STLtoday.com

If we packaged NA and ate his contract and Helsley together?

I would think there is very very little interest in Nado

Janssen wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:16 am If we packaged NA and ate his contract and Helsley together?

It would be dumb to package them.

If they're going to trade Helsley, they should do everything to maximize the return.

An Old Friend wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:47 am

Janssen wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:16 am If we packaged NA and ate his contract and Helsley together?

It would be dumb to package them.

If they're going to trade Helsley, they should do everything to maximize the return.

Exactly. While not apples to Apples...look at the Betts Boston Trade. It's relevant because people are discussing it on other threads. But, they could have gotten a lot more for Betts on his own, had they not had to also unload David Price and his contract to LA, as well

I was hoping Yankees would take the two of them. But not happening. Dumping Arenado has value on its own to offset lower value for Helsley.

An Old Friend wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:47 am

Janssen wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:16 am If we packaged NA and ate his contract and Helsley together?

It would be dumb to package them.

If they're going to trade Helsley, they should do everything to maximize the return.

Getting rid of Arenado would be worth not getting much for Helsley.

Depending on the money of course

TraveledLessRoad wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:51 am

An Old Friend wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:47 am

Janssen wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:16 am If we packaged NA and ate his contract and Helsley together?

It would be dumb to package them.

If they're going to trade Helsley, they should do everything to maximize the return.

Exactly. While not apples to Apples...look at the Betts Boston Trade. It's relevant because people are discussing it on other threads. But, they could have gotten a lot more for Betts on his own, had they not had to also unload David Price and his contract to LA, as well

This is t really comparable in that Betts was worth significantly more than Helsley, and moving Arenado is more about opportunity cost than it is strictly money as it was with Price

bfib wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 14:22 pm

An Old Friend wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:47 am

Janssen wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:16 am If we packaged NA and ate his contract and Helsley together?

It would be dumb to package them.

If they're going to trade Helsley, they should do everything to maximize the return.

Getting rid of Arenado would be worth not getting much for Helsley.

Depending on the money of course

Disagree. It’s better to get PLAYERS to potentially make the team better.

Getting money back to ownership at the expense of benefiting the team is asinine rationale.

bfib wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 14:22 pm

An Old Friend wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:47 am

Janssen wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 11:16 am If we packaged NA and ate his contract and Helsley together?

It would be dumb to package them.

If they're going to trade Helsley, they should do everything to maximize the return.

Getting rid of Arenado would be worth not getting much for Helsley.

Depending on the money of course

I would prefer getting a high end prospect for Helsley and let the Arenado drama finish however it wants on it's own. Unless the team plans to deal a Donovan or other controlled player Helsley is the only rental that will bring back a high end prospect and I don't want to waste that.

Very good chance Arenado is the starting third baseman next year for Cards. Best hope is he stays healthy and does reasonably well that you can move him next deadline. His remaining cost would not nearly be as high as it is now.

kyace wrote: ↑25 Jul 2025 16:02 pm Very good chance Arenado is the starting third baseman next year for Cards. Best hope is he stays healthy and does reasonably well that you can move him next deadline. His remaining cost would not nearly be as high as it is now.

His sub 300 obp and 89 ops+ are awful. We are stuck with him