

Cain is somebody who they might be able to buy out of arbitration and keep him for a couple years after. He is going to be 32 when he hits free agency and all of his years before that will be arbitration and he didn't have the luxury of being a high pick like Hosmer or Moose to get the big signing bonus.