Trade for Cole Hamels

I think the deal starts with Owens and has at least two more strong pieces. Something like:

Owens
Coyle
Rijo
Gibson

Hey Ruben, we have this kid Middlebrooks, he has just over one season's worth of ABs and already 112 RBIs! Right up your alley!

This screams three team deal. Hamels to Boston, Lester to "Third Team," and prospects from "Third Team" to the Phillies. The Sox add one or two prospects to sweeten the deal.

You know it's just possible they want Hamels and Lester.

I like Hamels, but also don't want to see us blow up our system for him...as I would prefer to wait and make a run at Stanton this off-season. I would probably be okay with parting with Owens, but Swihart is untouchable in my opinion.

I definitely agree about Coyle being part of the package. One other guy I think could be in a deal is Luis Diaz. He seems like a perfect candidate to sell high on, and it would free the Sox from protecting him in the Rule 5 draft. The Phillies did scout "earlier in the week" and Diaz was the only prospect to pitch then (Tuesday)...but I'm probably reading too much into that. I would also be happy if they sold high on Gibson or Johnson.

Unlikely. They are looking to replace Lester with somebody similar with a lesser contractual obligation.

You're talking about shaving off 2 to 3 years of a likely deal and saving $3 million annually.

It's about 4 years vs 6 years.

In a vacuum, that's great. In reality, this stinks. They're going to give up some top notch prospects just avoid years 5 and 6 for Lester. I think that's ridiculous especially if some of the prospects pan out. You're talking the value, potentially of somebody like Swihart, Owens, or Coyle, or who know who else. I don't think that's a smart way to get around paying Lester what he has earned (in a baseball sense).

Basically, I agree with some of godot's points. I don't have a major beef with management but I agree with the sentiment that they're being penny wise and pound foolish. As far as management goes, I don't know if it's arrogance or hubris or none of the above and I still think all in all they do a great job, but this is a bad mistake waiting to happen. They should have given Lester his money in spring training and avoided all this nonsense. Instead it's another black cloud hanging over this season. Can't say it's the reason the Sox as a team are playing poorly, but it certainly didn't help - having this issue linger over the team the whole year, not unlike having the Bobby V issue linger over the team in 2012.

That's kindof a horrible deal for us any way you look at it. If we're giving up Owens, no way do I add anything more than Coyle. I also saw on ESPN today that Philly is asking for a massive return for Hamels and will only deal him if their requests are met, meaning that there's pretty much no way we find some middle ground and get a reasonable deal. And there's no good reason to gut the farm for him right now- if a reasonable deal (say Owens, Coyle and maybe one lottery ticket guy- even that's more than I'd really like to give up) to be had, then I guess I'd be ok with it, but I don't like the idea at all

This makes no sense to me at all. I want to trade top prospects to get Hammels when I already have Lester who is proven in the Boston market. If they are going to do this pay Lester and keep or trade the kids for someone else.

If you believe the Phillies will trade Hamels, with four years remaining on his market-based contract, for an A- prospect and a C+ prospect, I can only hope that you take over for Ruben Amaro, Jr.

Samardzija (FA after 2015) and Hammel (rental back-end starter) were traded for an A prospect (Russell), a B/B+ prospect (McKinney) and a C+ prospect (Straily, was a B prospect but his stuff has backed up this year).

You can probably offset Hammel and Straily, so essentially, Samardzija was traded for an A prospect and a B/B+ prospect. But Hamels, who has arguably more value, will only obtain an A- prospect and a C+ prospect.

The difference is that Samardzjia was significantly underpaid over his 1.5 years of control and did not come with the risk of a long-term contract covering his decline years. Assets are valuable insofar as they provide surplus value over market cost, and because Hamels is expensive and signed long-term, it's questionable how much surplus value he provides. He certainly provides some surplus value, for the reasons suttree mentions above, but acquiring him would basically be trading prospects to save cash (as many others have described above), which is not something I expect this front office (one self-described as being devoted to becoming a player development machine) to be eager or willing to do.

I would not give up Bogaerts, Betts, or Swihart in a deal for Hamels. I would maybe be willing to give up one of De La Rosa, Owens, or Devers, but not more than one. If Philadelphia wants more than that, I'm happy to walk away, and I suspect the front office is, too.

By the way, I see a lot of folks lining up to bash a narcissistic projection of the front office, one that is an easy strawman to knock down but has little basis in reality. Let's wait until the front office actually makes the dumb move before criticizing them for it. Inquiring about Hamels does not imply that they're willing to offer significant prospect value for him, and it could well be just to steal a little leverage in the Lester extension talks. We should frankly be more upset if it emerges that they didn't explore every possible avenue.

You're ignoring salary here, which matters a lot. Plus, team control is a double-edged sword, especially as a player enters his mid-30s. I can't predict how good Hamels will be in his age 34 season in 2018, so the fact that I owe him $22.5m in that season is a detriment, not an asset.

Again, Hamels is clearly worth something, but he's not worth as much as Samardzjia. You can get a slightly more expensive version of Hamels on the free agent market, but you can't get a year-and-a-half of well-below-market-salaried production of a pitcher in his prime.


Yes, because I think De La Rosa is worth a lot more than Workman or Ranaudo (both of whom I think are back-end guys at best). I'd be willing to sell high on De La Rosa if he was the centerpiece of a deal, but I'm not willing to trade both he and Owens in the same package. Everyone has their line; this one is mine.

My take on this is:

I would take Swihart, Betts, Bogaerts and Devers off the table. Not willing to trade top position prospects at this time. After that, I would include some of our top pitching talent to get Hamels. If they want Owens, De La Rosa, Coyle and a lottery ticket, then I could talk myself into it though its far from a bargain.

However, if a trade for Hamels is at all an either/or scenario with regards to Lester, then count me out. Rather just give Lester what he deserves and keep the prospects myself if it comes to that. But a Lester/Hamels/Lackey front of the rotation is one that I believe can contend, and I'm willing to pay for that if we can use our surplus of AAA pitching prospects to do so.