Update on Hamels

[wcburrs87]

Originally posted by gldendog:
These teams want prime aces on manageable contracts for middling prospects. F*ck outta here. The overvaluing of these prospects is hilarious. Most dont make it big. They're only called prospects because they havent proven anything yet.

^^^This^^^

so, the Phillies position is simple here. You want an ace for the next 3 1/2 years while you go for all the marbles, then you're going to have to ante up. Prospects are less a sure thing than Cole Hamels is when pitching in late-season games during a playoff push.

 

[gldendog]

The overvaluing of these unproven douche prospects is what annoys me more than anything about baseball. It's seriously stupid. Give us your proven super stud in his prime and we'll give you 3 piles of sh*t and some strawberry glazed donuts. You just CANT have Joc Pederson or Swihart. They are sooooooo good.

F*ck you.

 

[adp98]

If some rival evaluators are right, the best possible deal the Phillies could've made for Cole Hamels probably went off the board months ago.

That was back before the July 31 trade deadline of 2014, when Hamels was in the midst of what turned out to be the best statistical season of his career. His ERA would close at a career-low 2.46, and he allowed only 14 homers in 204 1/3 innings.

If Hamels had been traded then, as a star left-hander under contract with playoff experience doing exceptional work -- a contender would've surrendered a rich package in return, execs with other teams are convinced. But the Phillies insisted that not only should any interested team be willing to give up a major package of star prospects, but they also should absorb the entirety of the money owed to Hamels.

The Phillies didn't make a deal then with this stance, nor did they make a deal when the next significant window for a Hamels trade opened, in November and early December, when he could've been dangled as a cheaper alternative to Max Scherzer. As time goes by, Hamels' value in the market slowly depreciates, like that of a car, with the Phillies continuing to carry the inherent risk that if any significant damage develops -- if he has any physical setback -- the return in trade could essentially evaporate.

 

[adp98]

But keeping him makes absolutely no sense within the Phillies' current context, and beyond the risk of injury, it's very possible that market forces will continue to cut more deeply into his value in the market, as they have for James Shields.

Last fall, Phillies president Pat Gillick said out loud what fans of the team already knew -- that the team faced a period of rebuilding, and non-contention, in the immediate future. This acknowledgment gives the front office perfect cover to make their best trade -- and there is interest from the Red Sox, who have the requisite depth to make a deal, and the Padres, who already put forth an offer for Hamels.


[+] Enlarge
L Redkoles/Getty ImagesPat Gillick has acknowledged that Philly isn't in a position to contend.
However, Hamels' salary has been the major sticking point in at least some of the Phillies' talks. He is now owed at least $100 million for the next four seasons, and he almost certainly would not accept a trade to one of the teams listed in his no-trade provision -- the Red Sox are one of those, the Padres are not -- unless a team guarantees his option for 2019, either $20 million in a team option or $24 million in a vesting option.

Executives with other teams have been saying for about a year that they'd like an adjustment in the Phillies' stance, that they either want Philadelphia to reduce their asking price in prospects, or demonstrate a willingness to eat some of the salary owed to Hamels. That the Phillies haven't reached a deal for Hamels -- who was dangled as a possible trade piece before the winter meetings in 2013[/I]-- suggests that a whole lot of rival executives see Philadelphia's position on Hamels as out of touch with the market realities.

And anyway, money should really be the last thing that prevents the Phillies from dealing Hamels, because cash is something they have a lot of.

 

[adp98]

The climate for a Hamels trade right now is ugly because most teams have gone into budget hibernation for the winter, and a lot of clubs that might be interested in swapping for Hamels are prepared to open spring training without him. Inevitably, the Phillies' next-best window to swap Hamels will open in March, when some team suffers a significant pitching injury -- like in 2014, when the Braves suffered Ttwo[/I] major injuries, or the year that Adam Wainwright went down with an elbow injury.

If the Phillies don't make a deal before the start of the season, however, their risk multiplies. As with Shields, the price for Hamels -- that's assuming he's healthy -- will be measured increasingly against what could be a flush market for starting pitchers before the July 31 trade deadline, and in next fall's free-agent market. If other teams continue view the Phillies' demands as out of step, there could be a lot of market alternatives depending on how some of the races play out -- such as Rick Porcello, etc., etc. The slam-dunk wipeout offer that the Phillies might be waiting for may never actually materialize, given the high volume of options.

 

[Ninetynine5.0]

Originally posted by wcburrs87:

Originally posted by gldendog:
These teams want prime aces on manageable contracts for middling prospects. F*ck outta here. The overvaluing of these prospects is hilarious. Most dont make it big. They're only called prospects because they havent proven anything yet.

^^^This^^^

so, the Phillies position is simple here. You want an ace for the next 3 1/2 years while you go for all the marbles, then you're going to have to ante up. Prospects are less a sure thing than Cole Hamels is when pitching in late-season games during a playoff push.

Yeah but it's all value based, and that works both ways. Hamels has
nearly no value to the Phillies right now. A chache of prospects, at
this moment in time, is more valuable, as is not having his money on
their books. So it cuts both ways - at least at this moment.

Sure,
the Phils could just swallow it all and hold him. That does not have
much chance of fixing their deep seeded issues though. If they swing and
hit on one young guy, it works for them. They're not in a great space
here with Hamels in any event. He's an shiny solid gold hood ornament on
a beat up 98' Ford Taurus.

I do not see them eating money, and I
think if they do trade him they will get back one guy people are very
high on. I do not see the point of eating money and trading him for a
slightly higher level guy. Again, I make a deal with the Yankees and
snag 3 of their foreign signed free agents. That deal can be made today I
bet.

Despite the supposedly flooded market, I still this Hamels is the most bankable of anyone available. Being lefty is rather big too. I do not like his no trade list and everything like that (hate those provisions in any deal in any sport ) but Hamels has solid value.

 

[wcburrs87]

ADP, hitting Google hard this morning. Yawn.

 

[Ninetynine5.0]

Originally posted by wcburrs87:
ADP, hitting the Google machine hard this morning. Yawn.

fixed. (with crayons)

 

[adp98]

Actually, on the front page of ESPN/MLB section. One of the main articles. Just happened to appear today and restate my position on the matter. Good job Buster Olney. I'm waiting for the substantive response.

 

[selmore1]

So basically you're posting about a bunch of execs who want to lower the asking price of Hamels leaking that noone will take his salary or trade top prospects for him. Sounds like pretty unbiased information. And I strongly doubt they'll be trading him now. It's a trade deadline move. Or eat another year and trade him at the next deadline.

 

[adp98]

Because it makes sense to hold onto a guy while your team isn't close to competing for at least 3+ years. Keep him to go out as you lose 90+ games and his value continues to diminish. At that point he'll be 32-33 on the downside being paid $24 per year and owed a kicker on the option to agree to being traded.

 

[Ninetynine5.0]

Originally posted by selmore1:
So basically you're posting about a bunch of execs who want to lower the asking price of Hamels leaking that noone will take his salary or trade top prospects for him. Sounds like pretty unbiased information. And I strongly doubt they'll be trading him now. It's a trade deadline move. Or eat another year and trade him at the next deadline.

It only takes one. It's like every winter when we hear there is no market for a Scott Boras client and then low and behold, that client gets a record deal. Happens every year. Also happened with Cano two last year - no way anyone is paying him 250M - Yankees were insulted he turned down 160. We read how there was no market for him. Only took one.

Someone will give up something worthwhile and pay for Hamels, be it this spring or in July.

 

[wcburrs87]

The Phillies might hold onto Hamels after all. It worked with Steve Carlton in the 70's

ADP, just because Buster Olney wrote it doesn't make it gospel. What do you expect GMs to say at this point? Yea, I'm waiting for the Phillies to call, so we can give them whatever they want.

 

[adp98]

You're right. Ruben has everyone just where he wants them.

 

[wcburrs87]

Look, they're not hurting for money. So, keeping Hamels and paying him is a drop in the bucket for them. So, there is really no good reason to sell low on him. Wait it out and like Dmil says, it only takes one. Eventually a team will come crawling back to them and they'll pay the piper. Yes, there is risk here because it's sports and sometimes guys get hurt. Oh well, take the chance. I rather that happen then some wipe my ass Cliff Lee type deal go down. No thanks.

 

[selmore1]

The only way this gets screwed up is with Rubes. Teams have to know they can take advantage of him and I'm afraid the he knows that now as well and will be extra cautious (read: ask for an insane package and never go lower). Please get this guy fired immediately.

 

[Ninetynine5.0]

RAJ has not proven to be very good, but he's still in possession of a product people want here. Won't be the only one from the organization involved here either. Propsects in any event are inexact sciences, you kind of have to get a bit lucky. You could barely find a scout who didn't love Jurickson Profar 3 years ago - now, he's a giant question mark. Justin Smoak too at one point. Conversely there have been throw ins on some trades that have turned out to be steals. I'm with burrs - not entire sure they move him, and certainly dont see it for anything underwhelming. No reason for that.

 

[adp98]

Originally posted by wcburrs87:
Look, they're not hurting for money. So, keeping Hamels and paying him is a drop in the bucket for them. So, there is really no good reason to sell low on him. Wait it out and like Dmil says, it only takes one. Eventually a team will come crawling back to them and they'll pay the piper. Yes, there is risk here because it's sports and sometimes guys get hurt. Oh well, take the chance. I rather that happen then some wipe my ass Cliff Lee type deal go down. No thanks.

But holding him does nothing for the Phils. He's only an asset if you move him. Why? Because you stink and have no chance of competing anytime soon. By the time the Phillies can be decent Hamels is old making $24 per year. His value is gone. That's why each day Rub sits around Hamels values goes down. Especially with all the other arms out there. This is very easy to understand....or maybe it's not. There is no default position where keeping Hamels helps the Phillies rebuild. Which is what must happen. They are in this spot because they waited too long in dealing their other assets and now doing the same with Hamels. You are repeating history and it doesn't work out for the Phils.

 

[wcburrs87]

adp, I totally disagree. If Hamels pitches well, at or near AS level, then his value doesn't go down. There is no reason to just give him away. now. I don't want a Cliff Lee type deal just say you traded him and took what you could get. F*ck that!

Also, RAJ isn't making this move on his own. Everyone, especially Gillick, will be involved here.

 

[adp98]

I'll play along. IMO, he was pitching at that level last year. What makes him more attractive this time around when there will be other guys as listed in this thread available for much less? Curious how you see his value goes up? Last season he was very good. Can't expect him to be better.

 

[Ninetynine5.0]

Originally posted by adp98:
I'll play along. IMO, he was pitching at that level last year. What makes him more attractive this time around when there will be other guys as listed in this thread available for much less? Curious how you see his value goes up? Last season he was very good. Can't expect him to be better.

I dont think they were teribly agressive in moving him last year at all. You have to sell a rebuild and the Phillies did not really begin that sell until mid season last year. Rollins makes it official - but giving away Hamels for jack sht is worse than holding him for no reason. His value is what the market says it is, not more or less than a year ago. I don't think he was legitimately for sale last year - tire kicking is not really selling.

His value is going to rely pretty solidly on who enters spring straining truly believing they have a shot, who in July believes that same thing, along with who's he actually willing to play for. That's his market. He's one of the better arms available, He has plenty of post seson experience, he's lefty, and he's only got 3 plus years depending on when the trade goes down. Plenty to work with there for Raj. Return will be respectable I think. Hell, the Mets got two blue chips for RA Dickey.

 

[wcburrs87]

Originally posted by adp98:
I'll play along. IMO, he was pitching at that level last year. What makes him more attractive this time around when there will be other guys as listed in this thread available for much less? Curious how you see his value goes up? Last season he was very good. Can't expect him to be better.

Again, you have no clue who actually will be available. Stop acting like you do.

Two, he's in his prime, so there is no reason not to believe that he can't be a similar pitcher.

 

[adp98]

"If the Phillies don't make a deal before the start of the season, however, their risk multiplies. As with Shields, the price for Hamels -- that's assuming he's healthy -- will be measured increasingly against what could be a flush market for starting pitchers before the July 31 trade deadline, and in next fall's free-agent market. If other teams continue view the Phillies' demands as out of step, there could be a lot of market alternatives depending on how some of the races play out -- such as Rick Porcello, etc., etc. The slam-dunk wipeout offer that the Phillies might be waiting for may never actually materialize, given the high volume of options."

Thoughts on the comments above? Per Buster Olney today. How would you respond to his line of thought.

 

[lowry99]

Originally posted by adp98:
"there could be a lot of market alternatives depending on how some of the races play out -- such as ... Doug Fister ..., etc., etc. The slam-dunk wipeout offer that the Phillies might be waiting for may never actually materialize, given the high volume of options."

Thoughts on the comments above? Per Buster Olney today. How would you respond to his line of thought.

I'm thinking the guy is a columnist filling up "column inches" on the Internet, meeting the demands of his job ot generate x number of columns per week in a lull before spring training, and also fence sitting and not really saying anything, yet you keep quoting it like he dropped the theory of relativity on us. Whoa, Buster Olney said there "could be alternatives" to Hamels and a slam dunk offer "may never actually materialize" -- that's some hard hitting stuff.

Doesn't sound like he's saying there won't be better offers later. It's a calculated risk, sure. You're a gambler, adp. sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And often times that happens because of things outside of your control. It's a calculated risk. Just because there's risk and it's not a sure thing doesn't mean you pull the trigger for an offer you deem subpar today.

Also, I'm surprised that this luminary thinks that what happens with Zimmerman and Fister depends on how the races play out. There's no chance the NL East will be remotely close, or the Nats out of it, right? Either Rizzo will trade off pieces that can help him when this year for assets later (based on what we're hearing--or perhaps to fill a hole elsewhere this year), or he won't. Out of the Phils' control.

 

[adp98]

Thoughts on the five other names you omitted please.

 

[selmore1]

So Olney basically said they might get a big haul or they might not. Sound analysis which I agree. Maybe it works out and maybe it doesnt. And all those guys can be available but they're either going to get huge contracts, are injury plagued or are older. All would get longer deals than what Hamels would be signed to. And the Shields comparison doesn't really work. Hamels is a much better pitcher than Shields and Shields has had multiple blow ups in the post season whereas Hamels has been a stud. And oh yea, what did they give up for Shields? Oh yea it was the number 1 prospect in baseball.

 

[lowry99]

For those other guys, the "we'll see how the races play out" fence sitting Olney is doing applies. Their teams aren't selling today in all likelihood. And most likely none of them will be fully available for months, certainly not at the more affordable price you're indicating. With two wild cards out there, it would be somewhat surprising if even most of them became available on the cheap.

Cole has a for sale sign on him at all times. So as of now I don't think there are a lot of market pressures. If you want a top shelf starter today, you can call Rube, or I suppose Rizzo to deal for one of Zimmerman or Fister perhaps. But if you get Zimmerman (the guy I'd want out of all these guys for one year, all things being equal), you get a date with Scott Boras too, if you want to keep him after this year. Not attractive. Also have to think that Rizzo will drive a hard bargain given that he has a potentially historic team, and the publicity around one of the greatest staffs ever could draw fans (always a tough proposition in DC). All things considered, Cole is the most attractive asset out there today and will be for months.

I hate Ruben Amaro and have been unwavering in my belief that he should be fired since the Lee to Seattle deal. That said, I think he is playing this one the right way for now. He's taking the injury risk, sure, but beyond that, should be able to do better later.

 

[selmore1]

Shields is on pace to be a hot stove "bust" by not getting nearly what he thought and the bust is being thrown around if he gets 3 years and $60 million for a 33 year old pitcher. So Hamels, basically same money, 2 years younger, a good deal better and has post season success, is supposed to be some hindrance for a team? Just doesn't add up.

 

[adp98]

Zimmermann is not a Boras client. Shields will get at least 4 years and probably 5. In terms of talent, he and Cole are very comparable in terms of numbers. Agree Hamels is better but Shields is free. All he costs you is the same/less money. That's the difference. The money is pretty much the same. Hamels with the option is a 5 year $110 million guy + prospects. Shields will be less money and no prospects.

This post was edited on 2/5 5:40 PM by adp98

 

[Ninetynine5.0]

Originally posted by adp98:
Thoughts on the five other names you omitted please.

Hamels is better (and safer ) than a lot of those guys, and will be cheaper than the others. Kazmir or Hamels. Not a hard talent decision there.

 

[Ninetynine5.0]

Originally posted by adp98:
Zimmermann is not a Boras client. Shields will get at least 4 years and probably 5. In terms of talent, he and Cole are very comparable in terms of numbers. Agree Hamels is better but Shields is free. All he costs you is the same/less money. That's the difference. The money is pretty much the same. Hamels with the option is a 5 year $110 million guy + prospects. Shields will be less money and no prospects.

This post was edited on 2/5 5:40 PM by adp98

Also no true - Shields turned down the qualifier so he will cost a team a prime prospect that would have been drafted 5 months from now. And who is to say he will be less money yet? I dont think there is a baseball person alive who would rather have him over Hamels anyway.

 

[lowry99]

Originally posted by adp98:
Zimmermann is not a Boras client. Shields will get at least 4 years and probably 5. In terms of talent, he and Cole are very comparable in terms of numbers. Agree Hamels is better but Shields is free. All he costs you is the same/less money. That's the difference. The money is pretty much the same. Hamels with the option is a 5 year $110 million guy + prospects. Shields will be less money and no prospects.


This post was edited on 2/5 5:40 PM by adp98

anyone who gives Shields Hamels money even will be seriously disappointed. He hasn't performed like a no. 1 when it has counted IMO. That contract will be a disaster. Hamels has shown he will pitch well even with the money.

Also, full disclosure, I hesitate to call Hamels a postseason stud because he f---ed up in 2009. He was on the hill with a 3-0 lead in Game 3, and a chance to give Phils control of the series at home. He stunk and later in the series said he just wanted the season to be over. Still irks me. That said, since then he has been a bulldog, and overall as a postseason pitcher is a much better bet than any of these other options except Zimmerman.

 

[adp98]

Originally posted by Ninetynine5.0:

Originally posted by adp98:
Zimmermann is not a Boras client. Shields will get at least 4 years and probably 5. In terms of talent, he and Cole are very comparable in terms of numbers. Agree Hamels is better but Shields is free. All he costs you is the same/less money. That's the difference. The money is pretty much the same. Hamels with the option is a 5 year $110 million guy + prospects. Shields will be less money and no prospects.

This post was edited on 2/5 5:40 PM by adp98

Also no true - Shields turned down the qualifier so he will cost a team a prime prospect that would have been drafted 5 months from now. And who is to say he will be less money yet? I dont think there is a baseball person alive who would rather have him over Hamels anyway.

That is a terrible attempt.

 

[obriend1]

Jesus this thread is like watching two girls one cup. I can't stop reading but I'm horrified at the same time. Semantics for the past 20 posts.

 

[Sportsboss_ofnothing]

Anytime adp is involved, it's awful.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Ninetynine5.0]

Originally posted by adp98:

Originally posted by Ninetynine5.0:

Originally posted by adp98:
Zimmermann is not a Boras client. Shields will get at least 4 years and probably 5. In terms of talent, he and Cole are very comparable in terms of numbers. Agree Hamels is better but Shields is free. All he costs you is the same/less money. That's the difference. The money is pretty much the same. Hamels with the option is a 5 year $110 million guy + prospects. Shields will be less money and no prospects.

This post was edited on 2/5 5:40 PM by adp98

Also no true - Shields turned down the qualifier so he will cost a team a prime prospect that would have been drafted 5 months from now. And who is to say he will be less money yet? I dont think there is a baseball person alive who would rather have him over Hamels anyway.

That is a terrible attempt.

Not really. A number one pick a few months from now is a prime prospect. That's included in Sheild's freight. His metrics have been trending down for almost two years now. He's not as good regardless. He's probably going to get somewhere around 85M this week. And he's two years older. He's the lesser option, and doesn't cost much less. This is a fact no matter how you slice it. Again, does anyone who has the choice between Shields and Hamels seriously consider Shields????

Zimmerman on the market is getting 175M plus. Cueto has injury issues and will get 100M. Kazmir is not a comparison. Price will be monster money - probably twice as much as Hamels has left. (and cost a pick). Really, do I have to break out the crayons here?

 

[adp98]

It will be interesting to see if San Diego signs Shields. They have the prospects that match up for Hamels. He's a California guy and the deal would make sense for both teams. If Shields gets similar money to what Hamels is owed that will say a lot. Your comparison was terrible. Somehow a sandwhich pick is equal to what it will take to get Hamels. You're arguing against yourself with that statement. If that's all he'll fetch than what are we debating?

 

[selmore1]

Not sure what you're talking about with a "sandwhich pick", the team that signs Shields is losing their first round pick and bonus amount that is assigned to that pick. By you saying there is no cost outside the contract money is not intellectually honest and flat out wrong.

 

[adp98]

The teams loses the pick but it's awarded to the new team at end of the round. Thus a sandwich pick. If you are suggesting that one pick is equal to what Cole Hamels will fetch than I rest my case. This isn't the NFL draft here.

 

[tomdudes]

We are on the second page, and I still don't know what their respective BABIP's are!!!!!

And as far as "Big Game James", his nickname is way better than his actual performance, and mentioning him and Hamels as peers is a major leap for anyone doing their job for less than 18 years.