Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested

[Hee Sox Choi]

Question:  How many more wins does Hamels get us over our 5th starter?  Steamer projects Hamels for 2.5 WAR and a 3.47ERA/3.45FIP and Joe Kelly for 1.1 WAR and a 4.65 ERA/4.39FIP (I really hope he's better than a 4.65 ERA!). I realize Hamels will give us more innings than Kelly.  
 
But realistically, how many WINS will the Red Sox gain by starting Hamels over Joe Kelly (or Masterson I suppose)?

 

[snowmanny]

Question:  How many more wins does Hamels get us over our 5th starter?  Steamer projects Hamels for 2.5 WAR and a 3.47ERA/3.45FIP and Joe Kelly for 1.1 WAR and a 4.65 ERA/4.39FIP (I really hope he's better than a 4.65 ERA!). I realize Hamels will give us more innings than Kelly.  
 
But realistically, how many WINS will the Red Sox gain by starting Hamels over Joe Kelly (or Masterson I suppose)?

How is it 2.5 WAR? BRef has Hamels at 28 WAR over the past five years, including 6.6 last year.  
Realistically I think the answer is four or five, since it is likely that Masterson or Buchholz or Kelly is not very good.

 

[glennhoffmania]

How is it 2.5 WAR? BRef has Hamels at 28 WAR over the past five years, including 6.6 last year.  
Realistically I think the answer is four or five, since it is likely that Masterson or Buchholz or Kelly is not very good.

 
His fWAR over the last 5 years is 20.4, and 3.8 last year.  Like Hee Sox said, Steamer projects 2.5 for 2015.  Last year his ERA for a little more than half a run lower than his FIP and xFIP, and he had a pretty high strand rate.  Steamer projects him to have an ERA closer to his FIP and a lower strand rate in 2015.  You can disagree with the projections but they don't seem unreasonable.

 

[phenweigh]

I think the analysis needs to take into consideration that it's likely that Hamels will be taking some starts away from Workman/Ranaudo/Wright/etc (take your pick for who will be the 6th or 7th starters) as well as from Kelly.  How many is anybody's guess, but I think many agree that Kelly and Buchholz are very likely to not take all their starts.  Although a healthy Masterson may be a workhorse, I doubt it's likely.  Then add in something for the likelihood that Cole means less stress on the bullpen.  4 or 5 more wins seems like a reasonable estimate to me.

 

[jasvlm]

 
 
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 think in almost all cases, I prefer a pitcher on a short term contract, even if those contract terms are significant.  I only advocate for trying to trade for Lee IF he is viewed as healthy by the front office, and ONLY in that scenario do I prefer his acquisition to Hamels.  He'll cost less in terms of talent (if any at all), and he'll be pitching on a 2 year, 52 mil contract.  That's not chump change, but it is hard to imagine the franchise being buried under the dead money on a deal that only lasts 2 seasons.  I almost always want to limit the commitment to pitchers in terms of length of contract, even if it means paying more on average value.  I'd rather pay Scherzer, for example, 5/150 than pay him 7/180, which is what he'll end up getting. 

 

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

 
I think in almost all cases, I prefer a pitcher on a short term contract, even if those contract terms are significant.  I only advocate for trying to trade for Lee IF he is viewed as healthy by the front office, and ONLY in that scenario do I prefer his acquisition to Hamels.  He'll cost less in terms of talent (if any at all), and he'll be pitching on a 2 year, 52 mil contract.  That's not chump change, but it is hard to imagine the franchise being buried under the dead money on a deal that only lasts 2 seasons.  I almost always want to limit the commitment to pitchers in terms of length of contract, even if it means paying more on average value.  I'd rather pay Scherzer, for example, 5/150 than pay him 7/180, which is what he'll end up getting. 

 
I agree on preferring Scherzer for 5 years instead of 7, but your aversion to long-term contracts is overly simplistic. An ace pitcher with a low risk profile on a fair market or undermarket deal is an asset you want locked in for the extra year or two, especially given that Hamels is not THAT old. It is extremely difficult to acquire an ace-level pitcher (other than developing them) without guaranteeing them years well past their 35th birthday. Given that you are going to have to project someone 4+ years out, Hamels is as good a bet as anyone to be worth it. I'd much rather have him than a guy already past his 35th birthday, even on a shorter term deal. 

 

[jasvlm]

 
I agree on preferring Scherzer for 5 years instead of 7, but your aversion to long-term contracts is overly simplistic. An ace pitcher with a low risk profile on a fair market or undermarket deal is an asset you want locked in for the extra year or two, especially given that Hamels is not THAT old. It is extremely difficult to acquire an ace-level pitcher (other than developing them) without guaranteeing them years well past their 35th birthday. Given that you are going to have to project someone 4+ years out, Hamels is as good a bet as anyone to be worth it. I'd much rather have him than a guy already past his 35th birthday, even on a shorter term deal. 

Who are these "lower risk profile" starters?  I don't know that I'd characterize any pitcher over 30 as a low risk.  If they've proven themselves capable at the major league level-capable enough to be considered an ace-they've already got a ton of mileage on their arms.  Given what we've seen from the very best of that group of players (guys like Cliff Lee, Halladay, Sabathia come to mind), ANY long term deal that weds the team to such a pitcher is almost certainly going to end up with the team on the hook for big money when there is little actual value coming back-mainly because of an injury of some kind.  I'm not arguing that Hamels isn't a great pitcher-he is.  I am also not arguing that I don't believe Hamels contract has surplus value-I think he'll likely outperform the 22 mil per he's owned, maybe as a 4 win player (28 mil or so of value)-in the short term.  However, since it will take 5 years of a contract length to secure his services, I still prefer the healthy Lee (I wouldn't trade for him unless the GM was certain he was sound from this most recent elbow concern) on 2/52 vs. Hamels for 5/120.  Less risk, especially with pitchers, is the best course of action.  Shorter contract terms mean less risk. I think the Red Sox are heading in this direction, or they would have pushed to another year for Lester to get him to come back.  I believe their offer to him was further than they'll go with any other starter, including Scherzer.  

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Ok, jasvlm, I get your overall point, but you're not using the right contract numbers.  Lee is owed either 1/$37.5 or 2/$52.5M.  Hamels is owed 4/$23.5M (or $94M total) plus either a vesting $24M option, a $20M team option, or a $6M team buy-out.  The maximum exposure there is 5 years, $108M.

 

[jasvlm]

Ok, jasvlm, I get your overall point, but you're not using the right contract numbers.  Lee is owed either 1/$37.5 or 2/$52.5M.  Hamels is owed 4/$23.5M (or $94M total) plus either a vesting $24M option, a $20M team option, or a $6M team buy-out.  The maximum exposure there is 5 years, $108M.

Because of the no trade, it has been widely reported that Hamels would want the option (the 20 mil at least, but perhaps the 24) picked up in order to waive the no trade, and I think the Sox would have to be foolish to allow that to hold up the deal.  So, the real value is 94 plus at least 20, or 5/114, and perhaps more like 5/118.  I reported the contract terms for Lee as 2/52 and for Hamels at 5/120.  They are close to the likely realities.

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

This feels like the Drew thread last year. What else is there to possibly say at this point?

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Because of the no trade, it has been widely reported that Hamels would want the option (the 20 mil at least, but perhaps the 24) picked up in order to waive the no trade, and I think the Sox would have to be foolish to allow that to hold up the deal.  So, the real value is 94 plus at least 20, or 5/114, and perhaps more like 5/118.  I reported the contract terms for Lee as 2/52 and for Hamels at 5/120.  They are close to the likely realities.

Yes my fault. Bad math. It's $118 max. A little less but not worth pointing out. My bad.

 

[Rasputin]

This feels like the Drew thread last year. What else is there to possibly say at this point?

I hope our third baseman doesn't break.

 

[Darnell's Son]

I hope our third baseman doesn't break.

Well, this time they can slide Hanley to third instead of X.

 

[mauf]

Because of the no trade, it has been widely reported that Hamels would want the option (the 20 mil at least, but perhaps the 24) picked up in order to waive the no trade, and I think the Sox would have to be foolish to allow that to hold up the deal.  So, the real value is 94 plus at least 20, or 5/114, and perhaps more like 5/118.  I reported the contract terms for Lee as 2/52 and for Hamels at 5/120.  They are close to the likely realities.

Why would it be "foolish" to nix a trade over committing to pay $20-24mm for a pitcher's age 35 season before he has begun his age 31 season? Seems to me that's likely to be an overpay (which is why Hamels wants the option picked up, rather than erased), and could be the difference between deciding a deal is tough but fair and deciding the price is too steep.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

It's exceedingly unlikely the Sox are approaching negotiations with the Phillies with thought that they can avoid picking up the full $24 million option.  The negotiations are almost certainly based on the implicit or explicit assumption between the GMs that Amaro is trading the full contract value.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Just tossing this in here, because I haven't seen it addressed (sorry if I missed it), but .... why is there this presumption that Hamels will approve a deal to a team on his no-trade list IF that team picks up the option year?
 
If I'm Hamels, and I've seen what Lester got, what Scherzer will get and that Shields will get something in the neighborhood of my remaining contract, I'm going to demand all I can get.
 
If it's the Red Sox, and it's fairly well established (if not confirmed) that the Red Sox offered 6/135 ... well, I'm going to say, "You know what? That's what I want. Give me the deal you were going to give Lester and I'll agree to the trade."
 
This is his last big contract, and he's put at least some teams on his no-trade list in order to exact financial leverage. Particularly to a team such as the Red Sox, who are perceived to be lacking exactly what Hamels is ... a front-of-the-rotation starter.
 
If Boston doesn't want to pay, especially in addition to the prospects it will have to give up in trade, then fine. I got no-trade protection so that I can call the shots. The worst that happens is that I stay in Philadelphia. Or everyone moves on and I go back home to San Diego.
 
I'm not suggesting that the Red Sox should rip up his current deal and give him what they offered Lester. In their place, I wouldn't. Just that this isn't necessarily going to be as simple a transaction as has been presumed.

 

[NoXInNixon]

Hamels has trade value because and only because his current contract is less than what he would receive if he were a free agent this offseason. If he demanded a new contract equivalent to Lester's, he would have zero trade value and thus the Red Sox would give up nothing of value to the Phillies. Which means the Phillies wouldn't trade him.
 
Demanding a Lester deal is equivalent to simply refusing to waive the no-trade.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Hamels has trade value because and only because his current contract is less than what he would receive if he were a free agent this offseason. If he demanded a new contract equivalent to Lester's, he would have zero trade value and thus the Red Sox would give up nothing of value to the Phillies. Which means the Phillies wouldn't trade him.
 
Demanding a Lester deal is equivalent to simply refusing to waive the no-trade.

 
You're assuming the Red Sox are the only buyers in this market. If the Angels or Tigers, for instance, were willing to do a Lester deal for Hamels if the Red Sox wouldn't, it's a false presumption to say that they'd give up nothing of value to the Phillies.
 
It may seem like that's how it would work on a spreadsheet, but that's not necessarily how these things work out in baseball transactions

 

[The Boomer]

Just tossing this in here, because I haven't seen it addressed (sorry if I missed it), but .... why is there this presumption that Hamels will approve a deal to a team on his no-trade list IF that team picks up the option year?
 
If I'm Hamels, and I've seen what Lester got, what Scherzer will get and that Shields will get something in the neighborhood of my remaining contract, I'm going to demand all I can get.
 
If it's the Red Sox, and it's fairly well established (if not confirmed) that the Red Sox offered 6/135 ... well, I'm going to say, "You know what? That's what I want. Give me the deal you were going to give Lester and I'll agree to the trade."
 
This is his last big contract, and he's put at least some teams on his no-trade list in order to exact financial leverage. Particularly to a team such as the Red Sox, who are perceived to be lacking exactly what Hamels is ... a front-of-the-rotation starter.
 
If Boston doesn't want to pay, especially in addition to the prospects it will have to give up in trade, then fine. I got no-trade protection so that I can call the shots. The worst that happens is that I stay in Philadelphia. Or everyone moves on and I go back home to San Diego.
 
I'm not suggesting that the Red Sox should rip up his current deal and give him what they offered Lester. In their place, I wouldn't. Just that this isn't necessarily going to be as simple a transaction as has been presumed.

 
One other factor that makes such a salary commitment unrealistic is that, depending on arbitration settlements, they have (short term at least) replaced the salaries  going out the door with bigger contracts.  Masterson, Porcello and Miley will make a lot more combined than Cespedes, DLR and Webster.  Won't Masterson, Porcello and Miley together make more this season than Lester alone?  The $22 million or so that Masterson and Porcello make combined this year will either mostly go to extend Porcello through his prime or to let both pitchers walk while they enter the 2015 free agent sweepstakes for Zimmerman, Cueto or whoever makes it to the market.  Hamels only seems to make sense if the sacrifice in prospects is reasonable and, despite the luxury tax hit this year, they can get back under that limit again next season by jettisoning Buccholz, Porcello or both.

 

[radsoxfan]

 
If I'm Hamels, and I've seen what Lester got, what Scherzer will get and that Shields will get something in the neighborhood of my remaining contract, I'm going to demand all I can get.
 
If it's the Red Sox, and it's fairly well established (if not confirmed) that the Red Sox offered 6/135 ... well, I'm going to say, "You know what? That's what I want. Give me the deal you were going to give Lester and I'll agree to the trade."
 
 

 
Is there any precedent for players demanding a brand new contract to waive a no trade clause?  Picking up an option year I'm sure has happened, but off the top of my head, I've never heard of such a demand. 
 
There is a first time for everything I guess…. (or I'm blanking and it's happened before)

 

[judyb]

You're assuming the Red Sox are the only buyers in this market. If the Angels or Tigers, for instance, were willing to do a Lester deal for Hamels if the Red Sox wouldn't, it's a false presumption to say that they'd give up nothing of value to the Phillies.
 
It may seem like that's how it would work on a spreadsheet, but that's not necessarily how these things work out in baseball transactions

Sure, but if he blocks a trade to a team on his no trade list that's willing to guarantee the option, he does still risk getting traded to a team that's not on his list or, if he would prefer to be traded, not being traded at all.

 

[snowmanny]

 
Is there any precedent for players demanding a brand new contract to waive a no trade clause?
 Picking up an option year I'm sure has happened, but off the top of my head, I've never heard of such a demand. 
 

There is a first time for everything I guess. (or I'm blanking and it's happened before)

Isn't that what Schilling did?

 

[radsoxfan]

Isn't that what Schilling did?

 
I think he agreed to an extension, I don't believe they changed his current contract (again, maybe I'm not remembering the details).  He also only had 1 year left on his contract at the time. But either way, that's a good example. Pretty close to the same thing I suppose.
 
Maybe Hamels will use the no-trade in a similar way and demand an extension to get into Lester territory.   Of course, if that happens, there goes any decent prospect return the Phillies can expect. And in that case, they won't trade him. 

 

[snowmanny]

Yes, that's how I remember it as well. If nothing else, Hamels' ability to demand some financial consideration from the Red Sox complicates any theoretical trade. As you point out, the prospect package Boston would offer the Phillies for Hamels at 4/88 is different than the one they offer for Hamels at 5/110 is different than the one they offer for Hamels at 6/135.

 

[NoXInNixon]

 
You're assuming the Red Sox are the only buyers in this market. If the Angels or Tigers, for instance, were willing to do a Lester deal for Hamels if the Red Sox wouldn't, it's a false presumption to say that they'd give up nothing of value to the Phillies.
 
It may seem like that's how it would work on a spreadsheet, but that's not necessarily how these things work out in baseball transactions

It's precisely because there are teams Hamels can't block a trade to that he has no leverage against the Red Sox. As his demands of the Red Sox go up, the return to the Phillies goes down. Very shortly it reaches the limit where they can get a better package from another team he can't block a trade to.

 

[86spike]

This feels like the Drew thread last year. What else is there to possibly say at this point?

Pitchers and Catchers in 50 days!

 

[glennhoffmania]

Latest Hamels update:
 

 
Fresh off a trio of bold impact moves to rework their entire outfield and the middle of their lineup, the aggressive Padres are still said to be alive for another potential blockbuster, this one involving Philly's ace left-hander Cole Hamels -- although, others teams also are in the mix, and ultimately it isn't known exactly how likely San Diego is to land Hamels, a hometown hero from San Diego.
 
But while nothing appears imminent, or even necessarily on the front burner, one executive with another team suggested the Padres may be more likely than some others to land Hamels, based on their decent prospect list and obvious resolve to contend in 2015.
 

 

The more likely scenario would have San Diego sending a prospect package to Philly. The Padres have managed to keep most of their highest rated prospects even after all their many trades, with the top trio of outfielder Hunter Renfroe, pitcher Matt Wisler and catcher Austin Hedges seemingly on everyone's wish list.
 

 

The Padres are one of only eight teams to which he can be traded without his consent, and he's believed to be interested in going to a contender, anyway. The longer the winter goes, the more the Padres look like a contender.
 

 

[soxhop411]

PSTonCSN ‏@PSTonCSN  2h2 hours ago
 
.@JSalisburyCSN on Hamels: Phils in 'stare downs' with 4 teams. See who they are: http://ow.ly/Hl17i  #PhilliesTalk
 
Robert Murray ‏@RobertMurrayDR  2h2 hours ago
 
THe #Phillies are in a 'stare down' with the #RedSox, #Padres, #Rangers, and #STLCards regarding Cole Hamels, according to @JSalisburyCSN.
 

 

[bosockboy]

I imagine the only way we win that staredown is coughing up Betts or Swihart. Not happening.

 

[Rasputin]

I imagine the only way we win that staredown is coughing up Betts or Swihart. Not happening.

 
Coughing up Betts or Swihart would be losing the staredown, not winning it. When you win a staredown, the other guy caves.

 

[Carroll Hardy]

But eventually, either Vazquez or Swihart will likely be "coughed up" to somebody. At that point, the one not designated the next Jason Varitek will be the next Scott Hattieburg. And the yield may be much less than Cole Hamels.

 

[Rasputin]

But eventually, either Vazquez or Swihart will likely be "coughed up" to somebody. At that point, the one not designated the next Jason Varitek will be the next Scott Hattieburg. And the yield may be much less than Cole Hamels.

 
Or we could keep them both and have depth at what is arguably the most important position on the field.

 

[flymrfreakjar]

"Of the four teams most connected to Hamels, the Red Sox might be most in the background. They added three pitchers — Wade Miley, Rick Porcello and Justin Masterson — last month and seem content to see how that trio improves their fortunes before jumping in full force on Hamels or maybe Lee. The Phils would still love to add a top catching prospect to the rebuild. They are high on Boston’s Blake Swihart."

 
CSN Philly

 

[Scoots McBoots]

Your browser does not support iframes.

FYI - this is set to autoplay.

 

[PedroSpecialK]

FYI - this is set to autoplay.

 
Yeah yikes - CSN Philly one-upping NESN's tabloid-esque ad content

 

[soxhop411]

Rob Bradford ‏@bradfo  4m4 minutes ago
 
Don’t count on Hamels coming to Sox (yet). MLB source suggests Phillies currently 'unrealistic in their expectations' http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/01/15/dont-count-on-cole-hamels-coming-to-red-sox-yet/ …
 
 
I am shocked..... SHOCKED!''
 

 
 
Remember a few years ago when Arizona was floating out Justin Upton in the offseason? He was the then-23-year-old, super-talented outfielder who had already put in two full seasons of star-level production.
 
Upton also had just signed a six-year extension for $51.25 million, making him a reasonable investment all the way through the outfielder’s 2015 season (when he would be 28 years old).
No deal was done, with then-Diamondbacks general manager Kevin Towers asking for three significant players in return.
Moral of that story: you never know unless you ask. 
It sure seems like this is the way things are trending in regards to the Phillies’ approach to trading Cole Hamels.
According to a source familiar with the Phillies’ thinking on the matter, Philadelphia GM Ruben Amaro and his club have been “unrealistic in their expectations” in regard to a return on Hamels.
The Red Sox are still are keeping an eye on Hamels’ availability, with a report from CSN Philly stating that the Rangers, Cardinals, Padres and Red Sox are the “primary suitors” for the lefty.
It seems clear the Phillies won’t deal Hamels unless they get the haul they’re looking for, with the pitcher owed $96 million over the next four seasons. If the Red Sox make a move, Hamels would surely ask them to exercise the fifth year option — pushing the deal up to $110 million — since the Sox are on his no-trade list.
Amaro has to hit a home run on this deal, and he knows it. That’s why the asking price. But the caveat to waiting things out is any risk the Phillies run in regards to an injury to the 31-year-old.
Hamels has been sturdy, making at least 30 starts in each of the last seven seasons, but as the Phillies learned in the Cliff Lee situation, such runs can easily come to an abrupt halt.
The Red Sox are also in a position where they can let a more palatable deal come to them, with a collection starters the organization feels comfortable heading into spring training with. There are also a myriad of starters with one year left on their current deals, making the acquisition of such a frontline starter potentially more reasonable closer to the non-waiver trade deadline.

 

[MakMan44]

I don't really want Hamels to get hurt, but I'm also looking forward to the articles that will be written if Amaro doesn't trade him and he gets injured.

 

[TigerBlood]

I don't really want Hamels to get hurt, but I'm also looking forward to the articles that will be written if Amaro doesn't trade him and he gets injured.

 
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]What more can be written? Anyone with a baseball blog has acknowledged Amaro's incompetence already. If it takes an injury to Hamels for the rest of the front office to recognize that Amaro needs to go, after everything else he's done that has been so obviously detrimental to Philadelphia's team, then I question the sanity of the whole front office/ownership. The irony of Amaro's dismissal being caused by something as unrelated to his own agency/actions as a player injury would be unfathomable.[/SIZE]

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

 
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]What more can be written? Anyone with a baseball blog has acknowledged Amaro's incompetence already. If it takes an injury to Hamels for the rest of the front office to recognize that Amaro needs to go, after everything else he's done that has been so obviously detrimental to Philadelphia's team, then I question the sanity of the whole front office/ownership. The irony of Amaro's dismissal being caused by something as unrelated to his own agency/actions as a player injury would be unfathomable.[/SIZE]

 
This is unduly harsh, even acknowledging Amaro's reported incompetence. The Phillies' recent trades (Rollins, Byrd) have been acknowledged as fairly solid. The main problem isn't that Amaro is stupid, it's that the Phillies have left somebody in charge of making the decision whose primary focus is saving his job. This is the trade that could get him fired. He's trying to get a package where all the "experts" will say he "won", and that means getting specific names. He doesn't have the liberated mindset of a John Hart in Atlanta, or a Billy Beane to make the trade regardless of whether people say he won it, as long as he thinks it's great for the organization. 
 
I don't think Hamels gets moved this winter, as long as it's Amaro making the call. If he gets injured, at least Amaro can say he didn't get an offer in line with the value of his player, GMs say this all the time. At the trade deadline, maybe.

 

[Fireball Fred]

Unless Philly's trying to cut payroll, there's no real reason to trade Hamels now for anything but a top-notch young player. Sure, he could get injured, but there's no particular reason to expect it, and prospects get hurt too - or fail to pan out. Amaro can certainly be blamed for taking so long to decide to rebuild, but not for taking the rebuilding process seriously by pursuing solid young talent.

 

[MakMan44]

Unless Philly's trying to cut payroll, there's no real reason to trade Hamels now for anything but a top-notch young player. Sure, he could get injured, but there's no particular reason to expect it, and prospects get hurt too - or fail to pan out. Amaro can certainly be blamed for taking so long to decide to rebuild, but not for taking the rebuilding process seriously by pursuing solid young talent.

I think you're overestimating how much value Hamels really has. Since Amaro doesn't want to pay ANY of Hamels contract, you're asking for a Swihart type prospect for a market value priced pitcher. It just doesn't make sense for a team to give up that much without getting some of the contract paid for. 
 
EDIT: This actually doesn't really address your point, I just wanted to point out that why I think Amaro is asking for too much. 

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Agree with FF.  Why trade Hamels unless it's to dump salary or get a frontline prospect or two?  There's no real evidence that Philly needs to reduce payroll, so the only way that trading Hamels makes sense is if the return is likely to provide key building blocks to the next good Philly team.  He's not Ryan Howard; he's a very good player on a slightly below market value contract.  (I disagree that he's paid at market rates, in terms of annual salary or the deal's length.)
 
Scherzer and Shields are still unsigned.  Amaro would be wise to wait until they both sign to see if the teams that miss out will be willing to offer more at that point to get Hamels.  If he still holds out for Betts/Swihart/Owens, you hang up.  But maybe the Sox sweeten the deal from, say, Owens and drek to Owens and Devers, and Amaro then says yes. 
 
Shooting for the moon now doesn't mean Amaro can't and won't eventually lower his demands and deal Hamels, as he has already done this offseason with Rollins, Byrd and Bastardo.  And cut a better deal then than he can right now.

 

[MakMan44]

He's making $22.5 million next season. I can agree about the deals length, but that price is right around what he would get in AAV on the open market. 
 
EDIT: Even if you want to argue that he'd actually get what Lester got, so about 3 million more in AAV, that gap isn't worth a Swihart or Betts. His contract needs to be paid down for any team to bite on that prospect price and that's where I think Amaro is making his big mistake. 

 

[EricFeczko]

Unless Philly's trying to cut payroll, there's no real reason to trade Hamels now for anything but a top-notch young player. Sure, he could get injured, but there's no particular reason to expect it, and prospects get hurt too - or fail to pan out. Amaro can certainly be blamed for taking so long to decide to rebuild, but not for taking the rebuilding process seriously by pursuing solid young talent.

The reason to trade Hamels now is that future-Hamels may not be current-Hamels when the rebuild is completed. The longer the phillies wait, the fewer years Hamels will remain under contract, and Hamels will drift further from his peak. Subsequently, Hamels will be less valued by other teams. To think that asking prices will increase as a function of time requires the assumption that other teams are irrational when making roster decisions, or the assumption that starting LH pitchers will experience a boom in value relative to other players.

It is absolutely true that you don't want to undersell an excellent player on a reasonable salary. However, the potential to get a valuable piece for the rebuilt team diminshes the longer one waits. As Snoop alludes to upthread, part of the problem here is that Amaro may care more about keeping his job in 2015 than he is about making the phillies competitive in 2017.
 
The other point is that there is some value to fielding a .500 team from the perspective of maxmizing revenue (e.g. from seats/TV/etc). I haven't looked, but it is possible that the high asking price for hamels derives, in part, from the potential loss of revenue post-trade. From a roster perspective, trading Hamels for prospects is a no-brainer. From a cost-benefit perspective, the phillies may be able to maintain greater revenues than expenses by not trading him.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

 
PSTonCSN ‏@PSTonCSN  2h2 hours ago
 
.@JSalisburyCSN on Hamels: Phils in 'stare downs' with 4 teams. See who they are: http://ow.ly/Hl17i  #PhilliesTalk
 
Robert Murray ‏@RobertMurrayDR  2h2 hours ago
 
THe #Phillies are in a 'stare down' with the #RedSox, #Padres, #Rangers, and #STLCards regarding Cole Hamels, according to @JSalisburyCSN.
 
 
 

 
Based on that list, I think we can conclude that when Hamels gets traded later this offseason, it won't be to the Red Sox. The other three don't require Hamels's consent, for starters.

 

[moondog80]

 
Scherzer and Shields are still unsigned.  Amaro would be wise to wait until they both sign to see if the teams that miss out will be willing to offer more at that point to get Hamels.  If he still holds out for Betts/Swihart/Owens, you hang up.  But maybe the Sox sweeten the deal from, say, Owens and drek to Owens and Devers, and Amaro then says yes. 
 

 
 
Yep, wait until no more Scherzer/Shields.  Until then, Amaro would be foolish not to ask for Swihart/Betts.  Which is not to say the Sox should do it, but from Philly's standpoint, it only takes one team to cave.  Scott Boras waited until late January but eventually he found a team willing to give 9 years to Prince Fielder.

 

[arzjake]

Any word on JZimmerman via trade or has that ship sailed?

 

[BeantownIdaho]

And once again, pay Sherzer and keep the kids.

 

[Luis Taint]

And once again, pay Sherzer and keep the kids.

I am on this train, as long as it doesnt go beyond 6 years.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

 
 
Yep, wait until no more Scherzer/Shields.  Until then, Amaro would be foolish not to ask for Swihart/Betts.  Which is not to say the Sox should do it, but from Philly's standpoint, it only takes one team to cave.  Scott Boras waited until late January but eventually he found a team willing to give 9 years to Prince Fielder.

Exactly. And for the record, I would not want the Sox to give up Owens/Devers. But some team may well give up that kind of value.