|
Post by texs31 on Nov 16, 2014 12:10:14 GMT -5
Not a rumor but a suggestion:
In Bowden ' s GM article today, he lists for possible destinations for Hamel (Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and Sox).
His Boston idea? Ranaudo, Marrero and Barnes
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 16, 2014 12:21:19 GMT -5
Barnes and Marrero are both prospects I could see certain teams loving and others completely disliking. I am sure their values are all over the place. If you could find a team who loved both, I could see them netting a big return.
|
|
|
Post by texs31 on Nov 16, 2014 12:31:01 GMT -5
I think there were 2 separate articles this week about Marrero drawing a lot of interest, especially following his AFL performance.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Nov 16, 2014 18:01:35 GMT -5
Not a rumor but a suggestion: In Bowden ' s GM article today, he lists for possible destinations for Hamel (Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and Sox). His Boston idea? Ranaudo, Marrero and Barnes I like Barnes a lot, but I would do this package without even thinking about it. I would probably even do Owens + that package. But I just don't see that getting it done, not without one of Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart, and that's just too much to give up for him.
|
|
|
Post by jbberlo on Nov 16, 2014 18:29:09 GMT -5
Bowden is pretty terrible. He said in the article that Ranaudo is arguably our best pitching prospect and the dodgers offer was urias, anderson, guerrero and lee. Basically guerrero lee and anderson is only slightly worse than the red sox offer and then there is Urias who is a top 25 prospect. The offers were really just all over the place
|
|
|
Post by mainesox on Nov 16, 2014 20:40:16 GMT -5
And if the Red Sox were the Phillies and were trading Hamels I'd be pretty pissed regardless. Fixed it for you
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 16, 2014 20:52:18 GMT -5
Not a rumor but a suggestion: In Bowden ' s GM article today, he lists for possible destinations for Hamel (Cubs, Cardinals, Dodgers and Sox). His Boston idea? Ranaudo, Marrero and Barnes DONE. No backsies. I wish Bowden ran the Phillies.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 17, 2014 22:35:58 GMT -5
The globe says the sox have turned down several trade proposals put out there by Philly.
They also hint that cherrington is very much against moving top prospects.
|
|
|
Post by artfuldodger on Nov 18, 2014 6:29:09 GMT -5
I do not know what it would take to get Hamels, nor do I know if it is worthwhile. I do believe that the Cards trade yesterday took one less option away from the Phillies. It may leave the Cubs, Red Sox, and Dodgers as the most viable to take on the contract and trade viable prospects. Like with Heyward, the cost may be less than we anticipate.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 18, 2014 9:08:57 GMT -5
I never saw the Cardinals as being a viable option to trade for Hamels, but if anything, after giving up Miller they may be more of one now. I don't think Heywards money makes it less likely.
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Nov 18, 2014 9:15:24 GMT -5
I never saw the Cardinals as being a viable option to trade for Hamels, but if anything, after giving up Miller they may be more of one now. I don't think Heywards money makes it less likely. I assume he was referring to the Braves, no?
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 18, 2014 10:30:18 GMT -5
I never saw the Cardinals as being a viable option to trade for Hamels, but if anything, after giving up Miller they may be more of one now. I don't think Heywards money makes it less likely. I assume he was referring to the Braves, no? Looks like the Braves do want more pitching. Ken Rosenthal ?@ken_Rosenthal 11m11 minutes ago Confirmed: Lester meeting with #Braves on Thursday. First reported: @buster_ESPN
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 18, 2014 11:30:52 GMT -5
If the no-trade waiver requires that 5th year being picked up, that puts Hamels at 5/$110 million. For me, that isn't worth giving up quantity or quality prospects. Hell no on any of Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, Owens or Rodriguez, and hell no on 4 top 10-15 either. I'd rather just sign Shields instead. And Lester.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,857
|
Post by nomar on Nov 18, 2014 12:43:36 GMT -5
If the no-trade waiver requires that 5th year being picked up, that puts Hamels at 5/$110 million. For me, that isn't worth giving up quantity or quality prospects. Hell no on any of Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, Owens or Rodriguez, and hell no on 4 top 10-15 either. I'd rather just sign Shields instead. And Lester. Yeah considering what's out there it makes zero sense to give up potential impact players for Hamels in trade.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 18, 2014 14:15:09 GMT -5
Wait until it's not out there... Then it might be worth it. Can't necessarily make a free agent sign which is why trading prospects for a "sure thing" carries a premium. You have to get a team to give up an asset that helps their team and is properly compensated and that you know will perform. You should have to pay more for that.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Nov 18, 2014 14:17:36 GMT -5
With that in mind, it probably makes sense for the Phillies to hold onto Hamels until after Scherzer and Lester shake out.
|
|
|
Post by dmaineah on Nov 18, 2014 15:57:33 GMT -5
What if Philly was willing to take lower level high ceiling prospects who are years away but we had to take Howard as well? Something like Napoli & Margot, +, +, +.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 18, 2014 16:11:21 GMT -5
What if Philly was willing to take lower level high ceiling prospects who are years away but we had to take Howard as well? Something like Napoli & Margot, +, +, +. In no way, shape, or form will Ryan Howard ever be in Boston
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,857
|
Post by nomar on Nov 18, 2014 16:53:35 GMT -5
What if Philly was willing to take lower level high ceiling prospects who are years away but we had to take Howard as well? Something like Napoli & Margot, +, +, +. Why would we ever do that?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Nov 18, 2014 16:54:37 GMT -5
Wait until it's not out there... Then it might be worth it. Can't necessarily make a free agent sign which is why trading prospects for a "sure thing" carries a premium. You have to get a team to give up an asset that helps their team and is properly compensated and that you know will perform. You should have to pay more for that. However, it seems to be a lot of people wishing for a Hamels trade instead of signing Shields. Until there is no one left to sign, I don't want Hamels at the acquisition costs people are talking about. At 5/$110, he isn't really that much more desirable than anyone else on the market. I'd much rather give up a 2nd round draft pick and sign Shields for 4/90 than to trade Owens, Barnes, Marrero and Vazquez. Hell, I think I'd rather sign Scherzer for 7/$200 than to give all that up.
|
|
|
Post by freddysthefuture2003 on Nov 18, 2014 17:12:40 GMT -5
Jim Bowden ?@jimbowden_ESPN 6s7 seconds ago #Cardinals have joined the Red Sox, Cubs and Braves in pursuit of Jon Lester according to a club source which makes sense after Miller trade
Can't STL just trade for Hamels instead?
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 18, 2014 19:12:14 GMT -5
Isn't hamel's record against American league teams well under .500 and his era over 4.50?
Is that worth betts, Vazquez and Barnes as reported by some media outlets?
|
|
|
Post by greatscottcooper on Nov 18, 2014 19:43:31 GMT -5
I've heard this ideal of bringing Howard in to lessen the prospect package before; I wouldn't bite even if the deal was Howard/Hamels for a junk prospect straight up. Hamels is going to require his option to be picked up which makes his cost 5/110, plus Howard will require an additional $60 million (assuming we don't pick up the option and buyout his contract). That's 170 million dollars for a downgrade at 1st base, and a pitcher who we can get on the open market for presumably $170 million or less.
It just makes no sense to me to trade for Hamels, I'd rather give up legit prospects and bring him in only if we sign a Lester/Scherzer. At least that is what I would rather have in my own little hypothetical world where I'am the G.M.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Nov 18, 2014 19:57:16 GMT -5
With that in mind, it probably makes sense for the Phillies to hold onto Hamels until after Scherzer and Lester shake out. Yea, I think it makes sense for the Red Sox too
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Nov 18, 2014 21:12:08 GMT -5
Wait until it's not out there... Then it might be worth it. Can't necessarily make a free agent sign which is why trading prospects for a "sure thing" carries a premium. You have to get a team to give up an asset that helps their team and is properly compensated and that you know will perform. You should have to pay more for that. However, it seems to be a lot of people wishing for a Hamels trade instead of signing Shields. Until there is no one left to sign, I don't want Hamels at the acquisition costs people are talking about. At 5/$110, he isn't really that much more desirable than anyone else on the market. I'd much rather give up a 2nd round draft pick and sign Shields for 4/90 than to trade Owens, Barnes, Marrero and Vazquez. Hell, I think I'd rather sign Scherzer for 7/$200 than to give all that up. It's basically a question of what you think is more valuable, the prospect package Hamels will require or the $34m+ less that Hamels has guaranteed to him compared to Lester (or the $65m + draft pick compared to Scherzer, or the draft pick and similar money of Shields for a much better pitcher). I can see a scenario where Lester/Scherzer/Shields' markets get to the point where trading, say, Owens, Marrero, and a DSL guy makes sense compared to Lester for 6/$150 or Scherzer for 7/$175m.
|
|