Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested

[PrometheusWakefield]

Am I the only one here who would give up Swihart for Hamels? I would even throw in 2 prospects to get that done, providing that they are two prospects I have never heard of. Swihart is expendable and at a certain point you've got to cash in some chips.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Am I the only one here who would give up Swihart for Hamels? I would even throw in 2 prospects to get that done, providing that they are two prospects I have never heard of. Swihart is expendable and at a certain point you've got to cash in some chips.

I would. I believe in Vazquez, and I think adding Hamels makes the Red Sox the division favorite for the next few years.
 
Edit: Grammar

 

[MakMan44]

I would probably do it, if Amaro covered some of the salary. 

 

[glennhoffmania]

Let's say you could get Shields for about what Hamels will cost when you factor in picking up the option or whatever it would take for Hamels to agree to the trade.  Is Hamels better than Shields plus Swihart and two lesser prospects?  I confidently would say no.

 

[Average Reds]

Let's say you could get Shields for about what Hamels will cost when you factor in picking up the option or whatever it would take for Hamels to agree to the trade.  Is Hamels better than Shields plus Swihart and two lesser prospects?  I confidently would say no.

 
Given that Hamels is two years younger and appears to be a better pitcher, the answer may very well be yes.

 

[Dahabenzapple2]

I would make the trade to give up Swihart.
 
I like Vasquez and I think that the upside offensive projections for Swihart are less than many project.
 
I don't want Shields. I like the idea of having a true ace and Hamels fits that bill. I like having a top lefty as well.

 

[bosockboy]

If it's Swihart and we keep Owens, Devers, Margot, etc and can add Barnes and Ranaudo or similar, I'd do it.

The division is there to own for 3-4 years.

 

[ALiveH]

I've said before & will say again - I would give up almost any combination of our top 2-3 prospects who will start the years in the minors, including Swihart, for Hamels.  Our 40-man is full, our farm system is stocked.  At some point have to convert potential value into realized value.  Hamels could very well be the difference maker contending for the next 1+ years.  And, he's on a below-market contract (comping to recent deals).

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

I have to admit, my resolve for keeping Swihart is vacillating..This is very much of a gamble on Vasquez too.  But like bosockboy said, if that means you just add a Ranaudo type + "somebody I've never heard of" as somebody said above, you probably have to do it..

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I don't want Shields. I like the idea of having a true ace and Hamels fits that bill. I like having a top lefty as well.

 
I'm not sure he fits the bill all that much better than Shields. Hamels is projected for a 3.48 ERA, a 3.56 FIP and 2.6 fWAR by Steamer. Shields is projected at 3.62, 3.57 and 3.0. That's not a huge difference. Yes, Hamels is more likely to be the better pitcher in 4 years, but I'm not sure that's worth giving up the top catching prospect in the game and a guy who is possibly going to be a consensus top ten prospect in all of baseball. MLB.com had Swihart at 24 last year. BA had him at 14 in the mid season list. Giving him up for the difference between Shields and Swihart is preposterous. Hamels isn't really a "true ace." He's not one of those indisputable top pitchers in the game that you have no questions about.
 
He's actually more like Jon Lester lite. At least, 2014 Jon Lester. Slightly lower strike out rate, slightly higher walk rate. Everything else is similar. Over their careers they are very similar as well, with Hamels being more consistent and Lester having higher highs and lower lows. Don't get me wrong, Hamels would be the best pitcher on this staff, but so would Shields for similar money and a much lower prospect cost (lost draft pick).
 
I can't see how anyone could seriously be okay with giving up Swihart for that difference. Now, if Shields has zero interest in the Red Sox no matter what they are offering, that changes things a bit, but even then, I think I'd rather the team go into the season with what they have and look to upgrade the rotation at the deadline than to part with Swihart for Hamels. And at present, it seems like there is no chance Amaro gives up Hamels for Swihart and two no-name prospects. He wants three top prospects which means something like Swihart and a combination of Margot, Devers, Rodriguez and Owens. That's so far beyond what Ben should be willing to pay it's not even worth discussing.

 

[johnnywayback]

I, too, think that Swihart is likely to be more valuable as a trade chip than as a member of the Red Sox, and Hamels is certainly the caliber of player you want to use your trade chips for.  If they dealt Swihart, Kelly, and Ranaudo for him today, I think that's a good deal for both teams.
 
But why do that now?  It's not unreasonable to think that our rotation may end up being a strength, not a weakness.  It's not unreasonable to think that one of Buchholz or Porcello might be 85% as good as Hamels.  We can certainly wait until June or July to assess whether adding an ace is our top priority (or, alternatively, whether Vazquez no longer inspires confidence as our catcher of the future [or, worst of all, whether several of our starters flame out and the season is circling the drain]).  And if Hamels is off the board by then, someone else will be available, and we will continue to be able to beat most prospect offers.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
Given that Hamels is two years younger and appears to be a better pitcher, the answer may very well be yes.

 
The age difference is the only thing that makes this even a close call.  The better pitcher in the AL question is a total unknown.  If they cost the same I'd take Hamels.  If the price to upgrade is Swihart that's too high a cost when it's far from a sure thing that he'll even be the better pitcher.

 

[Average Reds]

 
The age difference is the only thing that makes this even a close call.  The better pitcher in the AL question is a total unknown.  If they cost the same I'd take Hamels.  If the price to upgrade is Swihart that's too high a cost when it's far from a sure thing that he'll even be the better pitcher.

 
The only reason I equivocated and said Hamels "appears to be" a better pitcher is the AL/NL issue, so I understand where you are coming from.  But the age is a big positive for Hamels and I have no issue giving up prospects for proven major leaguers who are under control for multiple years.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
The only reason I equivocated and said Hamels "appears to be" a better pitcher is the AL/NL issue, so I understand where you are coming from.  But the age is a big positive for Hamels and I have no issue giving up prospects for proven major leaguers who are under control for multiple years.

 
If it's July 28 and they really need a top of the rotation pitcher and Hamels is the only option out there, I'd be more ok with this deal.  When it's January and there are other options that only cost money, and the other options may end up being better pitchers than Hamels, I don't see why anyone would be willing to give up a top prospect for him.  I'm with you on the age thing and it's obviously a big factor.  To me that's why Hamels would cost something, but that something shouldn't be of the caliber of Swihart.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

I'm generally open to the idea of trading Swilhart for Hamels.  Swilhart is probably a little hyped as a prospect.  He could be a great, great player, but he will more likely be a decent or pretty good one, not the kind of player the organization will regret trading away years later.  With that said, I think Hoffmann makes a really good point--why trade Swilhart for Hamels when Shield is available via free agency?  I would like to see the Red Sox sign Shields to a 3 year, 75 million dollar contract, but I guess that won't be enough for him.  That would be a team-friendly contract, though, and would minimize long term risk.  In addition, I support signing Scherzer over trading Swilhart for Hamels.  I know the money is insane and the Scherzer contract will eventually be a long term detriment, but the short term benefits are so great that I think the Red Sox should do it.

 

[chrisfont9]

Not seeing this linked, so... I don't want Cole Hamels:
 
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/cole-hamels-phillies-trade-market-timing-011615
 
Not for Swihart straight up. Why give up so many years of a potential asset that's as valuable as anything in the game -- young, quality, offensively geared catching -- for the chance that Cole Hamels will be significantly better than the alternative? Yes, Hamels is probably the best "available" pitcher. But I don't see him being much better than Sheilds or maybe no better than Scherzer. I'm not convinced he will be much better than the guys on the roster -- again, better, sure, but how much so? STEAMER has Hamels at 2.6 WAR. OK, they have Miley and Masterson at 2.0, Buchholz at 2.1, and Porcello at 3.1 (for comparison; obviously acquiring Hamels does not displace Porcello). Kelly is the weak link at 1.1. Is a 1.5 win upgrade worth losing Swihart? Arguably (I say no), but there are simply too many other ways to upgrade without paying this potentially awful cost.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

Yeah, the two years makes a huge difference. So, like, I wouldn't sign James Shields age 33-37 for $20+ million per season. That just seems like a mistake you know you are making at the time. But Hamels age 31-35 at the same price is pretty good by today's market standards. 

 

[glennhoffmania]

Yeah, the two years makes a huge difference. So, like, I wouldn't sign James Shields age 33-37 for $20+ million per season. That just seems like a mistake you know you are making at the time. But Hamels age 31-35 at the same price is pretty good by today's market standards. 

 
Let's say worst case scenario that extra two years means you totally waste $40m.  Is that worth Swihart?  Or put it another way- if another team offered to buy Swihart for $40m today should Ben take the cash?

 

[chrisfont9]

 
Let's say worst case scenario that extra two years means you totally waste $40m.  Is that worth Swihart?  Or put it another way- if another team offered to buy Swihart for $40m today should Ben take the cash?

If you value one win at $6 mil, which is probably lower than some experts would value it using the free agent market, then you don't make this move if you think Swihart will bring in more than 7 wins. Obviously we have no idea exactly how good Swihart will be, but for reference, Buster Posey's best single season was 7.3 wins. Since I'm a sucker for prospects, I'd gamble that Swihart is worth far more than $40 mil. [edit typo]

 

[MetSox1]

Amaro spoke at a breakfast I attended this morning.  I swear to the good Lord, he opened talking about how the turnaround was going to start with scouting and draft picks, and he ended by talking about how he had a conversation with another GM and that GM valued his draft picks "well above what I see is reasonable."
 
Wow.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

 
Let's say worst case scenario that extra two years means you totally waste $40m.  Is that worth Swihart?  Or put it another way- if another team offered to buy Swihart for $40m today should Ben take the cash?

Do I get any of the $40 million? It's a little late in the offseason to be playing with new money, and I don't care about how much money the Red Sox have if they aren't plowing it back into major league talent. If we could trade Swihart to some team to get them to pay $40 million out of an 8/$200 deal with Scherzer, would that be worth it? Sure. I think.

 

[Manramsclan]

One thing that I have not seen mentioned, is that Hamels is likely to have greater trade value during the season than during the offseason. Amaro is smart to wait in this case, unless he gets the exact deal he wants.
 
As for all l of the quotes that basically say "Amaro is asking too much.He's unreasonable!", where do you think they are coming from?  Other GMs who are trying to drive his price down, and put external pressure on a guy they know is embattled. He's got a guy under contract at market value who is a bona fide number 1 for a World Series contender. It would be foolish of him to not wait until he gets the deal he wants especially if that means waiting another 6 months when a team smelling playoffs comes calling with all that he is asking for. (See Addison Russel for Smardzija)
 
Amaro actually has a lot of leverage.  People criticizing him for using it are not being rational.
 
All that said, I don't want to trade Betts, or Swihart or many of the other packages mentioned in this thread. I'd rather hold on a lot of these guys, unless we are getting someone who is entering or in his prime and not on the other side of it.

 

[MakMan44]

Amaro has no little leverage right now. Hamels isn't young, he's not a Sale like team friendly contract, there's other FA pitchers out there that are comparable to Hamels and since every team realizes all of this, nobody is going to bite on his insane price.
 
It's why waiting until the trade deadline is high risk/high reward. He gains a TON of leverage if Hamels put up solid numbers and stays healthy, but loses everything if that doesn't happen. 

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Do we have good info about what Amaro's been offered for Hamels?  Sure, if Hamels contracts Ebola, Amaro "loses everything."  But if "everything" right now is the equivalent of Anthony Ranaudo and a low-level lottery ticket or two, then what's the real risk?

 

[MakMan44]

Do we have good info about what Amaro's been offered for Hamels?  Sure, if Hamels contracts Ebola, Amaro "loses everything."  But if "everything" right now is the equivalent of Anthony Ranaudo and a low-level lottery ticket or two, then what's the real risk?

No, but I doubt a serious offer from any interested team is going to be that shitty. 

 

[chrisfont9]

Amaro actually has a lot of leverage.  People criticizing him for using it are not being rational.

He has leverage over teams who believe they need an "ace." If Nick Cafardo ran any teams, Amaro would be sitting pretty. But I'm not sure he has leverage over the more sophisticated teams, and I wouldn't assume that leverage goes up in-season. That assumes demand remains static and supply goes down, neither of which is knowable at this time.

 

[OCD SS]

Well, if the rumor/ leak is true, he's trying to wait out the Padres, Rangers, Cardinals and Red Sox, all of which have very bright, analytically minded FO's that probably have a very good grasp of the theoretical values of the players involved.

That gif of the wrestler stare down should probably be 'shopped to be the Rock vs SpongeBob SquarePants.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

There was some fascinating stuff posted on the main board from the last SABR seminar, partly how the Sox use their own additional analytics to create an error band and projections for players. Such as batting analysis that helps project ceiling by counting lasers right at the defense as "hits" and squibbers and bloops as "outs," per se. In other words, Ben and Co. could partly project ceiling by analyzing a player when he's doing what he should be (staying inside the ball, etc.) and how often.
 
Obviously, they use these for all these players. But I'd think especially so with such a seemingly huge decision like Swihart for Hamels. If their internal super-data suggests an even higher ceiling than outside projections, it might be easy for Ben to rule it out entirely. Now, we don't know. But it's in moment-of-truth decisions like these that I think we're lucky to have a smart FO as well as a deep-pocketed one. 

 

[glennhoffmania]

If we could trade Swihart to some team to get them to pay $40 million out of an 8/$200 deal with Scherzer, would that be worth it? Sure. I think.

 
You're just asking the same exact question in a different form.  What difference does it make if that $40m goes toward Scherzer or any other player?  The question is simply whether one thinks Swihart is worth at least $40m today.  I'm not saying that it's unreasonable to say he isn't.  I'm only pointing out what the cost is, in a worst case scenario situation where Shields has zero value in years four and five.
 
Personally I'd do nothing, pass on both Hamels and Shields, go into the season with the current staff, and see where they are in June. 

 

[jasvlm]

 
You're just asking the same exact question in a different form.  What difference does it make if that $40m goes toward Scherzer or any other player?  The question is simply whether one thinks Swihart is worth at least $40m today.  I'm not saying that it's unreasonable to say he isn't.  I'm only pointing out what the cost is, in a worst case scenario situation where Shields has zero value in years four and five.
 
Personally I'd do nothing, pass on both Hamels and Shields, go into the season with the current staff, and see where they are in June. 

I agree with the concept of waiting for a few reasons, but this strategy is only viable if the Sox believe their team, as currently constructed, will contend.  I believe that BC feels exactly that way, which is why they will wait.  By waiting:
1) You are mitigating risk.  Signing any pitcher, even Scherzer or Shields, means they are on your books whether they are healthy or not.  Trading for Hamels involves the same risk.  Trading for any pitcher involves some risk, but by waiting until June, you'll have saved the possible injury to worry about for 3 months, and the guy you add will almost certainly be healthy, and pitching well.  I'm much more willing to take on salary, or move younger assets, when the risk is lower with a pitcher.
2) You are improving the chances of having other assets to bid on.  True, Shields and Scherzer will be off the table, but Cueto, Zimmerman, Fister, Shark, Price, etc could potentially be on the table, and the Sox, with their pool of young talent, will be in prime position to strike in these situations.
3) You allow time for the younger pitchers to emerge (or fail to do so), and can make a more intelligent and informed decision about your needs as a result.  If Owens, Johnson and ERod are throwing lights out in Pawtucket in April in May, is there going to be a huge push to add a veteran starter?  Knowing what these young guys can do will only help make better decisions.  It says here that at least one of the young guns (Workman, Raunado, Barnes, Wright, Owens, Johnson, ERod) breaks out, and pitches like a true #3 or even #2.
4) You have flexibility with the payroll.  This last bit may be the most vital.  By allowing themselves the room to add payroll when it becomes available, they can dispatch their assets most intelligently in real time, addressing team needs as they arise in season.  Having the best team on paper in January rarely leads to a championship, and I'm all for having the options open to zig or zag as the team is on the field.
Just my take.  Wait it out.

 

[Sprowl]

Prospect Love
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgCk3bnvO5Y

 

[ALiveH]

I don't think anyone has proposed including betts or bogaerts or Vazquez in a package for hamels.  those guys are (sort of) proven and very cost controlled starters at the ML level.  I think most people here agree they're basically untouchable.
 
The problem with waiting for June is that the extra 2-3 wins Hamels will get you up to the trade deadline (if he performs in line with expectations) is a decent chance to be the difference between having to play the shitty 1-game wildcard.  Therefore I'd argue if we're serious about contending this year, waiting is the riskier path, not the less risky path.

 

[MikeM]

I've said before & will say again - I would give up almost any combination of our top 2-3 prospects who will start the years in the minors, including Swihart, for Hamels.  Our 40-man is full, our farm system is stocked.  At some point have to convert potential value into realized value.  Hamels could very well be the difference maker contending for the next 1+ years.  And, he's on a below-market contract (comping to recent deals).

 
This is pretty much where i am at. 
 
On one hand we do not want to be out there signing 30 year old pitchers to 6-7 contracts in free agency. On the other it seems we want to claim that a team like Philly, with a Cole Hamels to offer, have no leverage over us by default. Eventually something beyond wishful thinking probably has to give there. 
 
Then again i also am one that personally believes there is a better chance we end up selling high on Swihart, given today's market, if he indeed played out to be the centerpiece that got a deal on Hamels done. 

 

[jasvlm]

 
This is pretty much where i am at. 
 
On one hand we do not want to be out there signing 30 year old pitchers to 6-7 contracts in free agency. On the other it seems we want to claim that a team like Philly, with a Cole Hamels to offer, have no leverage over us by default. Eventually something beyond wishful thinking probably has to give there. 
 
Then again i also am one that personally believes there is a better chance we end up selling high on Swihart, given today's market, if he indeed played out to be the centerpiece that got a deal on Hamels done. 

The assets like Swihart, Owens, Betts, etc. are the most valuable properties the Sox have.  While it is almost certainly true that those guys won't produce as much in terms of win added value as Hamels will in 2015, they will be productive at a fraction of their win cost over the next 6 plus seasons, whereas Hamels, making 22 mil a season, will have to pitch like a 3.2 win player to be worth more than his contract (assuming 7 mil per win), and return positive value on the investment the Sox have in him.  Betts, should he live up to projections, might be a 3 win player making 500k this season.  It is those kinds of assets (Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Swihart, etc) that will allow the Sox to take on salary in deals, to sign bigger ticket free agents, and to avoid having to be in a talent negative situation where they have to rob the farm system to put a competitive team on the field.
I have no problem putting a package together that nets Hamels, but it is a package that would not include any of the names listed here.  At best, Hamels should cost one good prospect (Margot?) and 1-2 other guys in the Sox 15-30 range of prospects, at most.  Anything more than that is an overpay, which is why Hamels isn't in Boston already.

 

[NoXInNixon]

At some point, either Vazquez or Swihart will be traded, unless one or both of them flame out completely and lose a lot of their value. If you have two starting caliber catchers, it is an inefficient use of resources to keep them both instead of trading one to fill some other hole. I remember people saying the Braves could keep both McCann and Salty, but that was also insane. They traded Salty to get Teixeira.
 
Right now the Sox have a glaring need for an ace. My only hesitation to trade for Hamels right now is that I'd rather keep Swihart around and trade Vazquez, but Swihart might not be ML ready yet. So I'm fine with starting the season with the rotation as it is, and seeing how things develop. There will likely be a pitcher of Hamels' caliber available in July.

 

[MoGator71]

I don't think anyone has proposed including betts or bogaerts or Vazquez in a package for hamels.  those guys are (sort of) proven and very cost controlled starters at the ML level.  I think most people here agree they're basically untouchable.
 
The problem with waiting for June is that the extra 2-3 wins Hamels will get you up to the trade deadline (if he performs in line with expectations) is a decent chance to be the difference between having to play the shitty 1-game wildcard.  Therefore I'd argue if we're serious about contending this year, waiting is the riskier path, not the less risky path.

 
Not only that, but if you wait for June you're forced into moving prospects if you want to add an arm, whereas now you can buy an arm (Scherzer, Shields, maybe Lee) and it only costs you money. Personally I buy the arm if/when I can, when it's comparable (Scherzer vs. Hamels) and save my prospects for when special opportunities arise, like when a Pedro or Miguel Cabrera comes onto the market and the only way to acquire him is to trade for and extend him. 

 

[The Boomer]

The assets like Swihart, Owens, Betts, etc. are the most valuable properties the Sox have.  While it is almost certainly true that those guys won't produce as much in terms of win added value as Hamels will in 2015, they will be productive at a fraction of their win cost over the next 6 plus seasons, whereas Hamels, making 22 mil a season, will have to pitch like a 3.2 win player to be worth more than his contract (assuming 7 mil per win), and return positive value on the investment the Sox have in him.  Betts, should he live up to projections, might be a 3 win player making 500k this season.  It is those kinds of assets (Betts, Bogaerts, Vazquez, Swihart, etc) that will allow the Sox to take on salary in deals, to sign bigger ticket free agents, and to avoid having to be in a talent negative situation where they have to rob the farm system to put a competitive team on the field.
I have no problem putting a package together that nets Hamels, but it is a package that would not include any of the names listed here.  At best, Hamels should cost one good prospect (Margot?) and 1-2 other guys in the Sox 15-30 range of prospects, at most.  Anything more than that is an overpay, which is why Hamels isn't in Boston already.

 
I agree with this although, after this winter, the Sox almost certainly will not surrender their first round draft pick either even for Zimmerman, Cueto or Price.  Extending Porcello seems more likely.  Better to hope that one from among Owens, Rodriguez and Johnson fulfills their potential.  IMO such valuable assets should only be swapped for equally valuable assets in the closest thing to an old fashioned baseball trade as might still exist.  A Sox surplus bluechip prospect for an equally valuable Mets pitching prospect (for example) makes more sense.  Going forward, the Sox will invest their money in buying out the prime years of production in whoever from among Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, Porcello, the 3 lefty amigos, Barnes, Cecchini or whoever emerges as bona fide major league players.  Not every one of these prospects will succeed but it doesn't waste millions of real dollars (monopoly money to fans) paying for little or no major league production from declining past their primes free agents signed for too long.  Hamels is a prime target for the Sox and others because his contract, though expensive, is not too lengthy.  Better to be outbid by another team trading for his services than to give up a too valuable cost controlled asset who doesn't waste significant money even in failure.

 

[MakMan44]

Unless they sign Max or trade for Cole, why do you think they won't go after Zimmerman or Price? 

 

[bosockboy]

Unless they sign Max or trade for Cole, why do you think they won't go after Zimmerman or Price?

Coughing up their first rounder. Protected this year, which is why Scherzer or Shields makes a lot of sense.

 

[The Boomer]

Risk reward analysis for the Phillies:
 
http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/cole-hamels-phillies-trade-market-timing-011615

 

[The Boomer]

More support for my argument that the Sox should stick with their 3 lefty amigos rather than overpay for Hamels:
 
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20150116-lefty-pitching-prospects-thriving-thanks-to-improved-changeups.ece
 
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20141203-pitchers-like-jon-lester-are-about-a-50-50-bet-to-remain-effective-into-their-mid-30s.ece

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

 
You're just asking the same exact question in a different form.  What difference does it make if that $40m goes toward Scherzer or any other player?  The question is simply whether one thinks Swihart is worth at least $40m today.  

Right, but as $40 million sitting in the teams bank account doesn't mean anything to me, I have to translate it into some kind of on field value to be able to tell you.

And I think my guess based on my effort to do that is: I'd probably give him up for $40m in value, especially if that value comes in the form of a top of the rotation starter. And I'm not even that high on Hamels.

Of course this conversation may be moot as I wouldn't be surprised if Amaros offer was Swihart and another top prospect, which would be a non starter for me.

 

[nighthob]

More support for my argument that the Sox should stick with their 3 lefty amigos rather than overpay for Hamels:
 
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20150116-lefty-pitching-prospects-thriving-thanks-to-improved-changeups.ece
 
http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20141203-pitchers-like-jon-lester-are-about-a-50-50-bet-to-remain-effective-into-their-mid-30s.ece

Given the premium on hitting, I would far rather let Philly have one of Owens/Rodriguez, Johnson and a low level lottery ticket not named Devers than trade a plus bat for Hamels.

 

[jasvlm]

 
I agree with this although, after this winter, the Sox almost certainly will not surrender their first round draft pick either even for Zimmerman, Cueto or Price.  Extending Porcello seems more likely.  Better to hope that one from among Owens, Rodriguez and Johnson fulfills their potential.  IMO such valuable assets should only be swapped for equally valuable assets in the closest thing to an old fashioned baseball trade as might still exist.  A Sox surplus bluechip prospect for an equally valuable Mets pitching prospect (for example) makes more sense.  Going forward, the Sox will invest their money in buying out the prime years of production in whoever from among Bogaerts, Betts, Swihart, Vazquez, Porcello, the 3 lefty amigos, Barnes, Cecchini or whoever emerges as bona fide major league players.  Not every one of these prospects will succeed but it doesn't waste millions of real dollars (monopoly money to fans) paying for little or no major league production from declining past their primes free agents signed for too long.  Hamels is a prime target for the Sox and others because his contract, though expensive, is not too lengthy.  Better to be outbid by another team trading for his services than to give up a too valuable cost controlled asset who doesn't waste significant money even in failure.

I was talking about trading to get a Zimmerman, Cueto or Price midseason, should their teams fall out of contention, not signing them as a free agent.  I agree that the Sox value their first round picks enough to avoid paying that price to sign a free agent who costs them one.  This year's pick is protected, and they've already given up picks to get Sandoval and Ramirez, so they might think of a Scherzer or Shields signing this year as the easiest way to add to the rotation.  I still think they'll wait, and that they should do exactly that instead of giving up prospects to make the Opening Day rotation look prettier.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

I was talking about trading to get a Zimmerman, Cueto or Price midseason, should their teams fall out of contention, not signing them as a free agent.  I agree that the Sox value their first round picks enough to avoid paying that price to sign a free agent who costs them one.  This year's pick is protected, and they've already given up picks to get Sandoval and Ramirez, so they might think of a Scherzer or Shields signing this year as the easiest way to add to the rotation.  I still think they'll wait, and that they should do exactly that instead of giving up prospects to make the Opening Day rotation look prettier.

Because waiting until the trade deadline means they will get them for free.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Because waiting until the trade deadline means they will get them for free.

 
That's not what he was getting at. In waiting, they are hoping that one or two of the guys they have step up and trading for a "true ace" isn't necessary. If Porcello takes a step forward and gives you 2014 James Shields and Buchholz gives you something like his 2010 season, they won't have needed to add an ace to the rotation. Sure, it's possible none of the in house guys will step up to the degree necessary to keep the Red Sox from needing to cash in some prospects for an ace, but the fact that it's possible some might means waiting until the deadline is probably the best possible move right now. Hamels is not far and away better than what will be available at the deadline. In fact, I'd argue he's not as good as three guys who very well may be available (Price, Cueto and Zimmermann) and is only just as good as Samardzija. Giving up one of the best prospects in the game, who happens to be a catcher, because the team might need to make a deadline deal if they don't is insane.
 

At some point, either Vazquez or Swihart will be traded, unless one or both of them flame out completely and lose a lot of their value. If you have two starting caliber catchers, it is an inefficient use of resources to keep them both instead of trading one to fill some other hole. I remember people saying the Braves could keep both McCann and Salty, but that was also insane. They traded Salty to get Teixeira.
 
Right now the Sox have a glaring need for an ace. My only hesitation to trade for Hamels right now is that I'd rather keep Swihart around and trade Vazquez, but Swihart might not be ML ready yet. So I'm fine with starting the season with the rotation as it is, and seeing how things develop. There will likely be a pitcher of Hamels' caliber available in July.

 
Why do people keep assuming this? The chances of both guys panning out to the point where it would somehow be a waste of a roster spot to keep them both are virtually nil. It's far more likely than not that one will end up better suited as a back up and my money is on Vazquez being that guy. I see them ending up with Swihart catching 100 games a year or so with Vazquez catching the other 62 and Swihart picking up some extra at bats at DH and possibly third and/or first base. I really don't get this assumption that one of them absolutely has to go. There is more than likely going to be a way to get both of them out there and Swihart has the much higher ceiling, so cashing him in now because we're worried about losing out on perceived value seems backwards to me.
 
If he was all bat and had a poor defensive rep, I'd feel differently. But Swihart has a very good defensive catcher. Even if both catchers meet their potential head on, Swihart's on the field value will dwarf Vazquez. There's just no way I give up on that for Cole Hamels and his contract when they have a very serviceable rotation with some intriguing upside already and will have plenty of upgrade options in July if things don't go as well as they are hoping.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

I was talking about trading to get a Zimmerman, Cueto or Price midseason, should their teams fall out of contention, not signing them as a free agent.  I agree that the Sox value their first round picks enough to avoid paying that price to sign a free agent who costs them one.  This year's pick is protected, and they've already given up picks to get Sandoval and Ramirez, so they might think of a Scherzer or Shields signing this year as the easiest way to add to the rotation.  I still think they'll wait, and that they should do exactly that instead of giving up prospects to make the Opening Day rotation look prettier.

 
Let's leave the Zimmermann wishcasting for next November. Leaving aside the fact that the Nationals are talented on paper and play in what very well might be the worst division in baseball and therefore can reasonably expect to contend, Zimmermann will cost a hefty price in prospects and will bolt for free agency at the end of the year. And in free agency, he's likely to command Lester dollars at the least. To head you all off: How do I know Zim won't sign an extension? Because he hasn't signed with Washington, and they could afford to do it.

 

[FanSinceBoggs]

It's dangerous to begin predicting what pitchers will be on the trade market at the deadline.  The Tigers (Price) and Nats (Zimmerman) are serious contenders and so they probably hold on to their pitchers, knowing such starters can swing a 5 or 7 game playoff series one way or the other.  Sure, Cueto might hit the market at the trade deadline.  On the other hand, maybe the Reds play well enough to compete for the second wild card and decide to go for it.  Hamels will be available at the trade deadline, as the Phillies aren't expected to compete, but another team could cave in and give Amaro the mother lode, leaving the Red Sox on the outside looking in.  Meanwhile, the Red Sox rotation is loaded with uncertainties and question marks.  Two of their starters, in particular, had terrible seasons in 2014, and have been marked by injury issues or loss of velocity (or both).  In other words, too many things can go wrong with the current Red Sox starting staff, which is why they need to address it now and not expect a major upgrade to fall into their lap at the trade deadline.
 
They can't go into the season with this group of starters.   I know Cherington has said they can, but I think he is being intentionally deceptive.  It doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money on offensive upgrades only to build a starting rotation from pieces at the junkyard (excuse the hyperbole in my use of the word, "junkyard").  

 

[nighthob]

So the Red Sox should overpay for Hamels before someone else does?

 

[Harry Hooper]

So the Red Sox should overpay for Hamels before someone else does?

 
No, but the plan of putting some nice prospects into a mid-season trade for a top hurler who will then be a free agent (with no draft pick compensation) at the end of the season looks like the worst option of all.