SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Trade for Cole Hamels
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 24, 2014 21:45:54 GMT -5
Where there's smoke ...
Jayson Stark, who is clued in with the Phillies, has noted that the Red Sox have been discussing Cole Hamels with the Phillies, and that the Phillies have been scouting the Portland Sea Dogs. Nothing is imminent, but let's start thinking about the parameters of a possible deal.
Hamels has been incredibly consistent, with two league-average years mixed in with six very good years over the last eight years. Hamels has been a 4-5 WAR pitcher over the past eight years and he is on a similar pace this year.
Hamels is signed for four more years (ages 31-34) at $22.5mm per year, with a 2019 option, which vests at $24mm if certain conditions are met. Hamels is 11 days older than Jon Lester, and they are pretty similar in terms of career stats.
Hamels cannot block a trade to the Red Sox.
One would think that the parameters of a Hamels deal would include a major league ready pitcher and other pieces.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Jul 24, 2014 21:50:25 GMT -5
I think the deal starts with Owens and has at least two more strong pieces. Something like:
Owens Coyle Rijo Gibson
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 24, 2014 21:59:45 GMT -5
I would think one of Betts, Bogaerts, Owens and Swihart would have to be included in a Hamels deal. If that it the case, I would prefer Betts or Owens be involved.
I was thinking Owens, RDLR, Coyle and a lotto ticket (Perkins/Mercedes, etc.). Given that Coyle is a local kid, I definitely think he's in any Phillies deal.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Jul 24, 2014 23:42:29 GMT -5
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!
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Jul 25, 2014 1:18:50 GMT -5
Now the real question, do you deal Lester and try to get some good prospects back to make up for what you lost? Or do you Sign Lester and have a Rotation of Lester, Hamels, Lackey, Buchholz, Kid? I see it as a security blanket? thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by tomhouse on Jul 25, 2014 3:09:32 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by godot on Jul 25, 2014 3:15:46 GMT -5
Stupid and shows the arrogance and stubbornness of management . Let's face it. If they are considering such a trade, it is because they do not want to meet Lester's now stated goal of market value. To get him, they would basically have to gut a part of their system, that is, the few real prospects they have, and for what? They will save maybe a year or so in a contract, and will start over building "within", They would then probably trade Lester to fill up the cabinet again. Good luck with that. All this so they do not give a few extra years to Lester. Can't understand this mentality other than them being an arrogant and stupid bunch of---. And don't repeat they won three world series in the past decade stuff. Wake up and smell the coffee and get your noses out of their....., they have changed, and now will finish last in the last two years. A new trend? Good night Irene.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jul 25, 2014 4:30:28 GMT -5
You know it's just possible they want Hamels and Lester.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jul 25, 2014 4:56:13 GMT -5
I would think one of Betts, Bogaerts, Owens and Swihart would have to be included in a Hamels deal. If that it the case, I would prefer Betts or Owens be involved. I was thinking Owens, RDLR, Coyle and a lotto ticket (Perkins/Mercedes, etc.). Given that Coyle is a local kid, I definitely think he's in any Phillies deal. How much money is Philly eating in this scenario? To me that is way too much to give up for Hamels if we're still paying him even 85m. He's a good, not great NL pitcher (coming to the AL) basically being paid what he's worth. One top 20 prospect, a ML ready starter with upside, a legit MIF prospect and another lottery ticket, as you say, is a huge overpay. As far as what the Red Sox would do, I think they value Owens a lot more than some of us do. I'm not sure they'd even consider him, or Betts or even Swihart for Hamels. Forget Bogaerts, that's insane.
|
|
|
Post by vermontsox1 on Jul 25, 2014 6:45:00 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 25, 2014 8:48:35 GMT -5
I like Hamels but I think Id rather pay market for Lester. If your trading for Hamels your thinking that option year makes it five so why not just go 6 for Lester and hope someone from that potential prospect group provides a good value to us.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 25, 2014 8:59:22 GMT -5
You know it's just possible they want Hamels and Lester. 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.
|
|
|
Post by rider on Jul 25, 2014 10:39:18 GMT -5
If we're taking on all of Hamels contract no way I part with blue chippers like Owens and Swihart. At that point just pay Lester and keep the prospects
If they want Coyle, a Webster/Barnes/Workman/Johnson type and something else like Devers or Margot, sure I'd think about.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 25, 2014 10:57:33 GMT -5
I would think one of Betts, Bogaerts, Owens and Swihart would have to be included in a Hamels deal. If that it the case, I would prefer Betts or Owens be involved. I was thinking Owens, RDLR, Coyle and a lotto ticket (Perkins/Mercedes, etc.). Given that Coyle is a local kid, I definitely think he's in any Phillies deal. 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
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2014 11:10:49 GMT -5
What is the point of trading for a 30 year old pitcher and letting Lester go? Then what?
If we're trading for Hamels, we have to re-sign Lester and probably go nuts trying to improve the lineup as well. This in between crap guarantees we don't win and don't have a future either.
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jul 25, 2014 11:21:51 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jul 25, 2014 11:24:18 GMT -5
On the open market a guy like Hamels would get more money and more years, including the loss of a 1st round pick. The Phillies have the upper hand in any negotiation so you have to pay above fair market value. That means exchanging prospects for the 2-3 years reduced length of the contract, and $50-60MM in financial flexibility. In addition to the first round talent given up to cover draft pick compensation/cost. If Betts and Swihart are not in the deal, I would expect Owens, Devers, and at least one more of our top 10. That is a best case scenario. I'm sure they want Swihart and Owens.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 25, 2014 11:24:52 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2014 11:30:29 GMT -5
Then easy answer - no.
Let's use Doug Fister as an example of what pitchers are worth instead.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 25, 2014 11:43:49 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 25, 2014 12:06:34 GMT -5
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. Samardzija has elevated himself to the Lester/Hamels plateau this year. Assuming this elevation is permanent (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then OAK has assured itself of the next 1.5 years of Samardzija and a QO draft pick (if the system is still in place at that time), because there is little chance of re-signing him. With Hamels, you receive 4 guaranteed years of a 1/2 pitcher, which is a scarcity in the marketplace. That, alone, is worth something. It is certainly fair to ask then about Lester, but let's keep this thread to a trade for Hamels only. 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 In other words, you would trade Owens, Workman/Ranaudo and Coyle but not Owens, RDLR and Coyle? PHI is looking for major league ready starting pitching. Trading RDLR may be selling high IMO.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 25, 2014 12:15:39 GMT -5
Samardzija has elevated himself to the Lester/Hamels plateau this year. Assuming this elevation is permanent (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then OAK has assured itself of the next 1.5 years of Samardzija and a QO draft pick (if the system is still in place at that time), because there is little chance of re-signing him. With Hamels, you receive 4 guaranteed years of a 1/2 pitcher, which is a scarcity in the marketplace. That, alone, is worth something. It is certainly fair to ask then about Lester, but let's keep this thread to a trade for Hamels only. 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. 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 In other words, you would trade Owens, Workman/Ranaudo and Coyle but not Owens, RDLR and Coyle? PHI is looking for major league ready starting pitching. Trading RDLR may be selling high IMO. 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.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Jul 25, 2014 12:32:15 GMT -5
It would make sense because you can trade some redundancy to Phi. Hopefully David Price gets of the market and Lester will be top dog. Gauge the market and at the TDL you hope some team that's desperate overpays and get back some top prospects. If not you either net a draft pick or sign him and have Lester Hamels 1 2.
|
|
atzar
Veteran
Posts: 1,817
|
Post by atzar on Jul 25, 2014 13:31:40 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 25, 2014 13:36:39 GMT -5
Samardzija has elevated himself to the Lester/Hamels plateau this year. Assuming this elevation is permanent (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), then OAK has assured itself of the next 1.5 years of Samardzija and a QO draft pick (if the system is still in place at that time), because there is little chance of re-signing him. With Hamels, you receive 4 guaranteed years of a 1/2 pitcher, which is a scarcity in the marketplace. That, alone, is worth something. It is certainly fair to ask then about Lester, but let's keep this thread to a trade for Hamels only. They're also not committed to paying Samardzija $20m+ as a 33-34 lefty pitching in Fenway as his home park, and they're going all in for the series this year. It's an entirely different scenario, and the Cubs had more leverage too because they had a while to try to re-sign him, which actually made some sense for them given the amount of high-level talent in their system and the fact that they might be able to contend for the playoffs in a couple years. The Phils have nothing at all besides Hamels right now, beyond maybe 1 or 2 top-100 prospects, and Chase Utley, who's obviously on the decline, and they don't have a title window because they are, to my mind, in need of a complete teardown. Regardless of the context of the deal, I just don't like the idea. If he's going to command the kind of return you're suggesting, I'm hanging up the phone if I'm Cherington. Makes no sense unless the idea is actually to keep Lester and get Hamels, in which case I'd be more willing to include RDLR, who I'd much rather keep. Even then though, I'd rather build any package around Owens, Ranaudo, Coyle and maybe a lower level prospect. No way do I even consider Bogaerts, Devers or Swihart, and probably not Betts either. We need the bats we have that could actually make some kind of impact soon
|
|
|