Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested

[nighthob]

I think the calculus has reversed in these situations since the end of the steroid era. Hitting is much more valuable than pitching now. And as Savin points out above, a bad bet on Swihart costs Boston pretty much nothing, while a bad wager on Hamels costs them nine figures and a drag on the payroll until the contract's finished. Combine that with the cost of acquisition and it's a considerably more risky bet. I'm fine with trading pitching for Hamels, but when we're talking about high upside hitters as a starting point the answer's no.

 

[koufax32]

The head shaking and laughing is not simply because of his handling of Hamels. It's because of the philosophy behind it. The changing dynamics of the game that have come from the end of the Steroid era and the changing dynamics of the economics of baseball do not exist in the Philadelphia front office. That kind of tone deafness deserves to mocked. Amaro is the CEO of MCI mocking and complaining about losing business to cell phone carriers.

 

[TigerBlood]

 
A fact that is also true about our catcher, center fielder, and right fielder, not to mention our shortstop. That this applies to almost half of our lineup suggests that there is enough variance in the outcome of the upcoming season that there is significant value gained by delaying major transactions until we have more information.

 
Not to call you out or anything, but just a month ago you were much more certain of Boston's success this season. I posted about the high level of performance uncertainty on this roster (relying on young talent and injury rebounds) as being prohibitive of making any more big investments, but you disagreed.
 

 
... I see relatively little chance that this is going to be a bad team ...It's certainly possible, but I don't see why it's more likely than that they're at least mediocre...

 
Semantics? or did something change for you?

 

[nighthob]

The head shaking and laughing is not simply because of his handling of Hamels. It's because of the philosophy behind it. The changing dynamics of the game that have come from the end of the Steroid era and the changing dynamics of the economics of baseball do not exist in the Philadelphia front office. That kind of tone deafness deserves to mocked. Amaro is the CEO of MCI mocking and complaining about losing business to cell phone carriers.

Yeah, when Philly sources are leaking that Amaro wants a package headed by Betts he's pretty much advertising the fact that he still thinks this is 2004. I wouldn't deal Betts for Hamels straight up. The market rate for this got established a couple of years ago with the Myers/Shields trade. I wouldn't like Swihart for Hamels straight up, but I would certainly think about it.

Boston's hanging up the phone, in all likelihood, because Amaro is submitting lists of players with Betts and Swihart in column A and then probably their pitching prospects, Devers and Margot in column B and asking Boston to give them three guys. It's not stubbornness so much as common sense.

 

[Rasputin]

 
Not to call you out or anything, but just a month ago you were much more certain of Boston's success this season. I posted about the high level of performance uncertainty on this roster (relying on young talent and injury rebounds) as being prohibitive of making any more big investments, but you disagreed.
 
 
Semantics? or did something change for you?

 
Mostly semantics. The variance is there, but I'm fairly sure that Castillo, Betts, and Bogaerts are going to perform in the higher half, maybe the higher third of the range of expectations.

 

[The Boomer]

 
I tend to agree with your premise that the Sox could withstand the loss of Swihart, and that he isn't the can't miss prospect some people make him out to be. But Hamels just doesn't do it for me and I can't totally explain why. It feels like the combination of his age, the size of his contract, and the loss of young impact guys is too much to swallow. IMO, an asset like Swihart would be much better included in a package for an elite pitcher on the right side of his peak. Maybe the Mets find they want to move a starter next offseason, who knows. Seems like a smarter investment, as much as an ace like Hamels would make this pitching staff pretty great immediately.

 
In theory you are right.  However, D'Arnaud probably makes Swihart not their target.  However, one of the 3 AAA lefties with the Sox might be a win-win proposition for one of the Mets righties.

 

[soxhop411]

did you hear? PHI has FOUR! yes FOUR! real offers for Hamels
 

 
Cole Hamels remains available on the trade market, and as many eight teams have kicked the tires on the ace left-hander, Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr. told Jim Salisbury of CSNPhilly.com. Asked by Salisbury how many clubs have made offers, Amaro replied, “Real offers? Four.”

Amaro wouldn’t comment on which clubs made those “real” offers, though earlier today it was reported that the Padres made an “aggressive” offer for Hamels prior to signing James Shields. Other teams that have been seriously linked to Hamels include the Cardinals, Rangers and Red Sox. Boston has reportedly balked at Amaro’s insistence on top catching prospect Blake Swihart‘s inclusion in a potential trade package.
Earlier this month, Bob Nightengale of USA Today reported that “five or six” teams were still trying to swing a trade for Hamels, though the Padres’ signing of James Shields may remove them from that race. Padres ownership has said the payroll could land around $100MM, and they’re at roughly $94MM right now after adding Shields. However, some reports have indicated that $105MM might be the team’s max limit, so it strikes me as at least plausible that they could attempt to squeeze Hamels into the mix if the Phillies eat some 2015 salary or take a different contract back, though the likelihood of that scenario seems low.
The Phillies are more eager to trade Ryan Howard and Jonathan Papelbon than Hamels, Salisbury writes, and they’re also very willing to trade Cliff Lee. Amaro wouldn’t rule out the possibility of making a trade prior to the onset of Spring Training, Salisbury adds, but moving someone like Lee would likely require him to demonstrate his health in Spring Training. A number of teams have told Amaro they’ll be monitoring the Phillies this spring.

 

Via MLBTR

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

PP: Amaro could reasonably trade Hamels for 3-4 good-not-great prospects. But KC's willingness to deal Myers and Oakland's trade of Russell gives him hope of getting a top 20 type plus 2 other good prospects. As you note, those deals for pitchers under less control weren't in 2004 - they were the past two seasons.

I should add that Betts and Swihart aren't Buxton or Russell. They aren't currently top 3 talents, even if they are really good.

 

[koufax37]

Rob Bradford's analysis is pretty much why I wouldn't want to trade Betts -or- Swihart.
 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/02/11/so-evidently-phillies-really-want-mookie-betts-or-blake-swihart/
 

 
Rob Bradford's analysis seems off base and to overvalue each of two players.  I'm really excited to have both of them, and will be rooting for them to excel big time.  But with Vazquez behind the plate and Betts constrained to play a corner position I think we weather the loss of either pretty well, but I don't know where we are going to find a pitcher of that level for less.  I think Hamels is considerably better than Lester and Shields, and I bet he outperforms Scherzer over the next five seasons as well.
 
I had missed the Herald article this morning, so sorry for wasting time with some similar points about Swihart, but I think he is uncertain, and I'm not huge fan of the resource allocation and vulnerability of middle of the order catchers in general.  I would happily settle for an elite defender who can be a solid sixth or seventh hitter.

 

[Plympton91]

PP: Amaro could reasonably trade Hamels for 3-4 good-not-great prospects. But KC's willingness to deal Myers and Oakland's trade of Russell gives him hope of getting a top 20 type plus 2 other good prospects. As you note, those deals for pitchers under less control weren't in 2004 - they were the past two seasons.

I should add that Betts and Swihart aren't Buxton or Russell. They aren't currently top 3 talents, even if they are really good.

Swihart is around 10th on most lists, and I have to believe that if he were eligible, Betts would be higher than Swihart, possibly top 5. The Shields and Samardzja trades really do make Swihart as a starting point look more reasonable than many of us want to admit. I just don't think the Red Sox need to be that desperate for a starter. See if Buchholz and or Masterson can bounce back and whether Porcello can take another step forward while Owens and Rodriguez develop in AAA. To me, they're more in need of a relief ace than a rotation ace.

 

[Trlicek's Whip]

Rob Bradford's analysis is pretty much why I wouldn't want to trade Betts -or- Swihart.
 
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/02/11/so-evidently-phillies-really-want-mookie-betts-or-blake-swihart/
 

"It used to be that top of the rotation pitching was the most difficult thing for an organization to find. Not anymore. That’s why the Red Sox were so proactive in their pursuit of bats, not only with Castillo but also by inking Pablo Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez to long-term deals."

 
Exhibit A: what Theo Epstein is doing with the Chicago Cubs. [Joe Posnanski covered it here]. And to some extent what the A's were doing through last season (Moss, Donaldson, Cespedes). 

 

[Rasputin]

 
Rob Bradford's analysis seems off base and to overvalue each of two players.  I'm really excited to have both of them, and will be rooting for them to excel big time.  But with Vazquez behind the plate and Betts constrained to play a corner position I think we weather the loss of either pretty well, but I don't know where we are going to find a pitcher of that level for less.  I think Hamels is considerably better than Lester and Shields, and I bet he outperforms Scherzer over the next five seasons as well.
 
I had missed the Herald article this morning, so sorry for wasting time with some similar points about Swihart, but I think he is uncertain, and I'm not huge fan of the resource allocation and vulnerability of middle of the order catchers in general.  I would happily settle for an elite defender who can be a solid sixth or seventh hitter.

 
The game has shifted a lot in the past few  years. The balance between run scoring and run prevention has shifted to make high performing offensive players more valuable and high performing pitchers less valuable.
 
At the same time, the additional wild card spot has shifted the balance between making the most of every playoff opportunity and ensuring that you have a lot of playoff opportunities in favor of ensuring that you have a lot of playoff opportunities, especially for teams with the financial resources of the Boston Red Sox.
 
The Red Sox can literally plan to be in playoff contention every single year just because they have the financial muscle to ensure that their lesser players are mediocre rather than terrible. They aren't going to make the playoffs every year, and every now and then you're going to have a season like 2014 where 80% of the roster underperforms, but in most seasons, the Red Sox are going to be within shouting distance at the trade deadline.
 
That means they're going to get more bites at the apple, which means every individual bite isn't as important, which means having that dominant pitcher who can win a game almost by himself is less important than it used to be.

 

[In my lifetime]

I really like Ben's approach, which at this point I would surmise is the following "Wait and see" approach:
 
Ben has put together what potentially could be an outstanding lineup, however, there are more untested players than what is typical for a playoff/World Series contending team.  SoI would think he will see how the season develops and do the following:
 
One of 5 RS starter has an ace type of year and the other 4 perform on the topside of their expectations, then there is no need to spend the currency of a top prospec to obtain an ace.
RS have a repeat of last year, where players underperform or get hurt and they can't reasonably expect a playoff birth, then again there is no need to be buyers for an ace.
 
Then you have the all the possibilities in between where a very high quality pitcher may put the RS over the top. At that point, it makes sense to Rent-an-Ace or trade for an ace by trading a prospect.

 

[Rasputin]

If high performing pitchers are less valuable, and dominant pitchers are less important, why did the Sox pursue Lester so aggressively?

 
Because less important doesn't mean not important.
 
Because he was going to cost money and not talent.
 
Because there is a value to retaining your own star players.
 
Because even if you ultimately lose out, there is value in the fans' perception that you did everything you could to retain your star players.
 
And still, they decided what they thought he was worth and were willing to walk away when it got beyond that.

 

[sackamano]

If high performing pitchers are less valuable, and dominant pitchers are less important, why did the Sox pursue Lester so aggressively?

Hopefully, that is a redundant question.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Swihart is around 10th on most lists, and I have to believe that if he were eligible, Betts would be higher than Swihart, possibly top 5. The Shields and Samardzja trades really do make Swihart as a starting point look more reasonable than many of us want to admit. I just don't think the Red Sox need to be that desperate for a starter. See if Buchholz and or Masterson can bounce back and whether Porcello can take another step forward while Owens and Rodriguez develop in AAA. To me, they're more in need of a relief ace than a rotation ace.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with that approach. I don't want Boston to deal Betts or Swihart for Hamels. But I can see why Amaro thinks it's reasonable to insist on one of them and to think he can get that level of talent.

We really do have a lot of pitching talent of our own. It's not impossible to think that Barnes or Workman could end being that relief ace or the next Wade Davis.

 

[BeantownIdaho]

The Phillies are more eager to trade Ryan Howard and Jonathan Papelbon than Hamels, Salisbury writes, and they’re also very willing to trade Cliff Lee.
 
No they are not or Paps would be in a Brewers uni right now. Block all calls from Amaro - Our team looks good heading into spring training. There will be plenty of options at the trade deadline if needed.

 

[Plympton91]

If high performing pitchers are less valuable, and dominant pitchers are less important, why did the Sox pursue Lester so aggressively?

They started at 4/$70 and ended up getting outbid by $20 million; how aggressively did they really pursue him? Seems to me like they aggressively made offers that weren't quite good enough, in order to placate WEEI callers. I think DBMHR had it right all along, they never really wanted him back unless they got a big discount in dollars and years.

I think they're pretty happy with the way they built their pitching staff. It's young, with upside, and not a long-term commitment in the bunch. Given that the offense should be well above average, Ras is right that they should be very clearly in contention for at least a wild card all season.

 

[Rasputin]

The Phillies are more eager to trade Ryan Howard and Jonathan Papelbon than Hamels, Salisbury writes, and they’re also very willing to trade Cliff Lee.
 
No they are not or Paps would be in a Brewers uni right now. Block all calls from Amaro - Our team looks good heading into spring training. There will be plenty of options at the trade deadline if needed.

Man, can you imagine the madness if Koji implodes, Mujica can't do it, and Papelbon says anything that even hints at wanting to come back?

 

[Lowrielicious]

Man, can you imagine the madness if Koji implodes, Mujica can't do it, and Papelbon says anything that even hints at wanting to come back?

I'd rather have Koji throwing left handed than Papelbon back.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'd rather have Koji throwing left handed than Papelbon back.

 
I agree, but not because I don't like him or am upset with how he left or whatever. I'm not suggesting this is your primary reason, just using this as a jumping off point. Papelbon had, on the surface, and incredible season last year. When we dig a little deeper we see that his strikeout rate has been down the last two years, and that it coincides with his fastball dropping from an average of 95 mph in 2012 to 93 in 2013 and 92 last year. The reasons he's remained effective is he isn't walking anyone and he probably had a sustainable approach in 2013 when his bb/9 was 1.61. His BABIP that year was .296 and his HR/9 was .88. Last year, however, he had a BABIP of .247 and a home run rate of .27, which both scream "regression to the mean."
 
He's due to get awfully mediocre awfully fast. I wouldn't want to be on the hook for even half of his salary next year. Even if he starts out strong, he could end up being Eric Gagne 2.0.

 

[soxhop411]

• 
  

  The Phillies asked the Brewers for a “top prospect” in return for closer Jonathan Papelbonhttp://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/papeljo01.shtml if the club was to pick up a big piece of the remainder of his deal, Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports (in a piece we cited earlier this morning). In response, Milwaukee broached the idea of sending Jonathan Broxton back to Philadelphia to help balance the cash, a concept that did not gain traction (and which Rosenthal argues made little sense for either club).
   

  Never change PHI
  

(via MLBTR)

 

[soxhop411]

The Red Sox have plenty of leverage in their pursuit of Phillies lefty Cole Hamels,writes Peter Abraham of the Boston Globe. That’s because “even the second-best deal [Amaro] can get for Hamels from the Red Sox is likely better than he can get elsewhere,” as Abraham puts it. Even taking on most of the Hamels deal is going to leave plenty of value left to be accounted for in any trade scenario — another topic that Steve and I discuss — but Abraham suggests that the gap might be bridged by a package fronted by lefty Henry Owens and including several other top prospects not named Betts, Swihart, or Rodriguez
 

MLBTR

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Just about any team can give Philly quantity for Hamels.  Some of those can also absorb the money.  I'd guess that only a few could give them a top prospect, plus others, plus absorb the contract.  The Dodgers could, for example.  Abraham's larger point was that the Sox don't need to overpay to get Hamels and will be ok even if some other team does beat their offer.  They'll have other options.

 

[chrisfont9]

Just about any team can give Philly quantity for Hamels.  Some of those can also absorb the money.  I'd guess that only a few could give them a top prospect, plus others, plus absorb the contract.  The Dodgers could, for example.  Abraham's larger point was that the Sox don't need to overpay to get Hamels and will be ok even if some other team does beat their offer.  They'll have other options.

Pete Abe also points out how Hamels has never been very good against AL teams, which begs the question why we are even having this discussion. Sure, he's likely to out-perform his abysmal history against unfamiliar teams, but it points out the fact that there is potentially little statistical difference to be gained by absorbing a huge salary and trading away the future. But he's an "Ace". Right.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

... there is potentially little statistical difference to be gained by absorbing a huge salary and trading away the future. But he's an "Ace". Right.

 
This is a thing I keep reading and just don't understand. "Potentially little statistical difference"--he's an improvement over his replacement. You've talked yourself into not wanting a superior player despite not even knowing exactly what slice of "the future" you're trading away. You're through the looking glass if you're turning your nose up at a player like Cole Hamels. I can understand not thinking it's worth it if the cost is Swihart, but that doesn't seem to be your point, and we obviously have no way of knowing anyway.
 
Getting better players is always good. This argument that starts with marginalizing improvement because it costs us "the future" (stated only in the abstract), or it isn't "enough" of an improvement is the definition of overthinking things.

 

[Doctor G]

Pete Abe also points out how Hamels has never been very good against AL teams, which begs the question why we are even having this discussion. Sure, he's likely to out-perform his abysmal history against unfamiliar teams, but it points out the fact that there is potentially little statistical difference to be gained by absorbing a huge salary and trading away the future. But he's an "Ace". Right.

Interesting article on quality of opposition for Hamelshttp://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-quality-of-cole-hamels-opposition/

 

[chrisfont9]

 
This is a thing I keep reading and just don't understand. "Potentially little statistical difference"--he's an improvement over his replacement. You've talked yourself into not wanting a superior player despite not even knowing exactly what slice of "the future" you're trading away. You're through the looking glass if you're turning your nose up at a player like Cole Hamels. I can understand not thinking it's worth it if the cost is Swihart, but that doesn't seem to be your point, and we obviously have no way of knowing anyway.
 
Getting better players is always good. This argument that starts with marginalizing improvement because it costs us "the future" (stated only in the abstract), or it isn't "enough" of an improvement is the definition of overthinking things.

Actually that's exactly my point. Do you mortgage the future, when we are talking about highly projectable and valuable pieces like Swihart and Betts? I mentioned the cost. So what are you getting in return? Of course Hamels is better than Joe Kelly, everybody knows he's an upgrade. But all we have are projections as far as how much of an upgrade he will be over guys who the Sox have in place because they think there's a chance to succeed. Here's ZiPS:
 

Cole Hamels

L

31

30

30

202.0

194

52

21

183

80

75
 

Joe Kelly

R

27

28

20

124.0

83

49

12

125

62

58

 

Henry Owens

L

22

26

26

138.7

132

70

17

130

71

66
 
Steamer has Hamels at 2.6 WAR, Kelly at 0.7 and no rating for Owens. Mind you, all of this projects Hamels against the NL, and the most generous assessment is replacing Kelly with Hamels and pretending that the Sox have no internal options like Owens or Ed-Rod, fairly soon. For that privilege, do you pay 5/110 for (generously speaking) two extra wins, AND give away Swihart and/or Betts? No *&$ way. Which appears to be Cherington's position. It's merely the media who won't let it go.

 

[chrisfont9]

Interesting article on quality of opposition for Hamelshttp://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-quality-of-cole-hamels-opposition/

Right, thank you. He comes with more risk than people may want to admit. Everyone will talk about how prospects come with risk, but IMHO Betts and Swihart come with comparatively low risk (and inexpensive, as is Kelly, Owens, etc). There simply isn't enough evidence that such a trade would bring a significant benefit.

 

[joe dokes]

Right, thank you. He comes with more risk than people may want to admit. Everyone will talk about how prospects come with risk, but IMHO Betts and Swihart come with comparatively low risk (and inexpensive, as is Kelly, Owens, etc). There simply isn't enough evidence that such a trade would bring a significant benefit.

 
"Comparatively low," but the comparators are players who have never played in the major leagues.

 

[nighthob]

"Comparatively low," but the comparators are players who have never played in the major leagues.

Well one of them hasn't.

 

[chrisfont9]

Established production isn't a better bet than chances a prospect reaches his potential? We're there now? Cool.

Why is this so hard? I am writing about the total cost and the total benefit. If you want to just compare Hamels to Owens, fine.
 
And by the way, the Sox don't get his established production in such a trade. They get his forthcoming production, which at least some analysts don't think is terribly special.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

Why is this so hard? I am writing about the total cost and the total benefit. If you want to just compare Hamels to Owens, fine.
 
And by the way, the Sox don't get his established production in such a trade. They get his forthcoming production, which at least some analysts don't think is terribly special.

 
But projections are exactly that...projections. What's more valuable from an information standpoint, a massive sample size of past performance, or numbers that aren't actually numbers and aren't predicative of anything?
 
Hamels is a great pitcher. Joe Kelly might be able to be one, but hasn't yet to this point. Owens might be able to be one. That's about what it boils down to, but when it comes to the Red Sox and their surplus of assets and limited spots, I'd rather bet on the past performance.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

Actually that's exactly my point. Do you mortgage the future, when we are talking about highly projectable and valuable pieces like Swihart and Betts? I mentioned the cost. So what are you getting in return? Of course Hamels is better than Joe Kelly, everybody knows he's an upgrade. But all we have are projections as far as how much of an upgrade he will be over guys who the Sox have in place because they think there's a chance to succeed. Here's ZiPS:
 
Cole Hamels L 31 30 30 202.0 194 52 21 183 80 75
 
Joe Kelly R 27 28 20 124.0 83 49 12 125 62
58
 
Henry Owens L 22 26 26 138.7 132 70 17 130 71 66
 
Steamer has Hamels at 2.6 WAR, Kelly at 0.7 and no rating for Owens. Mind you, all of this projects Hamels against the NL, and the most generous assessment is replacing Kelly with Hamels and pretending that the Sox have no internal options like Owens or Ed-Rod, fairly soon. For that privilege, do you pay 5/110 for (generously speaking) two extra wins, AND give away Swihart and/or Betts? No *&$ way. Which appears to be Cherington's position. It's merely the media who won't let it go.

 
But your post didn't mention Swihart, it was directed at the idea of acquisition on it's own and seemed to suggest that Cole Hamels and his performance was somehow not worth the upgrade at the expense of "the future" as a blanket concept. Of course I'm open to the idea that Swihart is too much--I actually agree, and certainly agree that Betts is off the table. Besides the value calculation there, the Red Sox are in the driver's seat and don't "need" to make that trade, so surrendering either would just be a genuine fuck up.
 
I was responding to the post that used Hamels' AL performance as a jumping off point for backing away from Hamels because, while a clear improvement to the rotation, wouldn't be better... enough? In other words, the post reads like you saying that it didn't matter how you sliced what we sent to PHI, Hamels' upgrade just isn't worth it. I just don't like the idea of poo-pooing improvement because it isn't "enough."
 
If you were just finding a new way to say "I don't think I'd trade Swihart or Betts for Hamels," well then yeah, agreed, I don't think we have to. The Phillies are either waiting BOS out to see if they'll cave before taking their next best offer or they're comfortable keeping him and will do it only for Swihart or better. If the former I think it'll happen eventually, if the latter it won't.

 

[pockmeister]

 
But projections are exactly that...projections. What's more valuable from an information standpoint, a massive sample size of past performance, or numbers that aren't actually numbers and aren't predicative of anything?
 
Hamels is a great pitcher. Joe Kelly might be able to be one, but hasn't yet to this point. Owens might be able to be one. That's about what it boils down to, but when it comes to the Red Sox and their surplus of assets and limited spots, I'd rather bet on the past performance.

 
No, Hamels is not a great pitcher.  That is not a statement that can be backed up.
 
Hamels has been a very effective pitcher in recent years, working primarily in the NL.  Whilst there is some strong predictive value in this past performance, being a very effective NL pitcher does not make him a great pitcher right now - it makes him a guy who has been a very effective pitcher in recent seasons.  And certainly doesn't make him a sure thing to be a great pitcher in the AL this coming season, or in seasons beyond.  It can rationally be argued that Hamels is likely only to be a good or indeed average pitcher in the future, and quite an expensive one at that.  
 
Both past performance and future predictions are valid components in the decision-making process.  The weighting placed upon them and the appetite for risk is what determines the attitude of the Red Sox, Phillies or indeed any other ballclub to making this trade.  But all that said, I would be delighted to take on the risk (and a cost) of a non-great but historically highly effective Hamels, in exchange for a trade based around an unproven and potentially just average-to-very good Owens (plus other pieces).  However, it appears generally unlikely that the Phillies or the Sox have the same valuations / risk appetite at this time, making that particular trade something of a long shot.

 

[soxhop411]

Peter Gammons ‏@pgammo  22m22 minutes ago
Here’s how the Red Sox could land Cole Hamels http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/02/12/here-how-red-sox-could-land-cole-hamels …. Owens, Margot, Marrero(plus $110M) more than A's gave for Samardzija

 

[chrisfont9]

 
But your post didn't mention Swihart, it was directed at the idea of acquisition on it's own and seemed to suggest that Cole Hamels and his performance was somehow not worth the upgrade at the expense of "the future" as a blanket concept. Of course I'm open to the idea that Swihart is too much--I actually agree, and certainly agree that Betts is off the table. Besides the value calculation there, the Red Sox are in the driver's seat and don't "need" to make that trade, so surrendering either would just be a genuine fuck up.
 
I was responding to the post that used Hamels' AL performance as a jumping off point for backing away from Hamels because, while a clear improvement to the rotation, wouldn't be better... enough? In other words, the post reads like you saying that it didn't matter how you sliced what we sent to PHI, Hamels' upgrade just isn't worth it. I just don't like the idea of poo-pooing improvement because it isn't "enough."
 
If you were just finding a new way to say "I don't think I'd trade Swihart or Betts for Hamels," well then yeah, agreed, I don't think we have to. The Phillies are either waiting BOS out to see if they'll cave before taking their next best offer or they're comfortable keeping him and will do it only for Swihart or better. If the former I think it'll happen eventually, if the latter it won't.

Alright, we may actually agree, more or less, and I'm just not stating my point well enough. The discussion must always consider the cost, and it just seems like the price for Hamels has to do with "acquiring an ace" as opposed to trying to hone in on his overall value (considering salary, age, change of leagues, etc) versus the price tag (picking up that salary, blocking Owens or Ed-Rod, and dealing away grade-A+ talent).

 

[chrisfont9]

 
But projections are exactly that...projections. What's more valuable from an information standpoint, a massive sample size of past performance, or numbers that aren't actually numbers and aren't predicative of anything?
 
Hamels is a great pitcher. Joe Kelly might be able to be one, but hasn't yet to this point. Owens might be able to be one. That's about what it boils down to, but when it comes to the Red Sox and their surplus of assets and limited spots, I'd rather bet on the past performance.

It sounds like you mean "for 2015," in which case I think we have a clear answer, for now. Hamels should be solid this year, even if maybe down from his NL numbers were he in Boston, and Kelly's future is a big maybe. Personally I'm rooting for decisions that focus just as much on the long term, and therefore valuing the top prospects Amaro wants over a Hamels who may not offer too much beyond another year or two. [I'm sure he'll be decent for several more years but wouldn't want to bet on anything more than that.]

 

[Adrian's Dome]

 
No, Hamels is not a great pitcher.  That is not a statement that can be backed up.
 
Hamels has been a very effective pitcher in recent years, working primarily in the NL.  Whilst there is some strong predictive value in this past performance, being a very effective NL pitcher does not make him a great pitcher right now - it makes him a guy who has been a very effective pitcher in recent seasons.  And certainly doesn't make him a sure thing to be a great pitcher in the AL this coming season, or in seasons beyond.  It can rationally be argued that Hamels is likely only to be a good or indeed average pitcher in the future, and quite an expensive one at that.  
 
Both past performance and future predictions are valid components in the decision-making process.  The weighting placed upon them and the appetite for risk is what determines the attitude of the Red Sox, Phillies or indeed any other ballclub to making this trade.  But all that said, I would be delighted to take on the risk (and a cost) of a non-great but historically highly effective Hamels, in exchange for a trade based around an unproven and potentially just average-to-very good Owens (plus other pieces).  However, it appears generally unlikely that the Phillies or the Sox have the same valuations / risk appetite at this time, making that particular trade something of a long shot.

 
Arguing semantics on the entirely-subjective definition of "great" versus "highly effective" isn't a discussion I want to partake in. Don't take it there.

 

[dcmissle]

Established production isn't a better bet than chances a prospect reaches his potential? We're there now? Cool.

Evidently.

What is more, when our prospects flame out -- or at a minimum appear in grave jeopardy of never reaching their vaunted potential -- it is as if it never happened.

Our uber-prospectors have the memory of a front line NFL cornerback.

This would be called a bubble.

 

[nighthob]

If you were just finding a new way to say "I don't think I'd trade Swihart or Betts for Hamels," well then yeah, agreed, I don't think we have to. The Phillies are either waiting BOS out to see if they'll cave before taking their next best offer or they're comfortable keeping him and will do it only for Swihart or better. If the former I think it'll happen eventually, if the latter it won't.

That's how I was interpreting what he wrote, but you're right, he isn't being clear. I'm against trading hitting for pitching, but if the cost is something along the lines of Owens, Johnson, Marrero and a lottery ticket I'm fine with it.

 

[Doctor G]

If you trade Betts for Hamels you have to play Castillo in CF. if you move Castillo to CF you have to be sure you can count on Victorino to be your primary RF. Hamels does give you stability at the top of the rotation but the cost is you are gambling on an outfield situation that could be very similar to the one you had in 2014.

Is Castillo the invisible man? why is there so much conjecture on Betts going forward and none on Castillo. As things stand now Betts is competing with JBJ for playing time.Victorino is competing with Castillo.You can start the season with Castillo in Pawtucket to get more ABs. This gives you a chance to showcase Victorino if you want to move him.

i just don't see why you would deconstruct a potentially solid CF RF combination going forward to get Hamels now.
The Nats will have pitching available at the trade deadline at which point you will be in a position to offer them an upgrade at catcher. By then you will know better what you have in Vasquez vis a vis Swihart.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

If you trade Betts for Hamels you have to play Castillo in CF. if you move Castillo to CF you have to be sure you can count on Victorino to be your primary RF. Hamels does give you stability at the top of the rotation but the cost is you are gambling on an outfield situation that could be very similar to the one you had in 2014.

Is Castillo the invisible man? why is there so much conjecture on Betts going forward and none on Castillo. As things stand now Betts is competing with JBJ for playing time.Victorino is competing with Castillo.You can start the season with Castillo in Pawtucket to get more ABs. This gives you a chance to showcase Victorino if you want to move him.

i just don't see why you would deconstruct a potentially solid CF RF combination going forward to get Hamels now.
The Nats will have pitching available at the trade deadline at which point you will be in a position to offer them an upgrade at catcher. By then you will know better what you have in Vasquez vis a vis Swihart.

 
Betts isn't, and never has been, on the table for Hamels.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
Arguing semantics on the entirely-subjective definition of "great" versus "highly effective" isn't a discussion I want to partake in. Don't take it there.

It's not being worded well, but I believe the argument is that great implies a state going forward, the effectiveness refers to his past performance. There are real reasons to be concerned that Hamels will be less effective when he starts facing significantly improved competition. Which makes him and his contract less attractive and should be considered when valuing him against what he will cost in talent.

 

[koufax37]

 
No, Hamels is not a great pitcher.  That is not a statement that can be backed up.
 
Hamels has been a very effective pitcher in recent years, working primarily in the NL.  Whilst there is some strong predictive value in this past performance, being a very effective NL pitcher does not make him a great pitcher right now - it makes him a guy who has been a very effective pitcher in recent seasons.  And certainly doesn't make him a sure thing to be a great pitcher in the AL this coming season, or in seasons beyond.  It can rationally be argued that Hamels is likely only to be a good or indeed average pitcher in the future, and quite an expensive one at that.  
 
Both past performance and future predictions are valid components in the decision-making process.  The weighting placed upon them and the appetite for risk is what determines the attitude of the Red Sox, Phillies or indeed any other ballclub to making this trade.  But all that said, I would be delighted to take on the risk (and a cost) of a non-great but historically highly effective Hamels, in exchange for a trade based around an unproven and potentially just average-to-very good Owens (plus other pieces).  However, it appears generally unlikely that the Phillies or the Sox have the same valuations / risk appetite at this time, making that particular trade something of a long shot.

 
Hamels is a great pitcher, and you are undervaluing who he has been in recent seasons, and who he is most likely to be in the coming seasons.
 
We can start with WAR this season, where he was 4th with Sale behind Kershaw, Kluber, and King Felix, and ahead of Cueto, Wainwright, Scherzer.
 
The guys with multiple 6.5+ win seasons as a starter in the last four years are:
Kershaw (3), Cliff Lee (2), Verlander (2), Sale (2), Hamels (2)
 
Lower the bar to 6.0+ and you add in Wainwright and Scherzer.  Extend to two of the last five years and you add Halladay and Felix.
 
I know we are dealing with an imperfect thing, but those are dominant top of the game guys.
 
Hamels has averaged over 5.5 WAR over the last five seasons averaging 213 innings in that span, and he has pitched at least 30 starts in each of the last seven seasons.
 
His peripheral backing that up haven't had any negative trends, and his FIP last year was one of the best of his career.
 
He also just turned 31, not the age that changeup throwing lefties fall of the table.
 
I'm not quite sure where your basis is for not considering him a great pitcher.  He has been consistently excellent and often dominant pitching in a small ballpark.
 
You can feel free to value Swihart or Betts or anybody else however you want, and I'm excited about both of those players too.
 
But discounting Hamels, suggesting that he is a product of the national league or that he is "likely only to be a good or indeed average pitcher in the future" doesn't seem to be tied to the facts or a reasonable projection for the future.  I'm way more bullish on him than most (and I watch a dozen or so of his starts a year as well), but I don't see where the expectation that he isn't a great pitcher now and as likely to stay that way for the coming four years under contract is based on.

 

[Plympton91]

Dude, stop it. They reportedly offered 4/$70 to open negotiations with a solid #2 starter. 8 months later they offered the same guy 6/$135 or so after he had a season he had never approached and probably never will approach again. Then the owner himself flew to the guys house in Georgia to try to bring him back. That's pretty aggressive.

The Cubs overpaid and that's all well and good for Jon Lester. They may or may not regret it but it will prove to be a bad deal on value.

But please stop trolling shit like this. Don't turn him into your new Ellsbury.

You know, I intentionally framed my discussion of Lester as agreeing with the opinion of another poster, and then gave an equal amount of space in the post to praising their approach to rebuilding the rotation precisely to avoid this type of response.

For the billionth time, the problem I had with not signing Ellsbury had as much to do with the fact that they had no viable alternative to JBJ as it did with Ellsbury per se.

Thankfully, they learned from that mistake and didn't stand idly by assuming the Henry Owens would replace Lester. They took the money saved this time and built a deep professional starting pitching staff. So deep in fact, that they don't need Cole Hamels. Bravo

 

[MikeM]

 
Peter Gammons ‏@pgammo  22m22 minutes ago
Here’s how the Red Sox could land Cole Hamels http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/02/12/here-how-red-sox-could-land-cole-hamels …. Owens, Margot, Marrero(plus $110M) more than A's gave for Samardzija
 

 
Same old same old. Starting with the typical "the Phillies must trade him now" reach needed to support this getting rather silly notion that Ben is somehow still in the driver's seat once Betts and Swihart are out of the mix. 
 
Personally, I doubt a lot of these people speculating this stuff will fully appreciate the trade value of Hamels atm until the actual option gets taken off the table. Again, good luck avoiding the monster 6-7-8 year free agency deal once that happens.  

 

[TigerBlood]

 
Same old same old. Starting with the typical "the Phillies must trade him now" reach needed to support this getting rather silly notion that Ben is somehow still in the driver's seat once Betts and Swihart are out of the mix. 
 
Personally, I doubt a lot of these people speculating this stuff will fully appreciate the trade value of Hamels atm until the actual option gets taken off the table. Again, good luck avoiding the monster 6-7-8 year free agency deal once that happens.  

 
Or alternately, if we trade our best prospect chips like Swihart now, maybe we don't have the pieces to make a trade for a younger, similarly effective and not old and expensive player. It works both ways.

 

[Snoop Soxy Dogg]

 
Or alternately, if we trade our best prospect chips like Swihart now, maybe we don't have the pieces to make a trade for a younger, similarly effective and not old and expensive player. It works both ways.

 
Precisely so. This isn't Hamels or bust. You can go to Oakland and offer Swihart+Ed Rod/Owens + Margot or something like that for somebody like Sonny Gray. Not saying Beane would do it, but I'm pretty sure he'd listen, and he's creative enough to counter with something that does not include Betts and Bogaerts. And I'd do a deal like that before I give up Swihart + for Hamels.

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

I'm pretty sure Beane would do Gray for Swihart/Owens/Margot.