TigerBlood said:
Sure they can. They can give the Red Sox the 22 million anytime they agree to. Both teams would rather the money spread (Well the Red Sox would rather the money all right up front).
Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested
- Thread starter Laser Show
- Start date
- Status
Sure they can. They can give the Red Sox the 22 million anytime they agree to. Both teams would rather the money spread (Well the Red Sox would rather the money all right up front).
As of now, nothing is even in the talking stage on Cole Hamels; the Phils want to start with Betts and Swihart and Boston taking on the $100M and whatever it takes to waive the no-trade, and that isn’t happening. Nothing is going to deter Jordan Zimmermann from free agency, and the Red Sox aren’t trading three top tier kids for a year, as great as Zimmermann may be.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-similar-business-models-have-cubs-red-sox-primed-for-success/
Yah. Good luck with that PHI
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-similar-business-models-have-cubs-red-sox-primed-for-success/
Yah. Good luck with that PHI
Gammo wrote they expect Shields to go to SF, so you need to find another target of your eye's affection. Reading his piece made it seem their done, and I tend to agree. They;re not going to tie their hands now; they have no acute need, and in light of their superior offense, they shouldn't. Let the year get started because I like their chances of gaining value from their system over that of any other team, and that added value combined with their already good projections makes me think it's going to be a good year.jimbobim said:
Everyone expected Pablo to go back to SF too .. we'll see but 3 year 25 per with a 4th year vesting based on IP in years 2 and 3 would be palatable for the Sox but probably not enough for Shields ... I just don't buy they are done.... Masterson/Buch/ Kelly are all question marks to varying degrees... Shields is a cash only insurance... I like what they've done but I'd say they'd need another innings eater even if it's not ace level.. Shields fits that description to a tee.67WasBest said:
jimbobim said:
Insurance isn't something you pay $75 million for to replace a less expensive asset. The insurance for injury or bad performances by their shaky starters comes at the price of the major league minimum salaries for Owens, Rodriguez, Johnson, Barnes and Ranaudo as paid for replacements for more costly major league pitchers. They are in line to get their chances when the Sox inevitably suffer pitching casualty losses.
I think the Sox will remain interested in reasonable alternatives to improving the rotation. But giving 5 years of big money to Shields is not reasonable. Giving $175m to Scherzer is not reasonable. And trading Betts/X/Swihart for Hamels is not reasonable.
They've shown a willingness to invest in depth and upside. That's what they'll run with, until/unless something reasonably better comes along. Then they can reassess at midseason.
They've shown a willingness to invest in depth and upside. That's what they'll run with, until/unless something reasonably better comes along. Then they can reassess at midseason.
This needs some 'splaining to me, seriously.
A loser Phillies team is currently saddled with $122M in salary obligations for 2105, including Howard and Lee @ $25M/ea and Hamels @ $23.5M. That's $73M cost sunk into 3 players. That obligation figure does not include:
1 SP
A complete bullpen (less Papelbon)
SS
3B
LF
A selection of teams are rumored as willing to take more than $112M in obligations away from Amaro, $23.5/year (includes bonus). And he insists he's in the driver's seat.
Cubs
Dodgers
Padres
Giants
Rangers
Astros
Red Sox
The Cubs, Dodgers, Padres and Rangers are unconstrained by the NTC. The Giants, Astros and Red Sox need to make a side deal.
I'm not getting where Amaro has the perceived leverage here, including the balls to ask for multiple top prospects - or how any of these teams would fall for that. Refusing to deal with him leaves Philadelphia stuck with $100M+ in future Hamels obligations and not a single new prospect to start filling in the gaps.
I guess he's counting on someone to panic and overpay before the July trade deadline.
A loser Phillies team is currently saddled with $122M in salary obligations for 2105, including Howard and Lee @ $25M/ea and Hamels @ $23.5M. That's $73M cost sunk into 3 players. That obligation figure does not include:
1 SP
A complete bullpen (less Papelbon)
SS
3B
LF
A selection of teams are rumored as willing to take more than $112M in obligations away from Amaro, $23.5/year (includes bonus). And he insists he's in the driver's seat.
Cubs
Dodgers
Padres
Giants
Rangers
Astros
Red Sox
The Cubs, Dodgers, Padres and Rangers are unconstrained by the NTC. The Giants, Astros and Red Sox need to make a side deal.
I'm not getting where Amaro has the perceived leverage here, including the balls to ask for multiple top prospects - or how any of these teams would fall for that. Refusing to deal with him leaves Philadelphia stuck with $100M+ in future Hamels obligations and not a single new prospect to start filling in the gaps.
I guess he's counting on someone to panic and overpay before the July trade deadline.
Well I'd guess because he has 7 interested teams and Hamels is an excellent player who is worth his contract. If you were talking about Lee or Howard sure, but it would take a GM even worse than Amaro to salary dump a #1 starter on a good deal. Trading Hamels only makes sense for PHI if they get at least one top prospect and other potential future pieces.geoduck no quahog said:
Yes. I guess I understand. The real negotiating position begins and ends with the fact that he has something a lot of teams (7) want. So he relies on those 7 teams trying to out-bid each other. I guess what's surprising to me is his acknowledged position of strength, given that he has an incredibly shitty team that's in re-build with 10 players out of the to-be-determined final ML roster accounting for $112M.
On the other hand, I may be mis-using Cot's 2015 projections...I'm not sure how they handle young players...and I'm not even sure how relevant it is. Here's the data for contending teams (less the White Sox, whose numbers I don't understand):
(Still learning tables)...columns are:
Team : No. of Players : 2015 Commitments ($M) : Commitment/Player
[tablegrid= ] orioles 8 23.75 2.97 indians 11 62.75 5.70 royals 12 74 6.17 pirates 7 47.38 6.77 reds 11 75.5 6.86 cubs 11 81 7.36 cards 12 99.13 8.26 giants 16 138.12 8.63 brewers 10 92.48 9.25 rangers 11 112.85 10.26 mariners 9 93 10.33 ble jays 10 103.5 10.35 red sox 13 154.6 11.89 angels 10 119.86 11.99 dodgers 19 232.3 12.23 tigers 10 134.7 13.47 yankees 14 198.27 14.16 phillies 10 122.17 12.22
What that's telling me is that the Phillies are in the same ballpark/player as the Yankees, Tigers and Dodgers in terms of sunk costs per player?
On the other hand, I may be mis-using Cot's 2015 projections...I'm not sure how they handle young players...and I'm not even sure how relevant it is. Here's the data for contending teams (less the White Sox, whose numbers I don't understand):
(Still learning tables)...columns are:
Team : No. of Players : 2015 Commitments ($M) : Commitment/Player
[tablegrid= ]
What that's telling me is that the Phillies are in the same ballpark/player as the Yankees, Tigers and Dodgers in terms of sunk costs per player?
After what Lester just signed for and what presumably Scherzer will sign for, Hamels most certainly has a valuable contract. It's not a bargain by any means for which a team should give up three top prospects, but the lower AAV and the shorter years are definitely worth something.
I'm definitely barking up the wrong tree.
I'm wrong, as painful as that is to admit (although I have lots of practice, particularly at home)
I'm wrong, as painful as that is to admit (although I have lots of practice, particularly at home)
The Phillies are a big-market team (the biggest exclusive market I believe), so they aren't totally crushed by those big contracts. Right now there's nobody much out there to spend big money on anyway. They need young talent (since they can't draft worth beans) and might as well hold out for that. Teams have been known to trade top prospects for players not as good as Hamels.
Cellar-Door said:
Agreed.
Philly has shown themselves fully capable of putting out one of the game's higher payrolls, and their financial commitment outlook beyond this unavoidable 1 year punt starts looking drastically better as soon as next winter. Heck, other then a 500k buyout and $10m they'll still owe Howard, Hamels is the only other guaranteed $$$ Cots has listed for 2017.
If I'm Ruben Amaro and looking to trade away my franchise piece, i am looking to get something (cost controlled) back i view in a similar'ish type manner. Or at least a package that offers a greater degree of certainty in my desire to avoid a lengthy and overly drawn out rebuilding process (especially in this second Wild Card Era). Looking at what the Red Sox would have to offer...that starts and ends with at least one of X or Betts. A less then elite SP prospect Owens plus extras down the rankings line isn't going to cut it there.
Basically, scratch the surface and there is no great fit to be found here imo. At least if you believe Ben won't be moving one of the 2. So no big shocker to hear there isn't much going on with it.
Papelbon's Poutine said:
Besides an obvious distaste for the Howard contract, i'm not quite sold that all projects out to put them into as hopeless a situation as you seem to be implying. Washington has a strong projected hold on the division now, but it could also more or less be up for grabs by next winter. Beyond that, it's not that much of a stretch (imo) to project the possibility a few more of those guys/contracts get dumped to 2015 contenders between now and next offseason.
Didn't necessarily disagree with any of that. Like i stated, barring the huge win I personally just see Ruben drawing the "filling as many holes as possible with solid - above average players" line at something that needs to offer a higher level of certainty then non-ready lottery ticket value will. Otherwise he keeps Hamels for the time being, while potentially viewing it as saving himself a trip back into the front line starter FA pool in a year or 2.
Aside from having an awful on-field product for this year, the Phillies' situation isn't as dire as it appears. Four of those big contract players (including Hamels) could probably be moved pretty easily. The big caveat is Utley waiving his no-trade provision, but he's still a plus asset if the Phillies manage a quick turnaround.
Carlos Ruiz could be traded to the White Sox.
Chase Utley could be sent to any number of teams in the league.
Marlon Byrd, if he continues as a durable, average player (and doesn't fall off the face of the earth as projected) could be moved at the deadline.
Cole Hamels, obviously.
All of those guys could be moved for some sort of cap relief and decent prospects. The Phillies could probably get some return for guys like Ben Revere, too.
There are many ways to skin a cat. The Phillies don't need to trade Cole Hamels to stock their system. And the Red Sox don't need to trade for Hamels, either.
Carlos Ruiz could be traded to the White Sox.
Chase Utley could be sent to any number of teams in the league.
Marlon Byrd, if he continues as a durable, average player (and doesn't fall off the face of the earth as projected) could be moved at the deadline.
Cole Hamels, obviously.
All of those guys could be moved for some sort of cap relief and decent prospects. The Phillies could probably get some return for guys like Ben Revere, too.
There are many ways to skin a cat. The Phillies don't need to trade Cole Hamels to stock their system. And the Red Sox don't need to trade for Hamels, either.
The problem is that Ruben should have done this last year in the same position and chose not to. Ok, he didn't like what the returns were looking like, but why is that going to increase when all of those guys are a year closer to retirement. The Phillies are screwed for at least two more years and a Hamels trade isn't solving that problem.Devizier said:
Yes, Amaro could maybe hide behind 'he didn't like the returns last summer" excuse, which sounded bogus at the time. But its become quite obvious Ruben Amaro hasn't adjusted to the times and is completely inept.LuckyBen said:
There has been a flurry of activity this winter: high-end prospects, lottery prospects, high paid vets, cash moving around with deals, multiple teams bidding for Lester (who is similar to Hamels talent wise), catchers in demand - the baseball trade market has never been so LIQUID. When markets are liquid thats the best time to transact, somehow Amaro hasn't figured that out.
Teams/General Managers are going to feel good about their teams and lineups, like the Red Sox now feel about their rotation. Is the Sox rotation perfect? No, but I don't expect Ben to make another addition to the starting 5 unless its a trade he absolutely wins.
Ben will see how his top flight prospects and starting 5 work out for the first few months before having to go back to the trade market.
Ruben clearly missed out on getting the most value from his roster twice in the last 6 months, Gillick should get in there and straighten out that mess.
TigerBlood said:
But if Hamels won't waive the NTC, "equal prospect value" doesn't matter - the next-best deal that isn't covered by the NTC is the BATNA.
Hey, a new #Padres rumor! SD has reportedly talked about a Hamels-for-Wil Myers swap with the #Phillies: http://t.co/HK9VaFm2HC
Yes, the Phillies don't need to do anything; it doesn't matter to the franchise how many years they punt away. But they won 73 games two years ago; 73 games last year; and this year, they are projected to win 69 games right now.
Maybe Amaro has compromising pictures of someone like the owner, but one would think that unless Amaro improves his team a great deal, he won't be around when the Phillies get some salary flexibility. For that reason alone it seems like Amaro is overplaying his hand with respect to Hamels, unless he's trying to do a favor for whoever comes after him as GM.
wade boggs chicken dinner said:
For a team that lead all of MLB in attendance from 2010 - 2012, the fairly steep decline they have seen in the 2 years since (down over a million+ in 2014 from their 2008-2012 five year average, going by ESPN's stated figures: http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance) is arguably reason enough to care how many years they are willing to punt away.
Again, i just project a more likely scenario that sees Philly as buyers next winter, while likely looking to make a lot of noise between then and the start of 2017. It does seem rather questionable whether Amaro will be around to see it though. Cots has his contract being up after the upcoming season.
Its 4/$96 with a 5th year that will bring the total to $110 ($24) with a $6 buyout. Cueto will have a negotiation starting point of 6/$144 - IMHO based on hearsay and limited reality.ALiveH said:
If Amaro actually gets Myers out of this, would it be considered a win for him? Or do we all think Myers sucks now?
He'll likely get 2 - 3 OF and possibly a couple of young arms from SD. This could be considered a win for Amaro depending on the rest of the mix SD offers/sends him. Wil by himself is not enough for Amaro to declare victory. It should be his starting point.Danny_Darwin said:
I was assuming Myers would be the best piece getting sent over by SD, but I guess who knows with Preller. He might send over Ross or Cashner when all's said and done.
Should the thread title be changed to "Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, who is NOT interested in the Red Sox?"soxhop411 said:
Could not agree more. Especially as the Yankees aren't the big shoppers this time around. I love what San Diego is doing.Papelbon's Poutine said:
I still think Myers will be a stud. I'm likely biased as he's a local kid and I've met him several times. He grew up a Sox fan and was hoping they'd draft him. He's dumb as a bag of turnips, but a good kid and I think he still has the tools to become a perennial all-star. That said, the Phillies will want more than Myers for Hamels. San Diego has the pieces to make it happen.Danny_Darwin said:
MakMan44 said:
It depends on their analytics team and their opinion on what is more valuable. Having Hamels probably gives them the best rotation in the majors. At the very least it puts them in that discussion. With half of their games played in a big time pitcher's park they may be willing to bet on that advantage paying off more than the upside of Wil Myers. This would also alleviate the outfield jam they currently have, allowing them to start Venable or Maybin in center to not completely punt on their outfield defense.
I would guess that choosing to stock up on pitchers because of the effect the park has would eventually lead to diminishing returns, but maybe they've come to a different conclusion. Or perhaps they aren't that high on Myers and only picked him up because Amaro wants him as part of a package. It could also be that they picked up Myers because they like him and that they'd had an ongoing dialogue about Hamels with Amaro, who immediately asked them to include their new outfielder in any offer. There are a number of reasons why Myers name has come up in connection to Hamels. Perhaps the most likely is that it's fun to write about yet another big deal involving the Padres.
Myers would probably be the biggest piece heading to Philly in a Hamels deal, and it might not take much more to get it done. Myers is exactly the type of ready now asset that RAJ should be targeting to build a trade around, and if they can get a lower level prospect or two from the Padres on top of Myers, it would be a win for the Phils. Hamels lacks no trade clause protection against a deal to SD, so they'd be getting him for a 4/96 value. The risk during those years is OK, but you still are paying 22 mil a year for a pitcher. The surplus value just isn't that significant with Hamels, which is why getting a guy like Myers is a decent return for him.
Hamels is from SD, and would probably love pitching in that park in warm weather on a team clearly looking to compete right now.
There is a note from MLB trade rumors saying that Upton and Kemp jerseys are on sale in the Padres team shop, but none for Myers as of yet. Could be that they planned on flipping him all along...
The Padres are not on Hamels’ no-trade list and would be a match for the Phillies based on San Diego’s surplus of outfielders and Philadelphia’s lack of such throughout its system. Lawrence also noted a possibly insignificant but curious development: the Padres have Matt Kemp and Justin Upton jerseys in stock and for sale at the Petco Park team store, but jerseys for Myers are not available.
SHARERETWEETSEND VIA EMAIL
Hamels is from SD, and would probably love pitching in that park in warm weather on a team clearly looking to compete right now.
There is a note from MLB trade rumors saying that Upton and Kemp jerseys are on sale in the Padres team shop, but none for Myers as of yet. Could be that they planned on flipping him all along...
The Padres are not on Hamels’ no-trade list and would be a match for the Phillies based on San Diego’s surplus of outfielders and Philadelphia’s lack of such throughout its system. Lawrence also noted a possibly insignificant but curious development: the Padres have Matt Kemp and Justin Upton jerseys in stock and for sale at the Petco Park team store, but jerseys for Myers are not available.
SHARERETWEETSEND VIA EMAIL
I think a Myers plus for Hamels deal is a win for both teams. Myers is high upside and somewhat proven. SD has waaaay too many OFs and their best can't play CF. Hamels fronts the rotation and is cost controlled. This should happen. Dammit.
MakMan44 said:
Padres have a surplus of corner-outfielders and Myers is a logical guy to trade now. They can't reasonably justify having a Myers-Kemp-Upton OF as neither of those guys are a viable fit for CF.
Hamels would give them a beastly rotation (Hamels, Cashner, Ross, Kennedy, Morrow/Johnson) without sacrificing much offense. (Not sold on Myers - especially in Petco).
The Padres wouldn't appear to have the assets to get Hamels without giving up Myers (I don't see them moving Hedges in a Hamels deal, though a package of Renfroe and Wisler would have to intrigue the Phillies enough to have them at least take a look.).
Given that Shields and Scherzer remain on the market, it seems unlikely that the Phillies will take the Hamels market to completion. Once the top pitching targets have signed, the losers from that race will line up to see how Hamels might be had, and then things will get serious. I still expect the Red Sox to be interested depending on how much the price drops, but Hamels seems more likely to end up elsewhere.
Given that Shields and Scherzer remain on the market, it seems unlikely that the Phillies will take the Hamels market to completion. Once the top pitching targets have signed, the losers from that race will line up to see how Hamels might be had, and then things will get serious. I still expect the Red Sox to be interested depending on how much the price drops, but Hamels seems more likely to end up elsewhere.
Worth the read from Gammo
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-if-traded-will-hamels-reap-the-desired-return/
The Red Sox made it clear when they opened talks about Hamels that they will not dealMookie Betts, who is clearly a regular and he who wills the vital role of leadoff hitter (check Bill James’ 2015 projection on Betts, over .400 OBP, 500 slug, just 22 years old); in 37 games, Betts’ WAR was 2.1, in 175 Myers’ was 0.9. They will also not trade catcher Blake Swihart. Now, Charlie Manuel saw more games in the Boston system than any other team and believes Garin Cecchini is a rising star and loves several others, but while Manuel is one of the best evaluators—particularly of hitters—in the game, his voice is not heard by Amaro. Nor is the voice of Pat Gillick, who would look at this list of the nine big trades for “ace” pitchers in the last seven years, thought out building to 2017 and gone immediately to outfielder Manuel Margot, third baseman Rafael Devers or shortstopJavier Guerra. Get one, the way the Cubs got Addison Russell, two pitchers in theAnthony Ranaudo generation and use the $100M to build internationally.
http://www.gammonsdaily.com/peter-gammons-if-traded-will-hamels-reap-the-desired-return/
The Red Sox made it clear when they opened talks about Hamels that they will not dealMookie Betts, who is clearly a regular and he who wills the vital role of leadoff hitter (check Bill James’ 2015 projection on Betts, over .400 OBP, 500 slug, just 22 years old); in 37 games, Betts’ WAR was 2.1, in 175 Myers’ was 0.9. They will also not trade catcher Blake Swihart. Now, Charlie Manuel saw more games in the Boston system than any other team and believes Garin Cecchini is a rising star and loves several others, but while Manuel is one of the best evaluators—particularly of hitters—in the game, his voice is not heard by Amaro. Nor is the voice of Pat Gillick, who would look at this list of the nine big trades for “ace” pitchers in the last seven years, thought out building to 2017 and gone immediately to outfielder Manuel Margot, third baseman Rafael Devers or shortstopJavier Guerra. Get one, the way the Cubs got Addison Russell, two pitchers in theAnthony Ranaudo generation and use the $100M to build internationally.
Surprised they haven't handed the reins back to Gillick. I'd be perfectly comfortable with something like Devers, Ranaudo and Barnes or similar.
bosockboy said:
This type of package is probably what it would take to get it done. They might have to include Owens instead of Raunado, but I'd do that if they could include Cecchini or Marrero instead of Devers. The Phillies will insist on at least one high upside blue chip fellow, and Devers might have the best potential of any prospect they've got, though he's further away and more risky. Those players are the types that Gillick has made his bones with, and it wouldn't surprise me if the package they ask for from Boston was heavier on guys like Devers or Guerra vs. the usual suspects that we've heard floated. I still think once Scherzer and Shields land that the Phillies will have the market they seek to address trades seriously, so speculation at this point is probably premature, but what else can we talk about?
jasvlm said:
We could talk about whether we'd rather have Cliff Lee. Bigger dollars for fewer years, might mean going over the tax threshold for a second year. Lee is clearly a stud but he has to prove himself healthy et cetera and blah blah blah.
Rasputin said:
Sox need to deny any interest in Lee right up until they decide getting Hamels is not going to happen. The need for salary relief adds to the pressure for Amaro to actually move Hamels.
I'm not sure any team should have interest in Lee until he proves himself healthy. IF healthy (and that is a big word here), I truly prefer Lee's 2 year, 52.5 mil contract for 2015-2016 to Hamels' 5/120 for a few reasons. The shorter term obviously mitigates a bit of the risk involved in any long term pitching contract with guys over 30, and Lee has been just as valuable over the past 3 seasons (11.6 vs. 12.3 WAR for Hamels, with Lee missing at least half of 2014), with higher peak seasons than Hamels. Both guys, when healthy, are elite level starters, and both would be #1 starters on this Red Sox team. The Red Sox could probably get the Phillies to "give" them Lee (for a non prospect package) if and when Hamels gets moved elsewhere. They'd be happy to have the salary relief, but I don't see BC (or any GM) being willing to gamble on 52.5 mil over 2 seasons (37.5 if you buy out the 2016 option) unless he were sure Lee was healthy. He certainly is an interesting piece, however.Harry Hooper said:
Plus, he took less money and years to go back to Philly, stiffing the Yankees, because his kid had developed a rare disease and they had gotten good care for him when he played there the first time.
Sounds really doubtful.
Sounds really doubtful.
Thanks for the clarification.
Taking less to go to Philly, 20 team no trade, coming off injury...he'd have to start talking about wanting a ring before he retires.
Taking less to go to Philly, 20 team no trade, coming off injury...he'd have to start talking about wanting a ring before he retires.
jasvlm said:
I disagree with you preferring Lee's contract over Hamels. Hamels is only 31, has basically never been hurt, and only carries a commitment through his age 35 season even if his option is picked up. His contract is easily at fair market value already and will likely look like a bargain assuming that player salaries continue to escalate. In this situation, the longer term commitment is a positive feature of the contract, not a negative. It allows the Red Sox more-than-fair cost certainty on an elite player over multiple seasons with comparatively little risk.
In contrast, you propose buying injured Cliff Lee's age 36 (and perhaps age 37) season(s) at even more money per year. Even if he works out, you need to go find another top pitcher in a year or two. Besides, the Phillies would be crazy to trade Lee now. He is a lottery ticket that will net them a much greater return at the trade deadline. If he is healthy, he will be specifically attractive to a playoff contender that does not want to make a long-term commitment.
I generally agree with that, which is why Hamels will command multiple prospects while Lee is likely something close to a salary dump (at least for now; if they keep him and he shows he's healthy he likely has value at the deadline).
What Lee does is buy you time, if you feel like Owens (or whoever) can be the ace you hope he turns out to be then you might like Lee as a sort of placeholder. Not sure if it's wise to try to project something like that, that's usually a safer bet with position players, and even then we saw how last year's attempt at signing a 1-year placeholder (AJP) worked out.
What Lee does is buy you time, if you feel like Owens (or whoever) can be the ace you hope he turns out to be then you might like Lee as a sort of placeholder. Not sure if it's wise to try to project something like that, that's usually a safer bet with position players, and even then we saw how last year's attempt at signing a 1-year placeholder (AJP) worked out.
- Status