Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested

Status
Not open for further replies.

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
It's almost like Ruben Amaro has a basic understanding of how to be a GM.

http://www.nj.com/phillies/index.ssf/2014/10/mlb_hot_stove_phillies_will_look_to_trade_cole_hamels_chicago_cubs_boston_red_sox_interested_per_rep.html
 
According to Howard Eskin of FOX, the Phillies will look to trade pitcher Cole Hamels this offseason in an attempt to get younger and rebuild a farm system that has been stripped of all assets the past few seasons.
According to Eskin, two teams that really want Hamels are the Boston Red Sox and Chicago Cubs.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Until Ruben Amaro is removed from the equation, I take all rumors and reports that Phillies players are on the block with a gigantic grain of salt.  They've all been on the block for the better part of the last two years, but Amaro wants so much for each player none have gone anywhere.  Why should we believe his M.O. has changed now?
 

Laser Show

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 7, 2008
5,094
Red(s)HawksFan said:
Until Ruben Amaro is removed from the equation, I take all rumors and reports that Phillies players are on the block with a gigantic grain of salt.  They've all been on the block for the better part of the last two years, but Amaro wants so much for each player none have gone anywhere.  Why should we believe his M.O. has changed now?
Probably not much, a lot like taking anything the Marlins say about extending Stanton with a grain of salt. That being said, the same article also notes that the Phillies are planning to "do whatever it takes to get Howard off the team," which is the first time I've heard that out of Philadelphia.
 

pockmeister

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
372
London, England
So if we're willing to assume that Amaro is being influenced to act like a rational human being, what does it take to extract Hamels?  I would guess it'll start with Owens, plus an ML ready arm such as Ranuado, Webster or Rubby to slot into their rotation immediately.  Is that something the Sox  would consider?
 
And if we assume he's going to carry on being the idiot we all know and love, what do we think he'll ask for?  Swihart + Owens + Rodriquez + Margot + ML arm?  Not that I'm advocating anything like this, more just speculating on how Amaro's "brain" functions
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
snowmanny said:
The Phillies were heavily scouting the major league Red Sox in August.

http://www.csnphilly.com/baseball-philadelphia-phillies/blockbuster-trade-brewing-between-phillies-and-red-sox

"Dont think in 30 years of covering baseball Ive ever seen a team (the Phillies) spend so much time scouting another team (the Red Sox) and not pull the trigger on a deal," Cafardo wrote in his Sunday notes column.


But who were they scouting? Bogaerts?
 
You'd have to think they were scouting Betts. Maybe Bradley as well, but Betts is my guess. Utley's 35 and won't be around forever, and with Pedroia locked into a long-term contract here you'd think the Phils would be kicking the tires on a future 2Bman.
 
Utley is under contract for 2015, and has 3 consecutive vesting options for the following years that vest with 500 PAs. Utley's been very durable over this course of his career, but it's not unreasonable to think that he'll start missing more time as he gets older, meaning he might not automatically vest those option years.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
snowmanny said:
The Phillies were heavily scouting the major league Red Sox in August.

http://www.csnphilly.com/baseball-philadelphia-phillies/blockbuster-trade-brewing-between-phillies-and-red-sox

"Dont think in 30 years of covering baseball Ive ever seen a team (the Phillies) spend so much time scouting another team (the Red Sox) and not pull the trigger on a deal," Cafardo wrote in his Sunday notes column.


But who were they scouting? Bogaerts?
 
Betts was already mentioned. I imagine Vazquez could be another.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Rudy Pemberton said:
I would be really opposed to giving up Owens, Betts, or Boagerts for anyone, especially someone like Hamels. There's free agent pitching available. Trading Hamels for any of those guys doesn't significantly improve the teams future in the near term, does it?
 
Hamels is 30 and essentially has a 4/90 contract left to play out, with some incentives that might add on another year. Is it worth giving up assets to get a Hamels at 4/90, or giving up cash to get a Shields at say, 4/80? Shields has the AL resume, but he's several years older, and isn't quite as good as Hamels (Shields' career ERA+ is 111, 124 this season; Hamels' career ERA+ is 125, 151 this year).
 
It's a tough question. I think Hamels is better than Shields, but is he that much better to make the Sox think it's worthwhile to give up assets? I don't know about that.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
After failing to sign Lester, if they then trade Betts for a guy very similar to Lester (from the NL no less) then I will never, ever stop complaining about it on the internet. You think Plympton mentioned Jacoby a lot? Get ready for ten times worse, no matter what Betts hits or how Hamels pitches. :smithicide:
 
I am just saying that now to get it out there to try to get all of you on my side on this. Don't make me do it, Cherington.
 

pockmeister

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
372
London, England
I was writing the same thing as SJH, he's put it better than I can.  
 
The relatively short contract for Hamels is what appeals, along with his given top of the rotation quality.  I wonder whether rather than Shields, the better comparison is with Lester.  Assuming that Lester will be seeking 6-7 years as a FA, and also that the latter 2-3 years of that contract will be expensive downside as he ages, giving up some prospects to take away that long term negative impact on payroll would seem appealing.  Hamels could then be extendable if he's still performing well at age 33 or 34.  If the Sox remain averse to 5 year + deals for the over 30s, then the attraction of Hamels is clear.
 
Betts isn't who I would want to see packaged in this deal, but I could be convinced on some of our high prospect pitching.  4 years of proven top of the rotation pitching at a known cost vs projectable but unknown minor league talent.  Tough decision, but a good one to think about.
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Shields has the AL resume, but he's several years older
Extreme nitpick: Cole Hamels' birthday - December 27, 1983

James Sheilds' birthday - December 20, 1981.

It seems a little extreme to call Sheilds "several" years older, nless you believe Sheilds has more miles on his tires
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
18,470
The Phillies would trade Hamels? I'm not sure I follow. Think of what that will do to their World Series chances. It's hard to see Amaro making that mistake.
 
As for pricetag, Boston would only consider moving their ml talent. Maybe Bradley if they'd decided Betts is their CF and he won't hit enough, but it's hard to see him being the smartest fit in Philly. Hamels won't come cheap, but makes a lot of sense. Boston has strict budget concerns and he has a defined contract.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I was bearish on Hamels earlier in the year, and he still makes me nervous. But we don't have a lot of choices, and much as I hate the idea of giving up Betts, he is a wee tad bit blocked or at least, likely to be suboptimally deployed (yeah, I know, let's not have the Zobrist discussion again). Under those circumstances using him to get (in essence) Lester on a 2-year, 50M discount  might be as productive a way to deploy his talent for the Sox as any other.
 
I'm going to plead temporary insanity on this one. I had forgotten just how good Betts was this year--and unlike, say, WMB 2012, good in ways that really look pretty repeatable. You don't trade a 21-year-old with an apparently non-fluky 130 wRC+ for anything short of a Hall of Famer in his prime. And you don't worry about where he plays. You worry about where everybody else plays.
 
Owens, yes. Swihart, maybe, because he's semi-blocked and hasn't shown anything in MLB yet. But not Betts.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,672
yecul said:
As for pricetag, Boston would only consider moving their ml talent. .
How do we know this? The fact that the Phillies were scouting the Red Sox for weeks implies the Phillies don't think this is true (and that nobody from Boston convinced them they were wasting their time).
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Hamels is 30 and essentially has a 4/90 contract left to play out, with some incentives that might add on another year. Is it worth giving up assets to get a Hamels at 4/90, or giving up cash to get a Shields at say, 4/80? Shields has the AL resume, but he's several years older, and isn't quite as good as Hamels (Shields' career ERA+ is 111, 124 this season; Hamels' career ERA+ is 125, 151 this year).
 
It's a tough question. I think Hamels is better than Shields, but is he that much better to make the Sox think it's worthwhile to give up assets? I don't know about that.
 
Is it possible they do both? 
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,220
Somerville, MA
I think people are over-estimating any potential package for Hamels.  Amaro is either going to lower his crazy demands from the deadline or he's not going to trade him.  No one is dumb enough to trade elite prospects when you can sign Lester for similar money and they are the same age.  And if Lester gets something really crazy like 7/175 there are other options besides trading Betts for Hamels. 
 
That's not to say I think Hamels has no trade value.  I think he'd be a pretty good pickup at the right price.  But Betts and Bogaerts should not be going anywhere.  I like Owens but if he was the best player included with other depth prospects added in it might be a decent deal. 
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Is Hamels' contract a feature or a bug?  That is, does Hamels at 4/90 (plus a vesting 24 mil option based on IP) have more value than Shields/Price/Shark when they were traded?
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
I would be very disappointed if they traded one of Betts, Owens, or Swihart for Hamels.  I'd rather trade elite prospects for the elite bat we can't find on the free agent market at any price than for the elite arm we could find on the free agent market for perhaps a slightly-inflated price.
 
I'm of the mind that we only need to add one frontline starter.  But if we want to sign one and trade for one, I'd rather look at Samardzija, whose acquisition cost should be less since we're only getting a year, and then hoping Owens is ready in 2016.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Hamels is 30 and essentially has a 4/90 contract left to play out, with some incentives that might add on another year. Is it worth giving up assets to get a Hamels at 4/90, or giving up cash to get a Shields at say, 4/80? Shields has the AL resume, but he's several years older, and isn't quite as good as Hamels (Shields' career ERA+ is 111, 124 this season; Hamels' career ERA+ is 125, 151 this year).
 
It's a tough question. I think Hamels is better than Shields, but is he that much better to make the Sox think it's worthwhile to give up assets? I don't know about that.
 
I think the better question is, if you could get Lester for say 6/150, is that extra two years and $60m worth losing three potentially really good, young players?  My guess is no.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
Amaro needs two prospect-rich teams, like the Sox and Cubs, who both are in need of top-of-the-rotation starters, to max out on Hamels. Think the Twins when they tried to leverage Sox/Mets/MFYs for Santana.
 
IMO Hamels 4/90 (or 5/114) is modest positive to the future values of #1s going forward ($25-28MM AAV). But as Hamels is not that far off market, I'm not sure I'd empty the farm of top/top prospects to get the guy.
 

yecul

appreciates irony very much
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2001
18,470
snowmanny said:
How do we know this? The fact that the Phillies were scouting the Red Sox for weeks implies the Phillies don't think this is true (and that nobody from Boston convinced them they were wasting their time).
 
Amaro is an awful GM. He is going to ask for Betts, Vazquez and Bradley plus the winning Powerball ticket. 
 
That Boston will not trade their top guys -- specifically their ML guys -- for Hamels is my opinion. I would be shocked if they moved Betts in a deal that didn't involve someone like Stanton.
 
With all that said, they probably won't be getting Hamels unless Amaro becomes a different GM overnight or they pay a stiff price. He's truly awful as a GM and doesn't seem to understand his team, the market, other teams, why the sun goes away at night and other basic stuff.
 
As someone said above -- grain of salt. It seems like an obvious route to go, but I need to see it.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Might they consider trying to package Papelbon in the trade to get him out of Philly as well?  And, would the Red Sox be willing to take on that sideshow?
 

pockmeister

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
372
London, England
glennhoffmania said:
 
I think the better question is, if you could get Lester for say 6/150, is that extra two years and $60m worth losing three potentially really good, young players?  My guess is no.
 
And that I would agree with.  But is it worth one potentially really good player, and a couple of potentially goodish ones?  My guess is yes
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
johnnywayback said:
I would be very disappointed if they traded one of Betts, Owens, or Swihart for Hamels.  I'd rather trade elite prospects for the elite bat we can't find on the free agent market at any price than for the elite arm we could find on the free agent market for perhaps a slightly-inflated price.
 
I'm of the mind that we only need to add one frontline starter.  But if we want to sign one and trade for one, I'd rather look at Samardzija, whose acquisition cost should be less since we're only getting a year, and then hoping Owens is ready in 2016.
I could get behind a Shark trade, but I also think that if they can get Hamels by giving up Owens (not Betts or Swihart), Ben should do it. Hamels is the type of pitcher you hope that Owens turns out to be, and he's got a reasonable contract to boot. You're not getting that without giving up at least 1 top 5 prospect, and I'd personally prefer that to be Owens. I'm also of the mindset that FA should be their primary way of getting an ace, but pitching prospects are inherently risky and Hamels is good enough that I don't think Owens should be off the table for him. 
 


The Phillies would trade Hamels? I'm not sure I follow. Think of what that will do to their World Series chances. It's hard to see Amaro making that mistake.
 
This made me laugh, so kudos. The Phillies are an aging pile of suck, and it's going to take a lot of work to get them even back in the race. 
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
MakMan44 said:
I could get behind a Shark trade, but I also think that if they can get Hamels by giving up Owens (not Betts or Swihart), Ben should do it. Hamels is the type of pitcher you hope that Owens turns out to be, and he's got a reasonable contract to boot. You're not getting that without giving up at least 1 top 5 prospect, and I'd personally prefer that to be Owens. I'm also of the mindset that FA should be their primary way of getting an ace, but pitching prospects are inherently risky and Hamels is good enough that I don't think Owens should be off the table for him. 
 
I don't disagree with any of this.  But, two things:
 
1. I think it's likely enough that Owens is ready to join the rotation in 2015 that we maybe don't need to acquire two frontline starters.  If we deal Owens to acquire one, however, we'd probably need to acquire another, as well.
2. We can solve the rotation problem with money alone.  The offense problem looks like we'll need to solve it with prospects.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
If Amaro doesn't get the crazy amount of offers he thinks he will (for a package of high prospects) he could also go the route of just trying to get say a couple mid-tier pitching prospects provided the team would take Howard in the deal for Hamels - some team might be stupid enough to do that (not Ben I would hope).
 
That would extract themselves from a huge amount of payroll in one fell swoop and accelerate a rebuild, but agree with others that this is likely going to result in a major FAIL by Amaro and no traded Hamels....
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
Hamels vs. Lester, career numbers:
 
Hamels:  3.27 era, 125 era+, 3.48 fip, 1.14 whip, 8.5 k/9
Lester:  3.58 era, 121 era+, 3.58 fip, 1.28 whip, 8.2 k/9
 
Adjusting for park and DH vs. P hitting, and it's extremely close.  Slight edge to Hamels, I guess.  But we know Lester can pitch in Boston.  He can handle the pressure.  We don't know that about Hamels.
 
But then….
 
- Cost of Lester:  Likely 6 year contract worth at least $150 million ($25m/yr).  No draft pick.  No prospects.
- Cost of Hamels:  4 years, $90 million left (possibly a 5th year adding $20 million more).  Likely 3 quality prospects.
 
Hamels will cost a lot less in terms of money.  But it would require giving up a lot of quality from the system.  Both pitchers are tremendous.  Lester has history here, Hamels doesn't.  Both are proven playoff guys (Hamels, 13 g, 3.09 era; Lester 14 g, 2.57 era).  
 
Certainly, depending on what the Phillies want in return, trading for Hamels is a legit alternative to signing Lester.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
Earlier this summer (about 2 weeks before the trade-deadline) we had this poll re "untouchables" and a possible Hamels trade.
 
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/84546-poll-which-red-sox-kids-are-the-untouchables/
 
 
The following was the premise:
 
The Red Sox look very well stocked with young high-ceiling players, many of whom will form the core of future teams. But there seems to be some overlap in players, positions, and needs.
 
Lets assume that the Red Sox and Phillies are negotiating a trade for Cole Hamels, and lets say the Phillies want 3 top young players/prospects for Hamels. Further assume Jon Lester will not be on the 2015 team. Who would you not make available for a Hamels trade? Or who would you rather keep for future use either as a Sox player or a trading chip to get a RH power bat, or any other purpose? Who are the untouchables?  Who are not, and who is not for this particular proposed trade?
 
The poll had some 230 respondents and this is how the "untouchables" ranked
 
1-Bogaerts 200 votes
2-Swihart    133
3-Owens       92
4-Betts          75
5-JBJ            45
6-RDLR        30
7-Vasquez    24
8-Workman  11
9-Holt             9
10-Ranaudo   8
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
Out of Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart and Owens the one I would part with in a second is Owens.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Bank, I can promise you that if you redid that poll, Betts would score much higher now. 
Rudy Pemberton said:
Ultimately, I don't think the Cespedes move looks great at this point (of course, no one knew the Sox would land Castillo). Was there an option to move Lester for prospects instead- who could be utilized in a trade for pitching? With Cespedes on a 1 year, no draft pick compensation deal,I don't really see how they can move him for pitching, and he also seems somewhat expendable.
Yes, Ben said there was prospects packages on the table, I think he mentioned Lester by name but I might be wrong. That being said, I don't see why the move is a bad one. If anything, I think the Lackey deal looks bad and I've been fighting tooth and nail that Ben acquired Craig for a reason. 
 

67WasBest

Concierge
SoSH Member
Mar 17, 2004
2,442
Music City USA
bankshot1 said:
Amaro needs two prospect-rich teams, like the Sox and Cubs, who both are in need of top-of-the-rotation starters, to max out on Hamels. Think the Twins when they tried to leverage Sox/Mets/MFYs for Santana.
 
IMO Hamels 4/90 (or 5/114) is modest positive to the future values of #1s going forward ($25-28MM AAV). But as Hamels is not that far off market, I'm not sure I'd empty the farm of top/top prospects to get the guy.
This quote nails it for me.  Hammels is paid in line with salary expectations.  The 4 years is a favorable value, but not such a deal as to warrant Betts or Swihart.  If they can build a package around Owens, count me in.
 
Dec 10, 2012
6,943
Sending multiple porspects, including even a single top one , for the right to pay a player who doesn't play 4 out of 5 games $20+ million per annum, who you don't know if can perform in the pressure of Boston/AL East, seems like an inefficient use of resources to me, plain and simple.
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
I'd rather deal any two (maybe even three) of Ranaudo/Webster/Barnes/RDLR/Workman than get rid of Owens.  Of course, Philly may hold the line on Owens (and obviously add more to it), period.  
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
MakMan44 said:
Bank, I can promise you that if you redid that poll, Betts would score much higher now. 
Yes, Ben said there was prospects packages on the table, I think he mentioned Lester by name but I might be wrong. That being said, I don't see why the move is a bad one. If anything, I think the Lackey deal looks bad and I've been fighting tooth and nail that Ben acquired Craig for a reason. 
 No question, Bett's stock has risen from an all-ready high valuation, in just two months. If he's made available in a trade, the return has to be about a lock, as he looks like star in the making.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
threecy said:
Might they consider trying to package Papelbon in the trade to get him out of Philly as well?  And, would the Red Sox be willing to take on that sideshow?
That's an interesting idea, actually.

Papelbon is kryptonite in Philadelphia at this point, but there are very few teams willing to take on his salary. The Sox are probably one of them, especially if it means we would have to give up less in terms of MiLB talent to get Hamels.
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
dynomite said:
That's an interesting idea, actually.

Papelbon is kryptonite in Philadelphia at this point, but there are very few teams willing to take on his salary. The Sox are probably one of them, especially if it means we would have to give up less in terms of MiLB talent to get Hamels.
 
Great point. I also think that Papelbon is a better bet to hedge your bullpen on going forward than Koji. He has 1 year left on his deal plus a vesting option. I'd rather that than overpay Koji who may break down.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Dan to Theo to Ben said:
Sending multiple porspects, including even a single top one , for the right to pay a player who doesn't play 4 out of 5 games $20+ million per annum, who you don't know if can perform in the pressure of Boston/AL East, seems like an inefficient use of resources to me, plain and simple.
There's been a pretty big movement towards the idea that SP matters at least as much as great hitter because they have a larger impact on the games they're in than a position player will have on a day to day basis. 
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
jsinger121 said:
 
Great point. I also think that Papelbon is a better bet to hedge your bullpen on going forward than Koji. He has 1 year left on his deal plus a vesting option. I'd rather that than overpay Koji who may break down.
 
 
Victorino going the other way?
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
The Sox have only made 2-3 deals involving top-shelf prospects during the HWL era -- for Beckett and A-Gonz, and possibly for V-Mart (depends whether you think Masterson was top-shelf, and still a prospect, at the time of that trade). I trust them not to do something stupid to acquire Cole Hamels.
 
I'm not sure if the report in the OP is reliable enough to bother reading between the lines. If you parse it, though, the references to "rebuilding" and a depleted farm system suggest the Phils might be open to a quantity-over-quality deal. The Sox would be better positioned than most teams to make such a deal, though trading those chips in a deal that doesn't fill a hole with a low AAV in 2015 would be tough -- we have too many holes to fill all of them with market-rate guys.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
dynomite said:
That's an interesting idea, actually.

Papelbon is kryptonite in Philadelphia at this point, but there are very few teams willing to take on his salary. The Sox are probably one of them, especially if it means we would have to give up less in terms of MiLB talent to get Hamels.
 
Paps's option vests based on games finished. It's not a killer contract if the team acquiring him has an elite closer and can justify having Paps pitch the 8th.
 
The Sox would fit the bill if they bring back Koji, but I can't imagine they'd sign on for that drama (to say nothing of that much money committed to two RPs).
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
maufman said:
 
Paps's option vests based on games finished. It's not a killer contract if the team acquiring him has an elite closer and can justify having Paps pitch the 8th.
 
The Sox would fit the bill if they bring back Koji, but I can't imagine they'd sign on for that drama (to say nothing of that much money committed to two RPs).
 
Papelbon has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in being a setup man. It's closer or nothing for Ol' Big Brain.
 
I would pass on Papelbon. He's still reasonably effective, but he's limited in his role and a huge shithead and I'm pretty much done with the Papelbon experience.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
TheYaz67 said:
If Amaro doesn't get the crazy amount of offers he thinks he will (for a package of high prospects) he could also go the route of just trying to get say a couple mid-tier pitching prospects provided the team would take Howard in the deal for Hamels - some team might be stupid enough to do that (not Ben I would hope).
 
That would extract themselves from a huge amount of payroll in one fell swoop and accelerate a rebuild, but agree with others that this is likely going to result in a major FAIL by Amaro and no traded Hamels....
 
I was thinking the same thing.  Amaro could go full Punto and look to package Paps, Howard and Hamels in a clear-the-decks deal.  I think it would be really hard to take on Howard's deal (2/$50mm, with $10m third-year buyout), and if you made Paps at 8th inning guy to prevent his $13mm 2016 option from vesting, he would be a disaster in the clubhouse.  I can't see making this move, but would you deal JBJ, RDLR, Workman, and Craig/ShaneVic for that package?  
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
The Gray Eagle said:
After failing to sign Lester, if they then trade Betts for a guy very similar to Lester (from the NL no less) then I will never, ever stop complaining about it on the internet. You think Plympton mentioned Jacoby a lot? Get ready for ten times worse, no matter what Betts hits or how Hamels pitches. :smithicide:
 
I am just saying that now to get it out there to try to get all of you on my side on this. Don't make me do it, Cherington.
Unless Lester ends up getting 8/$200 and it's revealed that all along from last winter he viewed 7/$161 as the hometown discount he'd accept, I'll be right there with you. Hamels at $22 per for 4 years plus an option and minus Betts instead of Lester at $20-$23 for 6 years just makes so little sense I can't even contemplate them contemplating that strategy.

As for a realistic trade bringing in Hamels, I'd do Owens (his ceiling is what Hammels already is), one of the many 4/5th starter candidates (RDLR or Workman is probably the best to give them the benefit of someone clearly ready to be in the rotation or bullpen on opening day, while the Sox hold tryouts among Ranaudo, Webster, Barnes, and Wright for the 5th spot), and one or two of the many relief candidates or second tier position players or starters as a sweetener (Hembree, Wilson, Kurcz, Couch, Haley, Shaw, Coyle etc.).
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,592
Here
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Hamels is 30 and essentially has a 4/90 contract left to play out, with some incentives that might add on another year. Is it worth giving up assets to get a Hamels at 4/90, or giving up cash to get a Shields at say, 4/80? Shields has the AL resume, but he's several years older, and isn't quite as good as Hamels (Shields' career ERA+ is 111, 124 this season; Hamels' career ERA+ is 125, 151 this year).
 
It's a tough question. I think Hamels is better than Shields, but is he that much better to make the Sox think it's worthwhile to give up assets? I don't know about that.
 
I think you are significantly underestimating the pitching market. I'd say a baseline to get Shields is going to be 6/120, assuming he's looking for the most money, and he'll probably get more.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Ed Hillel said:
 
I think you are significantly underestimating the pitching market. I'd say a baseline to get Shields is going to be 6/120, assuming he's looking for the most money, and he'll probably get more.
 
A team that gives Shields 6 years is certifiably insane. Of course there's plenty of those around.
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,599
NY
Ed Hillel said:
 
I think you are significantly underestimating the pitching market. I'd say a baseline to get Shields is going to be 6/120, assuming he's looking for the most money, and he'll probably get more.
 
Not to derail this, and there's a whole Shields thread, but if someone gives a 33 year old of his caliber more than 6/120 then I'm completely giving up on the FA market.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,734
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Plympton91 said:
Unless Lester ends up getting 8/$200 and it's revealed that all along from last winter he viewed 7/$161 as the hometown discount he'd accept, I'll be right there with you. Hammels at $22 per for 4 years plus an option and minus Betts instead of Lester at $20-$23 for 6 years just makes so little sense I can't even contemplate them contemplating that strategy.
 
To be clear, it's only my guess that the Phillies are interested in Betts. Just looking at their roster it seems clear that they'll need to think about replacing Utley's All-Star level production at second base at some point, and given the scouting reports on Betts so far he'd be a likely candidate to do just that.
 
But of course I have no real idea, I'm just guessing here.
 

jscola85

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,305
ivanvamp said:
Hamels vs. Lester, career numbers:
 
Hamels:  3.27 era, 125 era+, 3.48 fip, 1.14 whip, 8.5 k/9
Lester:  3.58 era, 121 era+, 3.58 fip, 1.28 whip, 8.2 k/9
 
Adjusting for park and DH vs. P hitting, and it's extremely close.  Slight edge to Hamels, I guess.  But we know Lester can pitch in Boston.  He can handle the pressure.  We don't know that about Hamels.
 
But then….
 
- Cost of Lester:  Likely 6 year contract worth at least $150 million ($25m/yr).  No draft pick.  No prospects.
- Cost of Hamels:  4 years, $90 million left (possibly a 5th year adding $20 million more).  Likely 3 quality prospects.
 
Hamels will cost a lot less in terms of money.  But it would require giving up a lot of quality from the system.  Both pitchers are tremendous.  Lester has history here, Hamels doesn't.  Both are proven playoff guys (Hamels, 13 g, 3.09 era; Lester 14 g, 2.57 era).  
 
Certainly, depending on what the Phillies want in return, trading for Hamels is a legit alternative to signing Lester.
 
Is pitching in Philadelphia really any easier than Boston?  If any fanbase turns quicker on its own players than Boston, it is Philadelphia.  They almost look forward to it.  Hamels has pitched over 80 innings in the playoffs as well, to the tune of a 3.09 ERA, 1.05 WHIP, and 77/21 K/BB.  Very comparable to Lester's 84 IP, 2.57 ERA, 1.07 WHIP, 73/23 K/BB in the postseason.
 
While Hamels costs prospects, he's on a much friendlier deal.  The Sox have a surplus of prospects they can deal right now, though.  I'd rather trade from that strength and avoid paying a guy into his late 30's, if possible.
 
Then again, we're talking about Ruben Amaro, so if he's asking for Betts, Bogaerts and Owens in return, we might as well end this discussion.  To me, Betts and Bogaerts are off the table, but I'd entertain pretty much anyone else on the roster, even Owens.
 

TomRicardo

rusty cohlebone
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2006
20,613
Row 14
jsinger121 said:
Out of Betts, Bogaerts, Swihart and Owens the one I would part with in a second is Owens.
 
I wouldn't give this a second thought.  Hamels is Owens best case scenario.  
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,677
TomRicardo said:
 
I wouldn't give this a second thought.  Hamels is Owens best case scenario.
 
This is where is I am at too and there is no guarantee he even gets to that point. Owens isn't even projected a future ace while Hamels already is one. Trading Owens in a package for Hamels is a no brainer if he is the centerpiece to the trade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.