We now understand that defense is overwhelmingly important in a C. If Vazquez is as good as we think defensively, he's starting (somewhere) if he hits at all.
Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested
- Thread starter Laser Show
- Start date
- Status
Savin Hillbilly said:
Right now and as far as Ben currently seems to see it? No. But as stated above i also have my doubt he's making any serious ongoing attempt atm to improve our starting rotation.
5-6 months from now, and in the event this year's
So once past the reaching speculation on guys like Sale, or the possibility Beane flips us a pitcher with 2 years of league min value left, what's the plan then? See here's the thing with an often referred to yet never really scratched much below the surface possibility on any trade your way out of it solution. As a general rule of thumb nobody is in the market to trade away valuable starting pitching assets, and when they are it's usually subject to a small window and a very selective set of surrounding circumstances. Hamels qualifying as one of those latter guys atm/imo. Granted on the expensive end of that spectrum, but still.
Like i said though, i'm guessing a lot of people won't see Hamels for that until the currently wide open window gets slammed shut in their faces. Some seem perfectly content with rolling the dice on Swihart, even if it turns out 4-5 months from now that we missed a window to sell an asset at peak value which we might not see again before having to go into free agency next winter with a heightened sense of urgency. That's cool, and i completely understand the appeal there. But there is certainly a flip side to the coin here that many feel isn't being adequately covered up by Abraham's attempt in that article to push a fit for him here while simultaneously tying everything together with a reassuring "we really don't need him though" bow.
I mean that article arguably never even gets written, or at least likely sees it's whole dynamic change, if he (or anybody else) genuinely bought into the hype placed on Owens there as a headlining type piece
Wasn't Mickey Tettleton a backup catcher who played 1B/RF at one point in his career, backing up I-Rod? Also, I think something similar with Ryan Doumit before he got concussed, but he had a reasonably big bat playing C, 1B, RF... I think he backed up Jason Kendall.
The key to me, though, is that Swihart actually plays C better than either of those two.
The key to me, though, is that Swihart actually plays C better than either of those two.
Look, projecting prospects is hard. Projecting Hamels is hard as well -- he's somewhat easier to project because of his established track record, but it's historically pretty difficult to project pitching performance into the early to mid 30s based upon a previous track record as well.
The fundamental problem, though, is that relative to other GMs in the league, Amaro values prospects the least (or perhaps second least after Sabean?) and overvalues his ability to project star players into their early to mid 30s (see Howard, Ryan). So there really isn't going to be an acceptable deal that trades him prospects for his established star player. I suspect that's the reason Ben is trying to offer established major league players for Hamels instead; he and Amaro come closer to agreeing on their value. You might want change for a dollar, and I might want to get rid of some of my loose change for a dollar, but if I think a quarter is worth $0.30 and you think a quarter is worth $0.15, you're going to end up getting your change from somebody else.
By the time we're talking about a package that Amaro would accept for Hamels, we're also talking about a package that would net an even more valuable starting pitcher from a different team. After all, when the offer is strong enough, every single player is tradeable. If Ben starts calling around the league and asking teams to offer the best player they're willing to give up for Swihart + Owens, I'm confident he'd be offered something better than Hamels.
I don't really know whether Amaro is right or wrong on the merits; everybody is difficult to project. But it's clear that he's wrong on the market dynamics, and that he's undervaluing the asset class he wants to acquire compared to the people he'd be acquiring it from, and that means there isn't going to be a prospects-for-Hamels deal at the end of however many pages this thread ends up running.
The fundamental problem, though, is that relative to other GMs in the league, Amaro values prospects the least (or perhaps second least after Sabean?) and overvalues his ability to project star players into their early to mid 30s (see Howard, Ryan). So there really isn't going to be an acceptable deal that trades him prospects for his established star player. I suspect that's the reason Ben is trying to offer established major league players for Hamels instead; he and Amaro come closer to agreeing on their value. You might want change for a dollar, and I might want to get rid of some of my loose change for a dollar, but if I think a quarter is worth $0.30 and you think a quarter is worth $0.15, you're going to end up getting your change from somebody else.
By the time we're talking about a package that Amaro would accept for Hamels, we're also talking about a package that would net an even more valuable starting pitcher from a different team. After all, when the offer is strong enough, every single player is tradeable. If Ben starts calling around the league and asking teams to offer the best player they're willing to give up for Swihart + Owens, I'm confident he'd be offered something better than Hamels.
I don't really know whether Amaro is right or wrong on the merits; everybody is difficult to project. But it's clear that he's wrong on the market dynamics, and that he's undervaluing the asset class he wants to acquire compared to the people he'd be acquiring it from, and that means there isn't going to be a prospects-for-Hamels deal at the end of however many pages this thread ends up running.
CSteinhardt said:
Like who?
Your entire post is assumption - you assume to know exactly what Amaro values highly or what Ben's offering (or has offered,) and you don't.
Adrian's Dome said:
That's the thing though. This entire discussion is based on assumptions and guesses, nobody (here) really knows anything. This new thing about Major Leaguers was started by a Cafardo column, whose wording was not even definite; he surmised, piecing together "info from various sources", that the Red Sox offer was "heavy on the major league side", whatever that means. MLBTR and other sites take it and run with "The Red Sox offered major leaguers for Hamels", some people guess Kelly and Craig et voila.
I'm with C Steinhardt on this; if you're going to give up Swihart + Owens, you look around before you do Hamels, and there may be more compelling options out there (Sonny Gray was mentioned, there may be one or two others).
Z
SOURCE: NOTHING CLOSE WITH RED SOX, COLE HAMELS; PHILLIES KNOW WHERE SOX STAND
02.16.15 at 11:13 am ET
By Rob Bradford
FORT MYERS, Fla. — According to a major league source, the Red Sox aren’t remotely close on any sort of trade for Phillies pitcher Cole Hamels. The source says that the Sox have made Philadelphia aware of the parameters of what the Sox are willing to give up for the starter.
The Boston Globe reported Sunday that the Red Sox were one of four teams to have made offers for Hamels.
The Red Sox are wary of the cost it would take to get Hamels, with three factors weighing into the equation (money, talent, right for the pitcher to refuse a deal) instead of the two some suitors are dealing with.
Hamels is owed four years, $90 million, with a club option for a fifth year that would boost the price to $110 million. While it is assumed Hamels would leverage his no-trade with the Sox to have them pick up his option, the fact that there are other big market clubs in the mix not on the no-trade list could raise a red flag.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/02/16/source-nothing-close-with-red-sox-cole-hamels-phillies-know-where-sox-stand/
SOURCE: NOTHING CLOSE WITH RED SOX, COLE HAMELS; PHILLIES KNOW WHERE SOX STAND
02.16.15 at 11:13 am ET
By Rob Bradford
FORT MYERS, Fla. — According to a major league source, the Red Sox aren’t remotely close on any sort of trade for Phillies pitcher Cole Hamels. The source says that the Sox have made Philadelphia aware of the parameters of what the Sox are willing to give up for the starter.
The Boston Globe reported Sunday that the Red Sox were one of four teams to have made offers for Hamels.
The Red Sox are wary of the cost it would take to get Hamels, with three factors weighing into the equation (money, talent, right for the pitcher to refuse a deal) instead of the two some suitors are dealing with.
Hamels is owed four years, $90 million, with a club option for a fifth year that would boost the price to $110 million. While it is assumed Hamels would leverage his no-trade with the Sox to have them pick up his option, the fact that there are other big market clubs in the mix not on the no-trade list could raise a red flag.
http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2015/02/16/source-nothing-close-with-red-sox-cole-hamels-phillies-know-where-sox-stand/
I think the "heavy on major leaguers" reference in Cafado's story is probably a red herring. If the Sox offered Craig, Kelly, JBJ , and Owens then that's how a casual fan would view the offer. In reality including a Craig (or Vic) is a way of getting some salary relief. It also gives a little more PR help to RAJ.
The Sox are playing this perfectly. They have set a price (as they did with Lester) and won't exceed it. If it works .. great. If not, there are plenty of other options.
I still think the most likely Sox / Phillies trade will be for Cliff Lee at the deadline.
The Sox are playing this perfectly. They have set a price (as they did with Lester) and won't exceed it. If it works .. great. If not, there are plenty of other options.
I still think the most likely Sox / Phillies trade will be for Cliff Lee at the deadline.
I just don't see why anyone is optimistic about Lee being worth trading for. He's going to turn 37 before the season ends and his 2014 was ended by an elbow injury which included his velocity dropping two mph when he came back in July for three starts before being shut down for the year. There is simply no realistic cost at which I'd be comfortable absorbing his contract, or even a significant portion of it and there is no way that Amaro is going to simply give him away AND eat a huge chunk of it.
You can call it assumption or you can call it inference. Both of these GMs have track records from which we judge their tendencies.Adrian's Dome said:
(For the record, I also think the Amaro bashing goes too far at times. He wouldn't be the first GM to overextend veteran players in a doomed effort to keep a window open longer than warranted.)
Examples of young pitchers one might reasonably prefer to Hamels we could probably acquire with a Swihart-Owens centered package: Sonny Gray, Dallas Keuchel, Zack Wheeler...
I mean, sure, there's no reason to be "upset", as getting upset about another team acting stupidly is a waste of energy. But lets not ignore the obvious stupidity at work.LahoudOrBillyC said:
Amaro currently controls Hamels' age 31, 32, 33, 34 seasons with an option for his age 35 season at $22 million per. Of those seasons, by far the most valuable is Hamels' age 31 season, both because after this season there will be one less season of Hamels to buy, and because if Hamels has a down year in 2015 then very quickly the value of his remaining seasons could plummet.
I mean, lets say in 2015 Hamels loses a mph off his fastball, his HR/9 jumps back up to career averages, and his ERA and FIP jump up to the 3.70 range. Or maybe his slash stats stay fine but he's shut down for 2 months with an elbow strain. How do the 3 or 4 years at $22 million per year look now, at the July trading deadline, or now, at the end of the 2015 season? Not so great, right? Maybe not quite a net negative, but not the clear net positive that he is now. He goes for somebody where you'd be willing to pick up the whole contract and give up a decent prospect or two for to somebody who needs to be subsidized to get any prospect return at all.
And of course if Cole Hamels has to pay a visit to Dr. James Andrews in 2015 - and Hamels is at great risk of such a thing, given his status as a major league baseball pitcher - then all bets are off. Holding on to a big money pitcher in his 30s is like holding on to a hand grenade.
And what is Cole Hamels worth to the 2015 Phillies? Nothing. He's not making their team meaningfully better, he's not bringing people to the ballpark, his performance is just a waste. Amaro isn't keeping him because he has plans to make Hamels 2015 meaningful on the Phillies. He's keeping him because he thinks that Hamels is worth some of the best prospects in the game and nobody else agrees. And it doesn't make any sense because while Hamels value could go down slowly, or it could go down quickly, there's no question whatsoever that Hamels value is only going down.
Price got the Rays Smyly and Franklin. The Cubs got Russell only by giving up both Shark and Hammel, and that trade was a shocking exception. Big pitchers don't get you top prospects any more. Amaro doesn't understand how teams are evaluating the value of prospects versus major league starters any more, and that's why he shouldn't be the GM of a major league baseball team.
Adrian's Dome said:
Inference rather than assumption. Both GMs have track records on how they value prospects and both GMs have track records on how they value established starting pitchers in their early 30s. Historically, Amaro values established, aging starters more highly than Ben does, and Ben values prospects more highly than Amaro does. In both cases, it's one of the sharpest differences in value between any pair of GMs in the league.
As a result, any deal in which Amaro thinks that he is getting enough value in prospects (which he undervalues compared to other GMs) for his established starting pitcher (which he overvalues compared to other GMs) is a prospect package that would be very likely to convince another GM (who values prospects more than Amaro and established pitching less than Amaro) to trade a better player than Hamels. If Hamels were the unique starting pitcher of his quality and value in the major league, this might not matter, but he isn't; he's a very valuable starting pitcher, but there are other pitchers of equal or higher value to the Sox. And remember, this goes both ways -- Ben undervalues early 30s starting pitching relative to the league, which means he also sees Hamels as less valuable than other teams.
This isn't any sort of statement about the right valuation, I might add. We don't actually know how valuable Hamels, Swihart, Owens, etc. will turn out to be. Rather, it's simply a statement of economics. There's an established market trading older starting pitching for prospects, and Ben feels that the market price is higher than it should be while Amaro thinks that the market price is lower than it should be. It's like a stock trading at $10/share, where Ben has done his market research and decided it's only worth $6/share and Amaro thinks it's worth $15/share. Time will tell who's right, but in the meantime, it's clear that Amaro isn't going to be selling any shares of stock to Ben, because even if he wants to liquidate his holdings badly, somebody's going to offer $10 for them. And similarly, if Ben badly wants to own stock to the point that he's willing to accommodate market value even though he thinks it's too high, he'll buy it at $10 from one of the other shareholders.
This is not true. We've talked about it already in this thread. You yourself cite the Russell deal from last year. The year before, Shields brought back Myers, a consensus top 5 prospect (higher than Swihart). RAJ might be reaching for the moon, but it's not unjustifiable based on these two recent deals.PrometheusWakefield said:
You're right that he's taking a risk by holding on to Hamels. But it's a fair risk to take given the guys relative durability and consistency. And Amaro might fully plan to deal him by tge deadline at the latest, so the time frame for the risk is minimal. He's not really under the gun to do a deal now.
While Amaro may not be under the gun to do something now, nor accept $0.90 on the dollar, IMO the Phillies carry an additional risk and cost (to injury risk-and losing the value of 1/2 season to the acquirer) in holding Hamels until the trade deadline. There's the cost of tanking the season, and starting the rebuilding process in July rather than in Feb/March when other trades or assessing organizational needs could be better planned for (like planning for the draft in June). Assessing that cost might narrow the spread..
Snodgrass'Muff said:
Because he's been good and has a short contract. If he's not effective before the deadline, just cross him off the list, but if he is effective, he can answer the short term problem with a short term solution.
Rasputin said:
He was good before missing most of 2014 with an elbow injury and while he was younger. Even if he's effective before the deadline, the fact that he's as old as he is and missed most of last year with that injury means that the first pitch he throws for the Red Sox could also be his last. That contract may be short, but it's also for huge dollars and I just can't see an acceptable price for taking on that contract given the risk. The risk for injury to a pitcher that age is already high enough to make acquiring him a worrisome proposition. Add in 2014's troubles and unless Amaro is handing him away for free and is eating a significant portion of that control to boot, I want no part of it.
I don't think it's going to be an issue, because I'll be very surprised if he both resembles the old Cliff Lee and is healthy come the end of June, but it baffles me that someone might think it's the most likely scenario.
Players and teams take injury risk all the time. Scherzer and Lester each did last year, risking multi-generational wealth. Teams can bear that risk more easily than players.bankshot1 said:
Tha alarm here for the Phillies is cute.
The additional risk I was addressing was an operational risk incurred by holding onto certain assets, and not risk of injury. Amaro appears to be mismanaging the portfolio he was entrusted with in 2009, by holding too long and selling too late.
Can there possibly be anything else to say on this topic at this point? Hamels is a good pitcher who can help the Red Sox. His contract and age make him a bit of a risk, so they'd probably rather avoid dealing Swihart for him if they can help it, and since they aren't desperate (and he's got them on the no-trade list, further complicating issues). Amaro is asking a lot for him, and some would argue that he's right to.
Barring new revelations, nobody is going to change her/his mind about any of this. Did I miss anything?
Barring new revelations, nobody is going to change her/his mind about any of this. Did I miss anything?
The main board has reached that point in the offseason where the signing and trading is done, barring a few last-minute holdouts, and spring training has not yet begun. The snowbound turn to baseball, and baseball says Not Yet. This is the Drew v2.0 thread of 2015, where the same five themes repeat themselves interminably. The Hamels icejam is the winter of our discontent, and Ruben isn't melting tomorrow.
All the poster is saying is that if Lee is relatively healthy and effective he presents a viable trade option greater than acquiring Hamels. Peavy was in a similar spot as Lee and the price tag was a major league ready SS.Snodgrass'Muff said:
Don't you mean "Remus" instead of Reuben? That is the "R" winter storm coming after Pandora and Quantum, both of which surely cannot be far off. Discontent indeed.Sprowl said:
- Status