I'd be more than ok with that package, but saying "only" shouldn't include someone with Margot's upside.
Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested
- Thread starter Laser Show
- Start date
- Status
If that rumoured deal is possible I suppose it comes down to this. Would the Sox rather have Shieds and keep the prospects or the Hamels deal. Margot is the only player I think they will balk at.
I like Hamels a lot more than Shields - and their contracts are going to be more or less equal. So I think I'd do that deal. But they will surely miss Margot. I wonder if they could replace Margot with JBJ in the deal?
I like Hamels a lot more than Shields - and their contracts are going to be more or less equal. So I think I'd do that deal. But they will surely miss Margot. I wonder if they could replace Margot with JBJ in the deal?
I want to see Owens become a star with the Red Sox. But the more I think about it, the more I like Johnson and Rodriguez. That's two potential #2 lefty starters and that makes Owens expendable. Again, I'm not looking to jettison him and would, in a perfect world, love to see him grow into a Red Sox star.
However, Hamels is a juicy target. Owens/Kelly/Coyle/Cecchini for Hamels. Suddenly Hamels' contract is pretty reasonable for a pitcher of his quality. He's still young enough to justify it, and it's not as long as Lester's, even if they "have" to pick up his option (as he would demand it through his no-trade clause). So you'd have Hamels, Porcello, Miley, Buchholz, Masterson, with Ranaudo/Barnes/Wright/Johnson/Rodriguez ready to step in. And you've kept Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart/Margot/Devers/JBJ/Chavis/Marrero/Ball/Escobar/Travis/Shaw, etc.
From Philly's perspective, they'd be getting four quality pieces. The #2, #10, and #14 prospects from a very deep and talented farm system, plus a proven MLB arm in Kelly, who is still young and cost-controlled. That has to be an enticing package even for Amaro.
However, Hamels is a juicy target. Owens/Kelly/Coyle/Cecchini for Hamels. Suddenly Hamels' contract is pretty reasonable for a pitcher of his quality. He's still young enough to justify it, and it's not as long as Lester's, even if they "have" to pick up his option (as he would demand it through his no-trade clause). So you'd have Hamels, Porcello, Miley, Buchholz, Masterson, with Ranaudo/Barnes/Wright/Johnson/Rodriguez ready to step in. And you've kept Betts/Bogaerts/Swihart/Margot/Devers/JBJ/Chavis/Marrero/Ball/Escobar/Travis/Shaw, etc.
From Philly's perspective, they'd be getting four quality pieces. The #2, #10, and #14 prospects from a very deep and talented farm system, plus a proven MLB arm in Kelly, who is still young and cost-controlled. That has to be an enticing package even for Amaro.
Margot very well might be a future star. But with the Red Sox? They've got CF covered between Castillo and Betts for the foreseeable future and moving him to left seems sub-optimal.Sinistas said:
Danny_Darwin said:
I'd say it's too early in their MLB careers to worry about Castillo and Betts blocking anybody.
I really think a number of factors point to the Hamels acquisition as being kind of a perfect fit.
--the relative bargain that Hamels' contract looks like now
--the need to extend any one-year-away ace-level pitcher you'd trade lots of prospects for
--that those available in trade probably aren't as good as Hamels (though this is debatable and in most cases probably marginal)
--that Shields' deal will arguably overpay him relative to future value more than Lester or Scherzer (though he wouldn't be a bad sign for the team if it was somehow miraculously reasonable)
--that Scherzer is likely too rich for their blood
Margot would be tough to lose, but trading for someone as good as Hamels with the benefit of those five years of control is going to sting no matter what. I think Kelly is a solid piece for them, as is someone like Marrero having just dumped Rollins. Whether that's enough for RAJ I have no idea, but this just seems like too ideal a fit for the Sox. Idea is not to fall in love with it so much that you give up something too big.
--the relative bargain that Hamels' contract looks like now
--the need to extend any one-year-away ace-level pitcher you'd trade lots of prospects for
--that those available in trade probably aren't as good as Hamels (though this is debatable and in most cases probably marginal)
--that Shields' deal will arguably overpay him relative to future value more than Lester or Scherzer (though he wouldn't be a bad sign for the team if it was somehow miraculously reasonable)
--that Scherzer is likely too rich for their blood
Margot would be tough to lose, but trading for someone as good as Hamels with the benefit of those five years of control is going to sting no matter what. I think Kelly is a solid piece for them, as is someone like Marrero having just dumped Rollins. Whether that's enough for RAJ I have no idea, but this just seems like too ideal a fit for the Sox. Idea is not to fall in love with it so much that you give up something too big.
As much as I prefer giving up Owens to Margot, I have to admit that Pepen package makes a lot of sense on both sides, if the Sox pick up most of the tab.
Like JtB, I don't know if RAJ would take it, but it gives them a little bit of finical flexibility, a potential future star in Margot, a young SS and SP for next season, a solid piece in Cecchini who you can either play at 3rd or in the OF. Maybe you have to thrown in a Ranaudo type as well, but really, I think that's the type of package the Sox should be okay with giving up for Hamels.
Like JtB, I don't know if RAJ would take it, but it gives them a little bit of finical flexibility, a potential future star in Margot, a young SS and SP for next season, a solid piece in Cecchini who you can either play at 3rd or in the OF. Maybe you have to thrown in a Ranaudo type as well, but really, I think that's the type of package the Sox should be okay with giving up for Hamels.
even earlier in Margot's to assume he will make it to the major leagues. I know we all love our prospects but the kid hasnt played above A ball and is 20. Not everyone can have the same trajectory as Betts and X. If he, Owens and the rest can get us Hamels than I am all for it.Harry Hooper said:
edit: not saying he should be in a higher league due to his age, only that he is very young and anything can happen. a rotation with hamels at the head next year and possibly rodriguez and/or zim/cueto/price in 2016 is dominant.
I think the Sox should inquire about adding a subsidized Papelbon to any Hamels deal. IT might sweeten the pot from the Phillies perspective and he has two years left at $13M (assuming option vests, which it should - 100 games closed). I cannot see them trading those four players for Hamels alone.
I don't know much about the rest of the Phillies relievers, but I think the Sox would want another arm back in any large package of prospects type deal. Papelbon is not ideal and only if the Phillies kick in $5M or so each year, but I can see the Sox taking on short money in the bullpen.
I don't know much about the rest of the Phillies relievers, but I think the Sox would want another arm back in any large package of prospects type deal. Papelbon is not ideal and only if the Phillies kick in $5M or so each year, but I can see the Sox taking on short money in the bullpen.
MakMan44 said:
True, and I'm not looking to add Papelbon, but I think now that Koji got paid closer money, and given that when he went south last year he was happy to be in a setup role, I think he would be fine with being a relief ace rather than a "closer".
Think about what a weapon he'd be knowing that you could use him anytime in innings 6-8, with Papelbon (who is still VERY good) slamming the door shut in the 9th.
If that could reduce what Boston sends Philly, I'm all for it.
Yeah, I don't think there is any chance adding Papelbon to the package does anything but drive the price up for Boston. I'd love to see him back in Fenway, though.
Rudy Pemberton said:
I don't know. I realize that's what CC suggested, but I'd be ok with Boston taking on the full contract of both Hamels and Papelbon if that meant giving Philly a reduced package in return.
SP: Hamels, Porcello, Miley, Buchholz, Masterson
RP: Tazawa, Mujica, Workman, Layne, Koji, Papelbon, LeftyX
That would be a terrific pitching staff - probably one of the best in baseball. Combined with what appears to be one of the best offenses in baseball, the Sox would look like one of the top 3 teams in the sport. And all without losing their key future pieces.
By the same token, it's too early to worry about anyone blocking Margot. Lars Anderson, anyone?Harry Hooper said:
"Owens/Kelly/Coyle/Cecchini for Hamels...
That has to be an enticing package even for Amaro"
I'd do that trade. I'd be over the moon if BC could pull that off. But its that very fact, that I'd be over the moon, that makes me think Amaro would balk at the offer.
That has to be an enticing package even for Amaro"
I'd do that trade. I'd be over the moon if BC could pull that off. But its that very fact, that I'd be over the moon, that makes me think Amaro would balk at the offer.
bankshot1 said:
Or we fast forward to the dead end scenario where Ruben simply decides to keep him, feeling the need to be blown away and otherwise playing the "we still view Cole Hamels as a big part of our future going forward" card.
Just saying. Beyond the surface fits and desire of the media to spice things up atm by constantly dropping Hamels' name out there, it's worth not losing sight that Philly is one of the bigger market teams with a ton of $$ coming off the books after 2015. Would anybody really be all that surprised to see Ruben in buyers mode by next winter, and full blown GFIN mode as soon as pre-2017?
I would give up Owens/Devers before Margot and they are ranked 3 and 4 on Soxprospects. I'd rather trade the 18 year old in the GCL, than Margot who may even make Portland before the draft. He hit the crap out of the ball in the 16 games in high A to end the season.
The Phillies are one of the few teams who don't need AA or above guys (unless they are 21 in AAA like Owens). Of course Amaro hates most prospects so it could be hard to sell him on the really young ones.
Anyhow - I'm more down on Hamels than most and am fine with the rentals who would be cheaper. He faced the lowest OPS+ (in the league was it?) They won't be any worse for wear next year heading into that nice free agent crop and money coming off the books with Napoli, Victorino and co.
The Phillies are one of the few teams who don't need AA or above guys (unless they are 21 in AAA like Owens). Of course Amaro hates most prospects so it could be hard to sell him on the really young ones.
Anyhow - I'm more down on Hamels than most and am fine with the rentals who would be cheaper. He faced the lowest OPS+ (in the league was it?) They won't be any worse for wear next year heading into that nice free agent crop and money coming off the books with Napoli, Victorino and co.
Would Cherington like to sign James Shields? Yes, but the exit polls at the San Diego Hyatt had him going to the Giants and returning to his native California. Would they like to trade for Johnny Cueto? Oh yes, but timing and price isn’t there right now. Cole Hamels? Of course, but the Phillies are a confused lot, he has to be bought out of his no-trade and his fit in Fenway Park and the AL East reportedly does not fascinate him.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-red-sox-bolster-starting-rotation-in-lesters-absence/
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-red-sox-bolster-starting-rotation-in-lesters-absence/
Any of the trade scenarios here work for me. The consensus goal from the beginning has been that if you can get Hamels without giving up Bogaerts or Mookie or Swihart then you do it. I'm content to sit back and see what the two teams cook up and then celebrate the arrival of Hamels.
arzjake said:
I hope this is a joke post. Ball struggled to get outs in A ball. He is nowhere even close to where Owens is.
foulkehampshire said:
True. However, he seemed to turn the corner in the minor leagues after some truly ugly pitching. He has a long way to go but seemed to justify his draft status in his later starts after another tough beginning. If he figured it out, he will rise quickly through the system.
The Astros are now said to be in on Hamels. I wonder if there isn't an opportunity for the Sox to be involved in a 3 way that gains them what they want, more than Hamels contract.
Hamels to Houston
Owens, Margot, WMB and Houston prospect to Philly
Keuchel and Castro to Boston
I know some are down on Keuchel because he didn't demonstrate his 2014 numbers in his ml days. I think his ml numbers are more a product of the ml strike zone and what he did in 2014 is more indicative of what he will do going forward, provided they don't raise the zone.
Castro is a hoped for bounce back LH who could be spun for greater return should they fix his bat. He's plus 5.5 dWAR, so he fits on the defensive side.
Hamels to Houston
Owens, Margot, WMB and Houston prospect to Philly
Keuchel and Castro to Boston
I know some are down on Keuchel because he didn't demonstrate his 2014 numbers in his ml days. I think his ml numbers are more a product of the ml strike zone and what he did in 2014 is more indicative of what he will do going forward, provided they don't raise the zone.
Castro is a hoped for bounce back LH who could be spun for greater return should they fix his bat. He's plus 5.5 dWAR, so he fits on the defensive side.
Wait, you're suggesting the Sox ship out Owens and Margot for a pitcher who's likely to be worth more to the Astros than anyone else and a catcher?67WasBest said:
Interesting idea.........and I'm assuming Hamels limited NTC wouldn't apply to Houston67WasBest said:
67WasBest said:
Unless I'm missing something, why would the Astros trade for Hamels and his contract but then give up Keuchel with all his years of control?
Keuchel has the same 2.2 fWAR projection as Porcello; has the best GB rate in the game, and Is controlled for 4 more years, He was in 2014 what we hope Owens becomes, a solid #2. Perhaps, Margot makes it an overpayment, and if so, insert replacement player as you see fit, but Keuchel is exactly the kind of pitcher that fits their needs. He's young, cost controlled and on a less than 5 year commitment. It's in their best interest to add a guy like him, to provide some financial security toward the 2016 rotation. Perhaps I obsess over those positions more than most anyone else here, but I think they have their eye on that structure as much as they do the structure of the 2015 rotation..P'tucket said:
Castro is more about 2015 need and hoped for upside. He had a down 2014 after a solid 2013, and as been good defensively. He would be a solid backup at worst, and if his game came back together, a sell high candidate when Swihart is ready..
They have 6 starters on the roster now, and while Keuchel is their ace, Hamels offers an upgrade. Castro is superfluous now as 3rd catcher, so basically, they're upgrading their #1, without any real cost to the roster or their prospect depth. The only issue is money and the reports indicate they are in so I guess they're willing to pay. They've been spending this year and with their kids starting to emerge,maybe they feel now is the time to make a splash deal to generate fan buzz? I just read about their interest in Hamels, then overlaid my interest in Keuchel, to see what others thought.Hank Scorpio said:
Steamer has Keuchel and Hamels as being pretty close to a wash next year, except that Keuchel costs 1/2 million dollars next year. Yet you want Houston to throw in Castro, and a prospect, on top of Keuchel for the chance to pay Hamels 20 million a year?
So I guess we're right back to where every discussion around Hamels ends. The cost of his contract.swingin val said:
The Astros are going to have to trade someone for him and perhaps they go into their own prospect depth. That just seems to fit their MO, so I looked at another way they might make a deal.
As is the way, I've now offered too much and too little in the course of 8 replies.
I tend to think you're closer to accurate in that the package could be too steep, for the same reason it's too steep for the Sox.
Nobody really knows what the hell Keuchel's going to do next year. It's not worth it for Houston to trade him away to find out he's the next Hamels, nor is it likely to be worth it to other GMs to give up much to find out they got the guy whose ERA+ the two preceding years was 78.
It has to be Hamels IMHO. You need a top of the rotation for Fenway and a proven ace as in Hamels. MVP in '08 WS. Id give up Owens, Swihart, plus another. Maybe Jackie Jr.? But my dilemma comes down to NOT including Bogaerts OR Betss in the trade. Plus the Sox are dealing with a complete moron in AMaro, Jr.
FinanceAdvice said:
I can't agree on Swihart. I love V 's defense but we don't know if he can hit enough to stay in the lineup, and Swihart's skill set translates into other positions (1st, after Naps goes home) if V does.
I think BC is too cold-blooded to get sucked into that deal.
The Red Sox wouldn't give Jon Lester more than $22.5M over 6 years. You think it makes sense to give up two of the four best prospects in the system for the right to pay Hamels that with only one less year of commitment?FinanceAdvice said:
Swihart, Bogaerts, Betts, and I'd argue Owens and Rodriguez shouldn't be moved for anything short of an elite, young, cost controlled pitcher with a track record of success (not a one year wonder type of thing). Basically, Sale, Gray, or GTFO.
67WasBest said:
Hamels might become a valuable property even at 5/$110 if Scherzer actually gets $215m and the Shields bidding goes above $100m. Right now, he's under contract at basically market value, and there are other good pitchers on the market: so why pay twice?
If Lester's deal and the deals the other FA SP receive are such that Hamels' contract comes to be seen as *under* market, then you'll see more interest from teams in sending prospects to Philly to take on that deal.
FinanceAdvice said:
Amaro is not a complete moron (though the Howard contract may have been the worst ever given up in baseball). He was part of 2007-2011 Phillies team that was very good. The problem is he did not move quick enough and now is saddled with an awful team he can't get out from under. His last chance is to hit a home run with Hamels. Even there, the team is really screwed.
nvalvo said:
I don't understand how you can say that Hamels is still at market value while at the same time saying that Lester's deal may make him seem under-valued. Lester's deal is set. Scherzer will almost definitely get more than Lester. Lester just got 6/155 guaranteed with the possibility of it being 7/180. How is Hamels not already below market value at 5/114 (which is what it would most likely be if the Sox traded for him)?
FinanceAdvice said:
The MVPs of the two Series following that one were Hideki Matsui and Edgar Renteria.
In other words, 2008 was a long, long time ago, and I hope like crazy that Ben & co. are not paying much attention to a two-game sample from 6 years ago--let alone subjective awards based on that sample--in evaluating Hamels as a pickup for 2015.
The question with Hammels is can the Sox absorb his salary and still get under the CBT threshold in 2016? Just eyeballing it it would seem like that would make re-signing Napoli and Porcello very difficult.
For 1B It almost locks the team into Craig, or similarly AAV player. I woul rather sign Porcello to a deal at today's market rates than lock into Cole's decline phase at past rates. This of course is leaving out the importance of GFIN in 2015
For 1B It almost locks the team into Craig, or similarly AAV player. I woul rather sign Porcello to a deal at today's market rates than lock into Cole's decline phase at past rates. This of course is leaving out the importance of GFIN in 2015
OCD SS said:
Re-signing Porcello may be difficult enough as his agent is Scott Boras. If he has a really good year, a young proven arm like Porcello's may command a high price and Boras will wait for it.
Joshv02 said:
Thanks for the info. Maybe he will be amenable to an extension then. Something short enough that he can hit FA at 30 or 31 and cash in again.
glennhoffmania said:
I agree that Lester's deal suggests that Hamels' deal is below market. But it's not hard to argue that the Cubs overpaid. If you value Lester at 6/$120-135, as Boston apparently does, Hamels' deal might be right around market value — not enough of a gap to make Amaro's price in prospects plausibly worthwhile.
But we'll know more soon. Scherzer is a year younger than Hamels, and probably a bit better. He should be worth more: but if he gets $100m more, that would really put Hamels' deal in a new light — and might make it worth expending some real value for the difference.
Maybe Shields is even more relevant. Shields is probably a bit worse than Hamels. If he gets a bigger contract than Hamels, Hamels' deal becomes more valuable.
tl;dr: I don't think one datapoint changes things too dramatically. Three, though...
I think it's not hard to argue based on $ per expected WAR and expected inflation that the $110/5 left on Hamels' deal slightly undervalues him on an absolute basis. He's had pretty much an identical career to Lester & is the exact same age, so if he were a free agent he probably gets a very similar deal as Lester. Therefore, on a relative basis he's almost definitely underpaid by a large margin.
As for the Sox' particular circumstances, #1 starter is probably the only spot on the whole roster that is not above average. If the Sox add Hamels (or a similar caliber starter) they have to be considered clear preseason frontrunners for a championship.
As for the Sox' particular circumstances, #1 starter is probably the only spot on the whole roster that is not above average. If the Sox add Hamels (or a similar caliber starter) they have to be considered clear preseason frontrunners for a championship.
This is wise thinking imo. At 2.2 fWAR, Porcello is around $15.5M and entering his prime years. 5/$80 would seem a fair offer, but likely won't get it done. If it doesn't, they could go a little higher, but I don't think they go beyond $17 for him.OCD SS said:
- Status