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 25, 2014 14:22:04 GMT -5
I have not mentioned Devers, nor do I think he'd be a centerpiece of a Hamels deal. The Phillies are looking to reload now, and Devers is too far away and too speculative to be of interest as the primary prospect in a Hamels deal.
I agree on not trading Bogaerts or Swihart right now. I'm more mixed on Betts generally as an untradeable piece but, with Coyle likely to be in any Hamels deal, the Phillies will be looking for 2 upper level pitchers, which meshes well with our excess and why I believe Owens would also be a part of any Hamels deal.
|
|
ianrs
Veteran
Posts: 2,414
|
Post by ianrs on Jul 25, 2014 14:26:30 GMT -5
Definitely taking Swihart, Devers, Betts, and Bogaerts off the table.
In an ideal world, I try to keep Owens (I feel like the front office values him more highly than other teams) and offer one of De La Rosa/Webster, Barnes (Ranaudo if you have to), Coyle, and Middlebrooks, and hope that gets it done. However this is Amaro Jr. we're talking about here.
I don't want to gut the top guys for Hamels, and would rather extend Lester in that case.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 25, 2014 14:35:11 GMT -5
I'd be happy to trade for Hamels and sign Lester. But Hamels shouldn't stop them from signing Lester.
Also, I'd be fine cashing in Owens for Hamels, but I'm not moving Swithart.
Owens, Coyle (please), Cecchini, Doubront and one of Webster/Ranaudo/Barnes
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Jul 25, 2014 14:41:45 GMT -5
By the way the package I suggested shouldn't be enough for Philly.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 16:07:43 GMT -5
If anything I think you guys are being too generous. I wouldn't even give-up Owens straight-up for Hammels. He's a good pitcher but he's being paid market value. The only time you should be paying over market value is when there is a shortage of talent available, but since that time (for the Red Sox) isn't now, they should simply stand pat. There are teams who need him more NOW and there will be more pitchers available this offseason. This fangraphs article articulates his value pretty well I think: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-are-the-phillies-keeping-cole-hamels/
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 25, 2014 16:25:36 GMT -5
I hope this Hamels talk is only about gaining leverage with Lester.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 25, 2014 16:30:56 GMT -5
If anything I think you guys are being too generous. I wouldn't even give-up Owens straight-up for Hammels. He's a good pitcher but he's being paid market value. The only time you should be paying over market value is when there is a shortage of talent available, but since that time (for the Red Sox) isn't now, they should simply stand pat. So, your argument is that if pitcher A is paid his market value, team B should never trade for him? One should only trade for a player who is being paid below his market value and the trade should only represent the delta between the player's salary and his trade value? And, in a corollary to your argument, since Hamels and Lester have similar value, the Red Sox should either pay Lester no more than Hamels or they should trade him (so long as the value exceeds the value of the QO draft pick, and otherwise should offer the QO and let him go). Let me know if I'm missing something, because otherwise I don't understand your point.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 21:40:25 GMT -5
So, your argument is that if pitcher A is paid his market value, team B should never trade for him? One should only trade for a player who is being paid below his market value and the trade should only represent the delta between the player's salary and his trade value? And, in a corollary to your argument, since Hamels and Lester have similar value, the Red Sox should either pay Lester no more than Hamels or they should trade him (so long as the value exceeds the value of the QO draft pick, and otherwise should offer the QO and let him go). Let me know if I'm missing something, because otherwise I don't understand your point. You pretty much got it. There's clearly a little more to it as 'market cost' is only the estimated cost (say 7 mil per WAR for year 1) and just like WAR where the theoretical 'replacement level player' isn't always available, the alternative pitcher at 'market value' isn't always available either. This is the reason why it makes sense for teams to give up more mid-season since they presumably know that they are in the playoff hunt and a win has now become more valuable due to improved information; along with the free agent player alternatives not being present (most years anyway). The Red Sox are not one of those teams. If the offseason comes and the Red Sox miss on Scherzer, Lester and Hammels (or they get one but wanted 2) and there are no other pitchers with similar, or greater, ability than Hammels on the market - then I would be all for exploring this. But since the Red Sox could likely re-sign Lest for what's left on Hammels contract and then sign Shields (2 years older and has shown slightly less value - but has been successful in the AL East when it was the top division) for slightly less than Hammels has left on his contract - then why trade for Hammels? Obviously a lot of things can change the projections I stated above to make Hammels look better, but Hammels could regress in the second half or get injured, which make the above options look even better. Since the Crawford/Gonzalez deals - the current regime has shown a reluctance to overpay for a player. To me, giving high-level prospects +22.5 mil/year on a not-so-short contract (especially with the buyout option) is just not good value - especially not for this team.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Jul 25, 2014 22:03:28 GMT -5
We need to look at this from Philadelphia's perspective. The Ryan Howard contract is a complete albatross at this point. Nothing but sunk money. Of the scale which even brings into question Philly's ability to compete based upon high priced talent. This is another Crawford / Beckett / Gonzalez / Punto situation and which team out there has anywhere near the salary space next season to pull off such a deal...? One would think that the Redsox would at least have potential in that regard. Not saying they will give a penny for Howard but this is maybe Philly's way of dumping salary. Something they have done in the past. Remember the Abreu deal with the Yanks years ago? The Yankees got a quality player essentially by just picking up his salary.
Maybe the Phillies release Howard, absorbing all that cash, and retool by dumping some of their other expensive players. They have a huge TV deal and at least one more year of revenue sharing. They will be just fine next year even if virtually no one shows up at the gate.
The Redsox are generally value shoppers. They are probably just kicking the tires. If the Phillies are willing to go to their level price wise maybe a deal happens. And it possibly has little to do with Lester one way or the other. Maybe they do sign Lester still. Or maybe they just get a better deal in a Hamels package.
It is real tough getting a top flight pitching staff and this might be a way to maintain that going forward in the right deal. Cliff Lee also has a huge contract. We should absolutely be talking to these people at least, if we do want to retool quickly. And why wouldn't we want to?
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Jul 25, 2014 22:12:05 GMT -5
"Market value" is kind of a hard thing to pin down, especially when you're dealing with risk. Hamels may be getting paid market value on a $/WAR level over the next 4 years, but on the free agent market he would likely get a longer contract with less AAV. His current contract is better, because it's less risky. Let's say, for example, Lester is projected to put up 10 WAR over the next 3 years and 15 over the next 6. Would you rather have him at 3/60 or 6/90? Both might be $6 million/WAR, but the first contract carries less injury/underperformance risk and so is more valuable.
That's why a 4-year "market value" contract for Hamels has trade value - it's actually below market once you adjust for risk. The Red Sox have been very risk-averse lately, and so I could see why they would be interested. Obviously you don't want to give up too much for a guy getting paid real money, but I wouldn't mind seeing Hamels at the front of the Red Sox rotation next year.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jul 25, 2014 23:45:32 GMT -5
"Market value" is kind of a hard thing to pin down, especially when you're dealing with risk. Hamels may be getting paid market value on a $/WAR level over the next 4 years, but on the free agent market he would likely get a longer contract with less AAV. His current contract is better, because it's less risky. Let's say, for example, Lester is projected to put up 10 WAR over the next 3 years and 15 over the next 6. Would you rather have him at 3/60 or 6/90? Both might be $6 million/WAR, but the first contract carries less injury/underperformance risk and so is more valuable. That's why a 4-year "market value" contract for Hamels has trade value - it's actually below market once you adjust for risk. The Red Sox have been very risk-averse lately, and so I could see why they would be interested. Obviously you don't want to give up too much for a guy getting paid real money, but I wouldn't mind seeing Hamels at the front of the Red Sox rotation next year. I would take the 6/90 over the 3/60 any day as the savings is well worth the chance that he will decline and/or get injured. Keep in mind, you have to account for inflation too - a comparable pitcher will become increasingly more expensive as the contract goes on. Hammels is signed to 4.5 years plus a 6 mil buyout. That is NOT a short contract. Also, you have to spread the cost of the acquiring pieces out throughout the lifetime of the contract in order for it to make sense. So trading 3 'B' prospects for 1 year is much worse than trading 3 'B' prospects for 3 years. This is why the A's were willing to give up so much for Samardzija - because there is an extra year of control at below market rates. If they were only getting him for the 1 season they would not have paid such a high price. Free agent contracts are different because you aren't giving up anything aside from money, so you don't need to evaluate the assets given up over the live of the contract aside from the draft pick and the money.
|
|
|
Post by curiousle on Jul 26, 2014 0:15:14 GMT -5
On the surface getting Lester signed at a reasonable price was a priority-that door is closed and I don't expect him back. Hunting Hammels now, does make sense, and his contract will look reasonable in the next year or two as pitchers contracts continue to escalate going forward.
The rotation is going to undergo a big makeover (Peavy gone, Lester gone, and will Lackey play for the major league minimum?, Doubront-really gone) That leaves Buch, along with....you need a proven major league arm that can be an 'Ace'. (I'm not saying Hammels is an Ace, but he's very good and would be a good insurance policy that you'll have the basis of staff going into next year-and it gives Mgmt what they want-shorter contract and cost assuredness.
Coyle, to replace Utley, Owens and 1 of Workman or Webster is possible to get it done. (Although Owens appears to be a great talent, you're going to have to give him up as a centerpiece to get Hammels. We all love our prospects but not all pan out and you're getting quality major league pitching back.
If that can get done, then you have to trade Lester for prospects. It will be sad to see Jon leave, but the Sox aren't going to pay over market for him, and that's where it's headed, Lester will get more than 5/120 and he'll be in pinstripes next year.
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 26, 2014 1:28:17 GMT -5
A trade for Hamels would put a big dent in the farm system which would be further compounding tthe mistakes made in the Lester negotiations. You would be acquiring a pith her who is less talented than Lesrer and significantly weakening your farm system when they need those trade chips to acquire a couple of bats. Put me in the against such a trade camp.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,790
|
Post by nomar on Jul 26, 2014 9:09:57 GMT -5
I'm not sure his price is as high as you think if we take on that whole contract (which is what I would do). Not worth giving up Owens, XB, Mookie, JBJ, or Devers.
|
|
|
Post by soxcentral on Jul 26, 2014 9:15:41 GMT -5
Hamels can't be anything more than a fallback plan for not having Lester & Lackey at the top of the rotation for 2015. Until Lester signs with another team this off-season or Lackey is traded, I can't see us trading for another high priced pitcher....Hamels, Lee or anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 27, 2014 12:24:08 GMT -5
Jason Mastrodonato ?@jmastrodonato 25s FWIW, heard the Phillies have multiple scouts watching Red Sox's Double-A affiliate in New Britain this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 27, 2014 14:34:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by adiospaydro2005 on Jul 27, 2014 14:58:55 GMT -5
No one is going to trade for Lee unless the Phillies assume a large part of his contract. He had his second consecutive poor start either below average stuff according to various scouts who saw him last night.
|
|
|
Post by amfox1 on Jul 28, 2014 15:53:48 GMT -5
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi · 1h Sources: Phillies have made Cole Hamels available on trade market, although price remains high. Dodgers interested. @foxsports1
Jon Morosi @jonmorosi · 22m Cardinals and Dodgers are teams with best chance to acquire Cole Hamels from Phillies, sources say, but price is very high. @foxsports1
|
|
|
Post by rider on Jul 31, 2014 14:38:32 GMT -5
I think with all the assets we have now an offseason Hamels trade makes sense. Betts would probably have to be in the trade though.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 31, 2014 15:31:10 GMT -5
I think with all the assets we have now an offseason Hamels trade makes sense. Betts would probably have to be in the trade though. I'd rather go after Cliff Lee and give up minimal assets. But, lots of $$$ over the next 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 31, 2014 15:38:12 GMT -5
I think with all the assets we have now an offseason Hamels trade makes sense. Betts would probably have to be in the trade though. I'd rather go after Cliff Lee and give up minimal assets. But, lots of $$$ over the next 2 years. Agree on Lee. With our record we'll have an early shot to claim him. Maybe the Phil's see the light and let him go like the Blue Jays did with Rios a few years ago. At the very least I don't think we'd have to give up on of our top 3 prospects in Swihart, Betts or Owens.
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 31, 2014 15:56:08 GMT -5
I'd take Lee off waivers I suppose, but I don't really want to go in to next season counting on him as the staff ace- we need someone else, and I think it makes sense to at least kick the tires on hamels in the offseason, although I'd rather bring back Lester if we could, or even just sign Shields. Still, we have a glut of corner outfielders, and Mookie is obviously blocked at 2B, and we have about 7 guys between AA and AAA who profile as at least average major league starters. At this stage, it's pretty clear somethings got to give, and there's going to be some kind of deal made that involves us shipping out prospects for either another big bat or a quality arm- maybe even both. The deadline has made it look like teams are getting to the point of seriously overvaluing highly ranked prospects, which makes me think the FO might pick now as the time to cash in on some of our somewhat expendable talent (like Mookie, among others)
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 31, 2014 16:05:24 GMT -5
I am really not going to enjoy a full year of Cole Hamels rumors.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2014 16:07:19 GMT -5
Given what Price was traded for, I think I'd offer RDLR and Holt for Hamels. Apparently prospects are worth a fortune now.
|
|
|