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 James Dunne on Oct 29, 2014 16:35:04 GMT -5
I might consider Bogaerts for Hamels straight up. I wouldn't be happy about it but I'd at least have to think very hard about it. Hamels is extremely good and incredibly consistent, with a very realistic shot at the Hall of Fame. Other than Kershaw (obviously) and King Felix I don't know if there's anyone else I'd say that about. But I wouldn't go a cent over Bogaerts. If Amaro was like "you need to include an authographed Nate Minchey baseball" I'd call him a greedy jerk and hang up the phone for pushing his luck.
Part of the reason I'd consider it is that I still don't think Bogaerts is a shortstop. I might be in the minority on that, but I just don't think he can handle the position, and as he gets bigger he's going to get worse. My realistic Bogaerts projection is a .270/.370/.470 third baseman, which is obviously valuable - he'd be one of the best four or five in the league - but probably worth giving up for Hamels. More likely, though, I think a package of Owens or Rodriguez and Swihart or Vazquez, plus a second tier pitcher, is what it would take. The Phillies have a lot of needs and while I don't think they should or will settle for a pu-pu platter of B- prospects I think it makes more sense for them to get a pair off Top 50 guys and a few others.
My realistic offer would probably be Swihart, Rodriguez, Workman, and Victorino (to offset a chunk of the salary in 2015) for Hamels.
As others have said, though, it's very very difficult to predict Amaro's mindset. The fact that Gillick has said that the team isn't going to contend next year is one step, but Amaro's over-valuing of his own players is very deeply ingrained.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 29, 2014 18:58:24 GMT -5
That's way too much to give up for a guy who is making nearly market-priced salaries. I don't think Hamels is meaningfully better than Lester or Scherzer going forward, and those guys are at most making $40m-$60m more (with an added year or two of control), plus the QO. I'd give up one of Swihart/Owens/Rodroguez, but two plus another prospect or too is too much.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 29, 2014 19:53:20 GMT -5
I don't think Hamels is meaningfully better than Lester or Scherzer going forward, and those guys are at most making $40m-$60m more (with an added year or two of control), plus the QO. . I think Hamels is better, which is why I'm willing to give up the second top-five prospect. Every pitcher has an injury risk of course, but Hamels have average 5.6 bWAR over the last five years, with his worst seasons in that stretch a still-strong 4.6. I also don't think trading for Hamels precludes signing Lester or Scherzer if the Sox can move Victorino's salary for '15. Hamels' option won't vest if he gets hurt, which makes his downside contract a pretty reasonable 4 years/$90 million. Fangraphs crowdsourced estimate on Scherzer has him at 7/$168, so it's closer to $80 million difference in terms of risk. The Red Sox payroll situation from 2016 to 2019 is excellent. They have very little money committed to those years and Bogaerts and Betts will not yet have reached free agency. With Hamels, they get pretty much the only available opportunity to take on an elit pitcher for that stretch without needing to make a guarantee beyond it. Indeed, how good you think Hamels is has to determine what you're willing to give up for him. But a top-30 prospect and top-50 one, plus a second-tier arm, seem within reason to me.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Oct 29, 2014 20:25:37 GMT -5
Regarding that option I bet he requires the team trading for him to pick it up.
|
|
|
Post by ifixbadcredit on Oct 29, 2014 20:42:31 GMT -5
Regarding that option I bet he requires the team trading for him to pick it up. The red sox are not currently on his no-trade list, that might change after 11/1.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 29, 2014 20:43:47 GMT -5
It's still possible the contract has a clause that the option automatically vests with a trade.
EDIT: Still, 5/$114 is much less than Hamels would get on the open market.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 29, 2014 21:07:05 GMT -5
Regarding that option I bet he requires the team trading for him to pick it up. The red sox are not currently on his no-trade list, that might change after 11/1. This is not true, by the way. It was reported that Boston wasn't on his 20-team no-trade list, but that turned out to be false. They'll almost certainly be on his no-trade list again next year. ADD: assuming Hamels forces the acquiring team to guarantee his option, he's due 5/$110m going forward. That's certainly significantly less than what he'd get on the open market, but as I mentioned, it's in the $40-60m range less. That's even slightly exaggerating it, since Lester/Scherzer come with more team control. You wouldn't pay $24m for their age 36/37 seasons, but it's worth something. Over the next five years, Hamels is only due $10-20m less than Lester/Scherzer are going to get. My bigger issue is that a team like the Red Sox shouldn't effectively be trading prospects for cash. The fact that they have little long-term committed salary makes free agency more appealing relative to giving up good prospects in trades.
|
|
jimed14
Veteran
Posts: 25,817
Member is Online
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 29, 2014 21:25:22 GMT -5
I'd rather give Lester a blank check and keep Bogaerts. There are too many top tier free agent pitchers to trade him for Hamels. We have so much money to spend that we won't be able to spend it especially if we keep Bogaeerts.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 29, 2014 22:16:08 GMT -5
We have tons of pitching we can send to Philly, no need to part with a bat for hamels.
I think we give Philly a list and let them pick three or four.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Oct 29, 2014 22:23:40 GMT -5
The Red Sox have a good chance of bringing Lester back for something in the range of 6/135. Now let's say you value Lester's last year as only 10 mil, that would provide 15 mil of extra value for Hamels over Lester. If you think Hamels is slightly better, then bump that up to 25 or 30 mil. If you conservatively value a 41-75 prospect at being worth 20 mil and a 100-150 prospect as being worth 10 mil, then that gives you Owens and Marrero (or something close to that) for Hamels. Why offer more? I don't get the Hamels love...
If the Red Sox miss on Scherzer, Lester and Shields because it turns out they are getting 5mil/year more than expected - then offer a little more.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Oct 30, 2014 21:52:12 GMT -5
The Red Sox have a good chance of bringing Lester back for something in the range of 6/135. Would cherrington go to seven years if that is what it takes to sign Lester?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 9, 2014 20:35:47 GMT -5
So the problem with Free Agency is you can't guarantee the guy signs with you and you can't always guarantee you are the highest bid unless you just listen to agents and take what they say as the absolute truth and if you do that then you will always over pay by a severe margin. Agents do after all lie and players don't always take every last penny.
Scherzer for example prefers to train in Arizona so theoretically a team in Florida will have to pay enough more to make that preference mean nothing.
Yea Hamels costs money and prospects but if you find the package he's yours. I get the all things being equal you don't pay money and prospects but in the real world all things are not equal. Signing a Lester and trading for Hamels aren't mutually exclusive either. They could really use both. I have no issue with both being left handed and I love both of their post season successes.
I'm a believer in some players stepping up in the post season (Lester/bum) and some not (Kershaw). At a minimum Hamels handles it well.
It'd be hard to trade Swithart, Betts or Xander. But I'd move Owens if they can keep Rodriguez. If philly is rebuilding then you know they aren't super patient so near or mlb ready guys should be attractive. It's possible the extra outfielders maybe be a tool directly or indirectly.
Owens, Cecchini, Marrero and Craig might entice them.
Owens for obvious reasons.
Cecchini could step right into their lineup and develop in the majors.
Marrero could spend a little lore time in AAA then take over for Rollins
Craig may not entice them but his contract is good if he bounces back at all its a steal and he can play a corner spot in Philly and take over first when Howard is inevitably out. Btw it's obscene he has 2/50 left on his contract.
|
|
|
Post by xanderbogaerts2 on Nov 9, 2014 23:47:30 GMT -5
So the problem with Free Agency is you can't guarantee the guy signs with you and you can't always guarantee you are the highest bid unless you just listen to agents and take what they say as the absolute truth and if you do that then you will always over pay by a severe margin. Agents do after all lie and players don't always take every last penny. Scherzer for example prefers to train in Arizona so theoretically a team in Florida will have to pay enough more to make that preference mean nothing. Yea Hamels costs money and prospects but if you find the package he's yours. I get the all things being equal you don't pay money and prospects but in the real world all things are not equal. Signing a Lester and trading for Hamels aren't mutually exclusive either. They could really use both. I have no issue with both being left handed and I love both of their post season successes. I'm a believer in some players stepping up in the post season (Lester/bum) and some not (Kershaw). At a minimum Hamels handles it well. It'd be hard to trade Swithart, Betts or Xander. But I'd move Owens if they can keep Rodriguez. If philly is rebuilding then you know they aren't super patient so near or mlb ready guys should be attractive. It's possible the extra outfielders maybe be a tool directly or indirectly. Owens, Cecchini, Marrero and Craig might entice them. Owens for obvious reasons. Cecchini could step right into their lineup and develop in the majors. Marrero could spend a little lore time in AAA then take over for Rollins Craig may not entice them but his contract is good if he bounces back at all its a steal and he can play a corner spot in Philly and take over first when Howard is inevitably out. Btw it's obscene he has 2/50 left on his contract. According to RAJ that "package" is at least 3 top prospects, 2 being major league ready or have major league service. I really don't see Hamels as a viable option unless his price comes way down.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 10, 2014 0:39:35 GMT -5
Cubbies rumored to be interested in trading for Hamels.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 10, 2014 8:32:13 GMT -5
I think it goes without saying that Hamels won't get 3 top prospects unless guys like Cecchini and Marrero and Barnes, etc are considered top prospects by whoever is reporting that.
Just look at the returns for Price and Samardzija. It ain't going to happen so if we are discussing the possibility of dealing for Hamels that should be understood.
What I said about free agency also applies to trades. You can't guarantee another team will dance which is why it's vital to explore all possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 10, 2014 13:13:24 GMT -5
Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago Sources: #RedSox one of 20 teams on Hamels’ no-trade list. He would need to give #Phillies approval to trade him to Boston. Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 2m2 minutes ago Hamels would not necessarily reject #RedSox, but likely would require any team on no-trade list to pick up his $20 million option for 2019.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 10, 2014 13:30:49 GMT -5
Cubbies rumored to be interested in trading for Hamels. This would probably be the best thing that could happen to the Red Sox this offseason. I would guess that if the Cubs did trade for Hamels it would take them out of the running for the big 3, and they are probably our biggest competition here. Also saves us from making what would probably be a bad trade.
|
|
|
Post by jdb on Nov 10, 2014 23:01:02 GMT -5
Might as well go 6 on Lester if Hamels is going to be 5.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 10, 2014 23:14:47 GMT -5
Might as well go 6 on Lester if Hamels is going to be 5. According to the latest from Gordon Edes, that very well may happen.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 11, 2014 11:30:09 GMT -5
Guys, if the Red Sox had traded Jon Lester (if he were signed to a long-term deal) for the equivalent of Garin Cecchini, Deven Marrero, and Matt Barnes, would any of you not have lost your minds about how awful a trade that was?
For Hamels, I find it hard to see the deal getting done without one of Betts, Bogaerts, or Swihart. As we said on the podcast, Amaro is probably asking for two to start the conversation.
Seriously, go look at Hamels' numbers and tell me if that's worth a pu pu platter of B- prospects.
|
|
|
Post by jrffam05 on Nov 11, 2014 13:24:40 GMT -5
Guys, if the Red Sox had traded Jon Lester (if he were signed to a long-term deal) for the equivalent of Garin Cecchini, Deven Marrero, and Matt Barnes, would any of you not have lost your minds about how awful a trade that was? For Hamels, I find it hard to see the deal getting done without one of Betts, Bogaerts, or Swihart. As we said on the podcast, Amaro is probably asking for two to start the conversation. Seriously, go look at Hamels' numbers and tell me if that's worth a pu pu platter of B- prospects. I agree with you Chris, that he won't be moved for B prospects, and personally I would have very little interest in trading for Hamels, but I believe the thought is Hamels is basically on a market value deal, he performed to his salary and his future projections would match per $ what his contract commitment is. So theoretically if you were to go out onto the market and spend 94M over 4 years you would expect to get back the value that Hamels provides. In that view, which I am not trying to pass off as a holistic view, Hamels really doesn't have a ton of value over what he is owed, like Sale (to make up a name) would be.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 13, 2014 14:39:34 GMT -5
Guys, if the Red Sox had traded Jon Lester (if he were signed to a long-term deal) for the equivalent of Garin Cecchini, Deven Marrero, and Matt Barnes, would any of you not have lost your minds about how awful a trade that was? For Hamels, I find it hard to see the deal getting done without one of Betts, Bogaerts, or Swihart. As we said on the podcast, Amaro is probably asking for two to start the conversation. Seriously, go look at Hamels' numbers and tell me if that's worth a pu pu platter of B- prospects. If you are referring to my post(s), that wasn't the suggested return. Owens was included in.a package that it would take. I used those names a second time to refute that three top prospects would be traded for him. Saying the only way that would be the case is if you considered those guys top prospects. You'd have to give up one of Owens, Betts or Swithart. I'd do Owens and pick up the contract and include those others. If Phillly wants more then tough.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 13, 2014 14:40:45 GMT -5
And if the Red Sox were the Phillies and were trading Hamels I'd be pretty pissed regardless.
|
|
jimed14
Veteran
Posts: 25,817
Member is Online
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 13, 2014 16:57:30 GMT -5
Guys, if the Red Sox had traded Jon Lester (if he were signed to a long-term deal) for the equivalent of Garin Cecchini, Deven Marrero, and Matt Barnes, would any of you not have lost your minds about how awful a trade that was? For Hamels, I find it hard to see the deal getting done without one of Betts, Bogaerts, or Swihart. As we said on the podcast, Amaro is probably asking for two to start the conversation. Seriously, go look at Hamels' numbers and tell me if that's worth a pu pu platter of B- prospects. I really don't get that a player who is being paid what they're worth should cost a huge package of prospects. I mean Lester costs 0 prospects. I mean if that's the way it is, we should sign him and then trade him in a year and do it every year.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 13, 2014 20:18:30 GMT -5
Lester is going to get a lot more money than Hamels.
|
|
|