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 grandsalami on Jul 21, 2015 13:36:05 GMT -5
“@jonheymancbs: teams hear most linked to hamels continue to be dodgers, followed by rangers”
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2015 14:13:45 GMT -5
“@jonheymancbs: teams hear most linked to hamels continue to be dodgers, followed by rangers” Sources say the Phillies are demanding Urias/Seager from the Dodgers and Gallo/Mazara from the Rangers with no money being paid and that they need to take Ryan Howard also.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 21, 2015 14:27:04 GMT -5
“@jonheymancbs: teams hear most linked to hamels continue to be dodgers, followed by rangers” Sources say the Phillies are demanding Urias/Seager from the Dodgers and Gallo/Mazara from the Rangers with no money being paid and that they need to take Ryan Howard also. What's this from?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 21, 2015 14:30:55 GMT -5
Sources say the Phillies are demanding Urias/Seager from the Dodgers and Gallo/Mazara from the Rangers with no money being paid and that they need to take Ryan Howard also. What's this from? My cynical/sarcastic mind. This thread has been going on too long.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 21, 2015 15:07:16 GMT -5
My cynical/sarcastic mind. This thread has been going on too long.Amen, 10 more days (hopefully)
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 22, 2015 11:59:48 GMT -5
The Red Sox Unlike with the Dodgers and Cubs, Hamels has the right to veto a trade to Boston. But we're hearing the Red Sox have been led to believe he'd go there if his $20 million option for 2017 is guaranteed. The issue here, though, is: Why would the Red Sox make this trade? Their four-game sweeparoo at Anaheim coming out of the break pretty much blew them out of contention. So how logical is it for a team in their situation to be buying, not selling, in July? Except this isn't a team inclined to think inside any traditional boxes. The Red Sox can't be traditional sellers, because they don't have much to sell. But they've told other clubs they expect to be nontraditional buyers, no matter where they are in the standings, because they see this as a buying opportunity for pieces that could help them long-term -- especially at the top of their rotation. "If they finish last," said one exec, "that would be three out of four years of last-place finishes. So I can't see them buying to try to get back in it this year. But think of the urgency for next year." Well, clearly, they're thinking of it. The Red Sox sent one of GM Ben Cherington's most trusted assistants, Allard Baird, to see Hamels' start on Sunday. And the minute Hamels left the game, Baird left the ballpark. So could they have painted a more vivid portrait of what they're shopping for than that? "I still think the Red Sox have the most pieces to make this deal of anyone," said an NL exec. "But I don't know how aggressive they are. I know that if I didn't have expectations of competing this year, I would not do this. If they wait, they'll have [free-agent] alternatives in the winter. So why take on the risks with a guy like this for the next two or three years, without the upside of him helping you be really good this year?" Interesting question. But anyone counting out the Red Sox is misreading the tea leaves. espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/13298292/who-trade-cole-hamels-deadline-anyone
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Jul 22, 2015 12:17:51 GMT -5
I wish this post would just die already. Porcello/Miley/Rodriguez/Owens/Johnson are my starters for the rest of year and add Clay for next year. Kelly needs to close or set up and Masterson needs to go.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 22, 2015 12:22:35 GMT -5
Nobody has to open this thread. The complaints remind me of the driver complaining about rubber neckers at accident scenes as he rear ends the car in front looking at the accident.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Jul 22, 2015 14:34:45 GMT -5
Nobody has to open this thread. The complaints remind me of the driver complaining about rubber neckers at accident scenes as he rear ends the car in front looking at the accident. The thread isn't the problem, at least not for me. I just can't stand that any media source you look at consistently refers back to Hamels being a great trade candidate for the Red Sox, while really misrepresenting the situation. Hamels is one of the better players in the league, but they leave out that he is also one of the best paid players in the league. He is an "ace", but they leave out that pitchers going into their mid 30's are very risky and typically have declining performance (Halliday, Verlander, Lee, Sabathia long list of etc). He is a good pitcher, but he isn't materially out performing his salary. If we went out and spent what Hamels makes a year in the free agent market, we would expect a player(s) of his equivalent value. So whenever I look at anything Red Sox, I hear about how we should trade multiple top prospects, players with 6 years of cheap team control, for a single player with less control, more salary, and higher risk. It's silly to me, and it's everywhere I look. The only premium I see on Hamels contract, is that if he was a free agent this year he would get a longer deal. Being a good pitcher doesn't make you a good trade target without context. Chris Sale is a great example of a player worth a big trade package, he makes a little more from 2015-17 than Hamels does in 2015 alone, and has 2 cheap team options. So a team with Chris Sale could allocate $13M elsewhere (Victorino and Napoli both signed $13M aav deals in 2013, and we wouldn't of won a WS without either) which offsets the cheap prospects you just gave up. Seriously, it's everywhere you get your Red Sox fix. NESN, ESPN, MLB network, Websites, Newspapers, Twitter. The sad part is once Hamels gets traded, someone new will take his place as the trade target. Before him was Stanton and King Felix. ADD: It's also frustrating to keep hearing that we are losing because we didn't get an ace, namely Cole. The stats say that if we added 4 Cole Hamels, we would have a .500 record this year
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 22, 2015 15:49:42 GMT -5
Nobody has to open this thread. The complaints remind me of the driver complaining about rubber neckers at accident scenes as he rear ends the car in front looking at the accident. The thread isn't the problem, at least not for me. I just can't stand that any media source you look at consistently refers back to Hamels being a great trade candidate for the Red Sox, while really misrepresenting the situation. Hamels is one of the better players in the league, but they leave out that he is also one of the best paid players in the league. He is an "ace", but they leave out that pitchers going into their mid 30's are very risky and typically have declining performance (Halliday, Verlander, Lee, Sabathia long list of etc). He is a good pitcher, but he isn't materially out performing his salary. If we went out and spent what Hamels makes a year in the free agent market, we would expect a player(s) of his equivalent value. So whenever I look at anything Red Sox, I hear about how we should trade multiple top prospects, players with 6 years of cheap team control, for a single player with less control, more salary, and higher risk. It's silly to me, and it's everywhere I look. The only premium I see on Hamels contract, is that if he was a free agent this year he would get a longer deal. Being a good pitcher doesn't make you a good trade target without context. Chris Sale is a great example of a player worth a big trade package, he makes a little more from 2015-17 than Hamels does in 2015 alone, and has 2 cheap team options. So a team with Chris Sale could allocate $13M elsewhere (Victorino and Napoli both signed $13M aav deals in 2013, and we wouldn't of won a WS without either) which offsets the cheap prospects you just gave up. Seriously, it's everywhere you get your Red Sox fix. NESN, ESPN, MLB network, Websites, Newspapers, Twitter. The sad part is once Hamels gets traded, someone new will take his place as the trade target. Before him was Stanton and King Felix. ADD: It's also frustrating to keep hearing that we are losing because we didn't get an ace, namely Cole. The stats say that if we added 4 Cole Hamels, we would have a .500 record this year I agree with you. My post was aimed at those wanting the thread to end. Like it or not Hamels is still a legit discussion, and I don't even want to trade for him anymore.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 22, 2015 16:29:46 GMT -5
The thread isn't the problem, at least not for me. I just can't stand that any media source you look at consistently refers back to Hamels being a great trade candidate for the Red Sox, while really misrepresenting the situation. Hamels is one of the better players in the league, but they leave out that he is also one of the best paid players in the league. He is an "ace", but they leave out that pitchers going into their mid 30's are very risky and typically have declining performance (Halliday, Verlander, Lee, Sabathia long list of etc). He is a good pitcher, but he isn't materially out performing his salary. If we went out and spent what Hamels makes a year in the free agent market, we would expect a player(s) of his equivalent value. So whenever I look at anything Red Sox, I hear about how we should trade multiple top prospects, players with 6 years of cheap team control, for a single player with less control, more salary, and higher risk. It's silly to me, and it's everywhere I look. The only premium I see on Hamels contract, is that if he was a free agent this year he would get a longer deal. Being a good pitcher doesn't make you a good trade target without context. Chris Sale is a great example of a player worth a big trade package, he makes a little more from 2015-17 than Hamels does in 2015 alone, and has 2 cheap team options. So a team with Chris Sale could allocate $13M elsewhere (Victorino and Napoli both signed $13M aav deals in 2013, and we wouldn't of won a WS without either) which offsets the cheap prospects you just gave up. Seriously, it's everywhere you get your Red Sox fix. NESN, ESPN, MLB network, Websites, Newspapers, Twitter. The sad part is once Hamels gets traded, someone new will take his place as the trade target. Before him was Stanton and King Felix. ADD: It's also frustrating to keep hearing that we are losing because we didn't get an ace, namely Cole. The stats say that if we added 4 Cole Hamels, we would have a .500 record this year I agree with you. My post was aimed at those wanting the thread to end. Like it or not Hamels is still a legit discussion, and I don't even want to trade for him anymore. I want the thread to end because he was traded elsewhere so we don't have to read any more stupid articles about it that have said the exact same thing for over a year with no new information. How many ways can you say "Amaro is still the GM"?
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 23, 2015 21:56:13 GMT -5
“@redsoxstats: Jayson Stark on Baseball Tonight says the Red Sox are in and actively trying to get Cole Hamels. Trying to agree on prospect package.”
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Jul 23, 2015 22:16:26 GMT -5
If Ben does this i'll stop defending him.... What a dumb move to make for a team that should be selling.
|
|
|
Post by gregblossersbelly on Jul 23, 2015 22:37:50 GMT -5
If Ben does this i'll stop defending him.... What a dumb move to make for a team that should be selling. Hamels isn't a rental. He'd help us the next few years if he pitches well. I'm worried about his performance in Fenway and the AL East so I'd pass. But, trading for a pitcher with term left on his contract isn't bad. If you believe the pitcher will succeed for you.
|
|
|
Post by dridiot on Jul 23, 2015 23:06:53 GMT -5
If Ben does this i'll stop defending him.... What a dumb move to make for a team that should be selling. Hamels isn't a rental. He'd help us the next few years if he pitches well. I'm worried about his performance in Fenway and the AL East so I'd pass. But, trading for a pitcher with term left on his contract isn't bad. If you believe the pitcher will succeed for you. Yeah, but you pay a premium when you buy now versus the offseason. I understand he may not be available then, but there are plenty of good free agent pitchers hitting market this offseason, so I don't see why it's so imperative we get this specific pitcher, and now. You'd also be getting more of Hamel's decline years versus a free agent.
|
|
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,671
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 23, 2015 23:37:11 GMT -5
I have a bad feeling the Sox are going to give up some very big minor league talent to get Hamels, and I do have the feeling the Sox will deal for him, and I certainly hope I'm wrong.
If Ben does this and Hamels costs them Margot (or Devers) plus Owens plus others, I'll be pretty ticked off, and I might change my mind as to whether I hope Ben C gets fired or not.
At this stage, the Sox should do what the Cubs did, take their lumps, build their farm system, display patience, and then wait for the talent to arrive. None of this - we're the Red Sox and we can never rebuild (because we're so much better and smarter than everybody else) egotistical BS.
If the Sox want to get that ace pitcher, use free agency, preferably for somebody who won't cost them a draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 23, 2015 23:49:41 GMT -5
Hamels isn't a rental. He'd help us the next few years if he pitches well. I'm worried about his performance in Fenway and the AL East so I'd pass. But, trading for a pitcher with term left on his contract isn't bad. If you believe the pitcher will succeed for you. Yeah, but you pay a premium when you buy now versus the offseason. I understand he may not be available then, but there are plenty of good free agent pitchers hitting market this offseason, so I don't see why it's so imperative we get this specific pitcher, and now. You'd also be getting more of Hamel's decline years versus a free agent. I think the key to what he's saying is "if you think he'll succeed for you." Given his age, likely four more expensive contract years during what typically is a pitcher's plateau/decline and rapid decline (past 34) years, and poor results (something like 8-15, 4.73) against the AL, it's tough to think he'll be especially successful, particularly beyond 2016. I'm all for trading for Hamels if the trade doesn't involve Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Rodriguez, Espinoza, Devers, Moncada, Vazquez, Owens, Benintendi, Kopech, Guerra, Margot, or Bradley Jr. My guess is Johnson, Marrero, and pieces won't get it done, so if they do make this trade, I probably will dislike it at best and under any reasonable circumstance, hate it. That said, if they can pull it off with Johnson+Margot (or Guerra), it may end up being a reasonable trade. In that case, I would be inclined to reserve final judgment until 2018, when it will be clearer as to what the long-term ramifications are.
|
|
|
Post by dcsoxfan on Jul 23, 2015 23:50:09 GMT -5
“@redsoxstats: Jayson Stark on Baseball Tonight says the Red Sox are in and actively trying to get Cole Hamels. Trying to agree on prospect package.” If the Red Sox do make a trade for Hamels, the prospects they deal will provide their new clubs more than twice the WAR the Red Sox get out of Cole Hamels. The Red Sox record when trading prospects for veterans is pretty consistent, and there is nothing in Ben Cherington's history of trades (or free agent acquisitions) to suggest he'll do better now. Trading for Cole Hamels is the road to long term mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Jul 24, 2015 0:16:55 GMT -5
As a simple exercise, consider this: Hamels (DOB 12/83) now will cost the balance if this year plus three more years, plus likely his option. So, roughly $95M for four and a third years of a pitcher from ages 31.5 to 36. He's averaging over a K per inning, and has a history of durability, but has an ERA just a hair under 4. Starters typically peak from 26-29, have a plateau in performance with a mild decline from 29-32, and then tend to decline at an accelerating pace from 33-36. Obviously, each individual is different, but those are the historical averages. So Hamels is on the verge of decline theoretically, and is showing it performance-wise. He'll also cost at least one high-quality prospect (top-25 to top-30) plus likely another in the 70-90 range. The Cubs supposedly are offering Castro/Baez: mweb.cbssports.com/fantasy/fantasy-baseball/update/25248024/report-cubs-dangle-top-middle-infielders-in-cole-hamels-talks. Castro is probably a more established Marrero, and Baez has huge contact questions but unmistakable major upside. Johnny Cueto (DOB 2/86) is just over two years younger. Given the current SP market, he'd probably fall between Lester and Scherzer in terms of contract. He might warrant a slight discount based on a flooded SP FA market and his injury history, but for a 6-year deal might warrant 6/$170M. He's coming off a Cy-worthy year, and like Hamels has pitched well in an NL bandbox. Unlike Hamels, he's pitched nearly as well this year as last. He does have an injury history, though. However, for the first two years of his contract, he's still in his prime-plateau, and could be reasonably expected to pitch as an ace (a true ace, not a 1a/2 like Hamels). So he's reasonably likely to pitch to contract AAV, at least for two years. Beyond that, he will likely experience decline as well. Hamels will essentially cost 4/90 for four years of decline, Cueto 4/110 for four years of decline plus 2/60 for two legit near-peak years. It's close to a wash, with the caveat that Cueto is a better pitcher, if only somewhat...while Hamels is a shorter commitment with a better history of durability. So...what prospects can they give up that won't be more valuable than that roughly $20M difference (keeping in mind that Cueto will also cost probably a second-rounder in the 40-45 range?) Personally, I'd rather see the Sox sign Cueto and use trade chips to acquire a young, cost-controlled SP, but that's just because I think Cueto's a better bet for success in the near-term, particularly in the AL.
|
|
|
Post by malynn19 on Jul 24, 2015 0:39:08 GMT -5
Panic move. I am through defending Ben if he does this. Cole Hamels won't help us this year of any other year after. Why is it so hard to give Owens and Johnson the last 2 spots available atm and see what they have.
|
|
|
Post by bookiemetts on Jul 24, 2015 0:48:47 GMT -5
“@redsoxstats: Jayson Stark on Baseball Tonight says the Red Sox are in and actively trying to get Cole Hamels. Trying to agree on prospect package.” If the Red Sox do make a trade for Hamels, the prospects they deal will provide their new clubs more than twice the WAR the Red Sox get out of Cole Hamels. The Red Sox record when trading prospects for veterans is pretty consistent, and there is nothing in Ben Cherington's history of trades (or free agent acquisitions) to suggest he'll do better now.Trading for Cole Hamels is the road to long term mediocrity. What exactly is this record for Ben? The only trades I can think of specifically is the Iglesias-Peavy deal, which may or may not have lead to a world series. There are other deals involving prospects, but nothing really serious like Ranaudo and the De Aza deal. If anything, Cherington's track record of trading veterans is just as questionable. The successes include the Punto trade and the Miller trade. Likely failures include the Lester and Lackey trades. I'll definitely agree with you on the FA acquisitions and the potential Hamels trade though lol I'm just so sick of hearing about Hamels, especially considering he'll probably perform like Wade Miley is now in the AL East for $95 million. It's worse when you consider they will have to give up pieces for it.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Jul 24, 2015 4:49:49 GMT -5
I think that the chances of Hamels coming here before the deadline, after this long losing streak, are dead.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,986
|
Post by jimoh on Jul 24, 2015 6:13:13 GMT -5
I'm for Hamels at a reasonable cost because I think any other option for improving for 2016 will cost way too much in cash or prospects. But my definition of reasonable cost is not navel lint and couch cushion coins. Owens, Margot and some C prospects like Cecchini, Hernandez ("an all-star"!) and a semi-live young arm. A big but not extravagant cost: Owens and Margot will likely--but not certainly--have more career WAR than what's left for Hamels, but I think Hamels is likely to be more valuable in 16 and 17. I'm trying to be realistic and not indulge in wishful thinking about getting him for less, or signing an FA in a way that does not involve tremendous risk for years 4 and 5 of that FA (when the Sox really have a chance to be great) as well as probably losing a very high 2nd round pick.
My position is also more sanguine than many on whether several players underperforming in 2015 will be better in 2016; if you don't think 2016 is salvageable, I understand that you don't want Hamels.
I also think the Sox' task over the next few years is to figure out how to turn their tremendous prospect depth into MLB performance. One or more of these many CF like Margot will have to contribute via trade and not by playing LF where they'll have less value.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 24, 2015 6:22:13 GMT -5
“@redsoxstats: Jayson Stark on Baseball Tonight says the Red Sox are in and actively trying to get Cole Hamels. Trying to agree on prospect package.” What year was that from?
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Jul 24, 2015 8:02:41 GMT -5
I'm going to hold judgment on this and think/hope Ben is just doing his due dillagence and that a contender probably tops our deal anyway. I wouldn't hesitate to deal Margot/Owens types but I want a younger/cheaper starter coming back. A Carasco or Salazar from Cleveland type.
|
|
|