NL Notes: Hamels, Bastardo, Alderson, Neshek

Cole Hamels of the Phillies has been claimed on revocable waivers by an unknown team, and David Kaplan of notes that the Cubs might have interest. If in fact Chicago was the team that claimed him, trading for Hamels would be a huge splash for a Cubs team that’s spent the past few years mostly avoiding acquiring big-ticket players. The Cubs do, however, appear to be interested in an ace to complement their collection of young hitters — they were connected to Masahiro Tanaka last offseason. Hamels is signed through 2018 with a club/vesting option for 2019, with $96MM guaranteed after this season. His limited no-trade protection would allow him to block a deal to the Cubs, but Kaplan notes that Hamels reportedly had interest in pitching for the Cubs in the past. (UPDATE: ESPN’s Jayson Stark tweets that the Cubs are on the list of teams to which Hamels can be traded without his approval.) ESPN’s Buster Olney (Insider-only) noted earlier this week that claiming Hamels would make sense for the Cubs. Here are more notes from the National League.

  • Lefty reliever Antonio Bastardo was one of many Phillies veterans not traded at the deadline last week, but now he thinks a trade might help him, Ryan Lawrence of Philadelphia Daily News writes. “I think it could be good for me to stay here, but I think it could be better going somewhere else,” says Bastardo. “We have two young lefties here, and they can do a really good job. A third lefty in the bullpen . . . I think for my career – for my career – I should be somewhere else.” Lefties Jake Diekman and Mario Hollands have both pitched reasonably well out of the Phillies’ bullpen this year. The Phillies placed Bastardo and a number of other players on revocable waivers earlier this week. Here are more notes from the National League.
  • GM Sandy Alderson likely isn’t planning on leaving the Mets anytime soon, David Lennon of Newsday writes. “The goal is to have a winning team, and a playoff-qualifying team,” says Alderson. Alderson’s four-year contract ends this year, but he has an option for 2015.
  • Reliever Pat Neshek is a free agent this offseason, but he would prefer to stay with the Cardinals, Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch writes. “I like it here,” says Neshek. “I like how I’m being used. That’s a big part of it. … I feel like I pitch really well at Busch Stadium. I think that would be good for my career, right?” Neshek arrived in St. Louis last offseason on a minor league contract and has made a huge impression, backing up his tiny 0.78 ERA in 46 1/3 innings with 9.5 K/9 and 1.2 BB/9.

135 Responses to NL Notes: Hamels, Bastardo, Alderson, Neshek Leave a Reply

  1. schaddy24 12 months ago

    Please Theo, make this happen. Possibly a deal centered around Addison Russell?

    • Chris Lattier 12 months ago

      I wouldn’t give up Russell now for just about anything.

      • Dan 12 months ago

        I wouldn’t want to give up Russell either..but will take a talent or 2 like him to get it done. Baez/Almora/Vogelbach/Corey Black. You aren’t going to get a guy like Hamels unless you include at least one of the premium guys

        • schaddy24 12 months ago

          “You aren’t going to get a guy like Hamels unless you include at least one of the premium guys”.

          That’s why I suggested Russell. I figured Baez was out since he’s in the majors. Bryant is out because… well, it’s Bryant. Soler is on a major league contract, so he wouldn’t clear waivers. Russell is the only true top guy that could get it done. As much as we all like Almora, I doubt he’s enough to be the centerpiece in a deal that lands us a long-term ace.

          • Chris Lattier 12 months ago

            Yeah, RA will probably want Russell…but I just don’t think it makes sense to move him now…Hamels is awesome, there is no denying that — I just think Hoyer put in the claim to see what it would take, will probably try and offer less than what RA wants and no deal will likely take place.

          • Dan 12 months ago

            I agree. I think Hoyer would rather keep the prospects and see if he can sign a FA SP or 2 this offseason…and if he cant..then deal from the farm

          • schaddy24 12 months ago

            I agree. The chances of a deal are very slim. If something happens, Russell would need to be included IMO, but that’s a huge price to pay. I guess we will find out by tomorrow night.

            One benefit of waiver trades is the time restriction. It forces something to happen quickly, thus saving fans the mental anguish :)

      • gaius marius 12 months ago

        you can’t think like that as a GM. Russell has a worth and value — probably around $40mm if the signings of unrestricted prospects like Abreu are indicative — and any package you’re offered that nets you that in value in return should be done.

        problem is, Hamels is paid $22mm a year, generated 4-5 WAR, is on the wrong side of 30 and so won’t be better than he is now, and so likely generates only ~$5mm of value the rest of his deal. he’s simply not objectively worth one Russell.

        if the Phillies pick up half of Hamels’ remaining contract, or a third of it and take Edwin Jackson in return, then you could ship Russell in good conscience.

        but the Phillies asked for utterly crazy talent in return for Hamels at the deadline and don’t have to deal. so don’t expect too much.

    • Cubs44 12 months ago

      That is to much for hamels. Probably a package centered around Almora and 2 other prospects.

      • schaddy24 12 months ago

        I would certainly prefer that, but I doubt that Almora is enough to be the centerpiece of a trade this big.

      • Gersh
        Gersh 12 months ago

        You got Russell for a worse pitcher than Hamels, I don’t think that is too much.

        • Cubs44 12 months ago

          From a cubs standpoint it would be. They traded two guys having the best year they have ever had for Russell. A deal won’t get done bc Ruben will want the cubs best guys but they won’t give it up. The cubs most likely put a claim in to see what it would take to get him.

        • schaddy24 12 months ago

          From a Philly fan perspective, would the deal below interest you?

          Addison Russell
          Billy McKinney
          Dan Vogelbach
          Jacob Hannemann

          Bryant is off limits. Soler would need to clear waivers (which wouldn’t happen).

        • gaius marius 12 months ago

          the pitchers we gave up were controlled salary guys delivering value. Hamels gets paid at market rates and, good as he is, delivers very little economic value. in terms of business, Hamels just isn’t worth what Samardzija and Hammel were.

          if the Phils eat a bunch of Hamels’ contract, then sure. but unless they do that, they aren’t getting a top ten prospect for him. the Cubs aren’t a contender.

    • cubs7691 12 months ago

      But Lester

  2. Ruben Diaz 12 months ago

    The cubs eats most of the contract and give them Almora and couple C prospects :DealDone: ?

    • bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

      Phillies eat most of the contract or lose Hammels all together the next time.

      • stl_cards16 12 months ago

        Hammels doesn’t pitch for the Phillies. And there won’t be a next time for Hamels.

      • NotCanon 12 months ago

        Someone doesn’t know how revocable waivers work.

  3. Ray Koenig 12 months ago

    Not sure if Amaro will know what to do in this situation.

  4. machinegunkelly 12 months ago

    If I’m Ruben, any conversation has to start with kris bryant, even if that means eating some salary

    • bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

      yes…it ends with Bryant.

      • machinegunkelly 12 months ago

        That’s fine, then. Phils should just pull him back off waivers and wait until the offseason when they can involve other teams. He is the one guy on that team that you have to get value for.

  5. bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

    If it is the Cubs who claimed Hammel……none of the Cubs shortstops are in play…….more like Almora and maybe a minor league pitcher or two…….Beeler & Zastryzny.

  6. bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

    Here is the thing……if Hammels is pulled, the next time he is exposed to waiver wire, Phillies get nothing.

    • stl_cards16 12 months ago

      They won’t put him on waivers again this year. Pretty easy to do.

  7. cscd1111 12 months ago

    Chicago fans unless your GM gives up 3 or 4 top prospects a trade for Cole Hamels is highly unlikely.

    • Scott Berlin 12 months ago

      If they want all top prospects they’d have to eat some salary. The only teams with that many prospects really don’t have the payroll space for that or don’t have an urgent need for Hamels. The Phillies won’t trade anyone unless they bring down their demands.

    • cubs7691 12 months ago

      That aint gonna happen lol. Hamels is 30 and has a huge contract. Price has a good contract (less years) and is 28. All it took Detroit was Franklin and Smyly. So yeah no 3 or 4 prospects for you.

      • Dylan 12 months ago

        Price doesn’t have a contract. He’s a FA after next year in which he will make about 2-3 million less than Hamels and then way more than Hamels from 2016 on…

        • cubs7691 12 months ago

          So I wait a year pay more and keep my prospects? I’d rather go that route

          • Dylan 12 months ago

            I wasn’t saying that’s not the right move for the Cubs, just stating your statement is inaccurate. If you’re worried about a huge contract, you should probably stay away from Price who may get 180 million on the open market.

        • gaius marius 12 months ago

          that’s the thing, though — Price is controlled through 2015. he’s going to put up a lot of value between now and then for the Tigers.

          Hamels is already being paid so much for the work he does that he has no real value over the four years. you might just as well go sign Lester or Scherzer in free agency. same thing.

          the only way Hamels becomes worth a big prospect is 1) if the Phils eat ~$40mm of the $96mm he’s owed, or 2) they find a team in the window to win a title that is desperate to win right now and willing to hurt themselves long run to help themselves this year.

          • Dylan 12 months ago

            I feel like Hamels may be one of the most underrated pitchers in baseball after reading some of these comments.

          • cubs7691 12 months ago

            You sound just like your GM lol

          • Dylan 12 months ago

            Ruben deserves a lot if grief for overvaluing his players. It has cost multiple chances at getting some talent back. That being said, i don’t think his value of Hamels is one to criticize. People are valuing prospects more than ever, and I get it. But people are suggesting that the Phillies need to eat a ton of money to get one top prospect. That is insane.

            Hamels is a top 10-12 pitcher in baseball and is in his prime on a market deal. He is extremely valuable to a lot of clubs (including Phillies). Why would phillies force a deal just to get an okay prospect? Makes zero sense.

    • Ruben Diaz 12 months ago

      Nah if it is for that, Theo signs lester in FA and conserve the farm.

    • rct 12 months ago

      Why would they trade 3 or 4 prospects and pay Hamels a ton of money when they could just sign Lester for a ton of money in the offseason and keep the prospects? Philly is not dealing from a position of strength here.

      • bagpipes5 12 months ago

        Because $$$$$$$$$. Hamels has cost certainty at $90M. You would have him for 5 post seasons. If Homer Bailey just signed for $105 M. Kershaw $215 M What is Lester/Scherzer going to be worth in Novemeber? Much much more than Cole Hamels $90 M..

        • gaius marius 12 months ago

          going rate of WAR is about $6mm in free agent market, though. Hamels generates about 4 WAR a year for the next four, declining as he gets older — he’s worth about what he’s getting paid. zero surplus value for the team.

          Kershaw, on the other hand, is just 26 and coming into his prime, and already puts up 6 WAR seasons. he’s worth $36mm a year for what he does. and he’s going to be paid about $31mm per. that means — even with the contract — he’s going to represent $5mm a year in value.

          Bailey is 28 and puts up ~3 WAR seasons. he’s worth about $18mm a year. the deal he signed pays him $91mm over five years — about $15mm per. that works out to $3mm surplus value for the team.

          you can’t forget that Hamels is getting paid $22.5mm a year. it eats up all his surplus value, and makes it really hard to move him for anything like value in return unless you eat some of the contract.

          • Christopher Velez 12 months ago

            Hamels’ surplus value comes from only a four-year commitment: The alternative is signing Lester, Scherzer, or Shields this off-season for 6 or 7 years, at a comparable of greater AAV. Hamels may be making roughly market rate (though that’d always debateable, given the small sample sizes available for contracts to Top 10-15 in MLB pitchers), but the distinct lack of probable dead-years at the end of the contract is what makes him attractive enough to part with young talent.

      • cscd1111 12 months ago

        The Phillies probable won’t move Hamels period unless someone completely over pays as far as Lester good luck.

      • machinegunkelly 12 months ago

        Plus the cubs will have to compete with other teams for Lester and it is far from a guarantee that they will sign him.

        • rct 12 months ago

          I didn’t say it was a guarantee, but they could overpay Lester and keep the prospects and come out way further ahead simply because Hamels makes so much money.

      • new coach 12 months ago

        Phils are in a positon of srength as they can afford his contract and he may be good to have in 2017 anyhow when their big contracts start to come off payroll

        • rct 12 months ago

          I don’t understand how this puts the Phillies in a position of strength. They can afford Hamels contract, but few other teams can. Whether or not the Phillies can afford it is irrelevant, it’s whether they can find a team who will take him on. Cubs aren’t a win now team, so there would be no reason for them to trade for him. Pursue Lester in the offseason. Even if you can’t get him, there are other pitchers to sign (Scherzer is another) or trade for. Phillies are not in a position of strength.

      • timpa 12 months ago

        Because #1) There’s no guarantee Lester signs there. Other teams are going to be after him.

        #2) The “ton” of money used to get Lester will be more than the “ton” of money to get Hamels. Phils had already said they’d kick in $10m and that is probably negotiable upwards. That makes Hamels a $20m or less a year pitcher with 4 guaranteed years remaining. Lester is not signing with the Cubs for 4/$80m.

        I think Lester is going to be at least 5/$100m with a 6th year option to leave Boston. If he gives a ‘hometown discount’ and returns it could be less, but I think a team is going to have to BLOW HIM AWAY to get him to not return.

        • rct 12 months ago

          Of course there’s no guarantee to sign Lester. Cole Hamels is essentially on a 5 year $110MM deal right now.

          Even if they signed Lester for 5 years and $120MM, they could do that and not have to give up the ‘3 or 4 top prospects’ that the OP is asking for. Like I said, Philly is not dealing from a position where they can demand 3 or 4 of the Cubs’s top prospects.

      • Jeff Snedden 12 months ago

        Perhaps the Cubs think Cole Hamels is a better pitcher? Or perhaps they feel that Cole Hamels is a better pitcher for their team? Just going out and signing big-money free agents to do it without considering how they fit into your franchise, or considering the type of personality/character/etc. is how teams get into bad situations. The teams that carefully choose players and don’t just give out $100 million deals because they can are the teams that ultimately win championships. History is littered with the carcases of teams that thought just spending $100 million more than everyone else would instantly make them hoist a trophy.

        • rct 12 months ago

          So. . .then why would the Cubs add a $100MM pitcher (Hamels) and give up 3 or 4 of their top prospects? You’re making my argument for me whether you realize it or not.

  8. slyfox1908 12 months ago

    Why would the Cubs trade their 30-year-old ace for a top prospect, then turn around and trade that top prospect for a 30-year-old ace?

    • stl_cards16 12 months ago

      Because they’d be trading for an actual Ace. A trade isn’t going to happen. The Cubs put in a claim just in case they could get a good deal by taking on his contract.

    • machinegunkelly 12 months ago

      Because samardzija isn’t an ace and hamels is

    • paqza 12 months ago

      Hamels is much better and has been much better for far longer than Samardzija.

  9. bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

    Here is the thing…….Phillies GM is not going to get anything for his players……the guy is on the way out, and all the other GM’s will play hard ball with him……… if it is the Cubs who put the claim on Hamels, then you take what is offer……..or pull Hamels off the waiver wire and get less in the off season.

    • Gersh
      Gersh 12 months ago

      I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t get less in the offseason for Hamels.

    • stl_cards16 12 months ago

      Saying “Here is the thing…” before your posts does not make them more accurate. Hamels will have just as much value in 3 months as he has now.

      • timpa 12 months ago

        I actually think he’ll have more value in 3 months(barring an injury) because right now the Phillies can only negotiate with one single team (likely, but not officially confirmed to be the Cubs)

        I also think once you see the guaranteed money that Lester & Scherzer sign for. The Phillies offering Hamels at 4/$80m(by kicking in money) with a 5th year option will look much more appealing.

        Those guaranteed 5th/6th/7th years added on to deals may not look like too big of a deal. But when you’re talking about $20m+ salaries that’s at least 15% of the payroll of a team with $150m in salaries and there’s not too many of them out there. Phillies could make Hamels years and salary appealing enough to a team with an even lower payroll as well.

  10. cubs7691 12 months ago

    Let us refer to the David Price trade

    • machinegunkelly 12 months ago

      Different deal. Price is an expiring contract and likely to test the market at the end of the year. Hamels has a deal in place for the next five years that will likely be much more affordable than price and the phillies are willing to eat money. You also risk that you come up empty handed in your pursuit of price in free agency and then you are left empty handed

      • The_Painter 12 months ago

        Price has one more year left of arbitration…

        • machinegunkelly 12 months ago

          Yep, you’re right., I don’t know why I thought he was a fa at the end of the year.

          Still though, he isn’t signed to a long term deal and can be lost in a year. The phillies still have more leverage in trading hamels than the rays did with price.

          • gaius marius 12 months ago

            except that Hamels gets paid $22.5mm for all four remaining years, which means that he doesn’t represent value. if you can go out and sign Lester or Scherzer to the same rate and keep all your kids, why wouldn’t you do that?

            Hamels is a great pitcher, but he’s not going to command big prospects because he gets paid everything he’s worth already. No value in, no value out for the Phils.

          • cubs7691 12 months ago

            Exactly. Great pitcher but not worth the price

        • DickieThong 12 months ago

          Yeah, but he’s already making $14MM this year which would only have gone up in his final arb year. Tampa’s payroll this year is $81MM including that $14MM. They could not afford him going forward.

          • The_Painter 12 months ago

            They could afford him the rest of the year, avoided arbitration with him next year and simply traded him this off-season, and possibly gotten a better deal that didn’t seem rushed.

  11. bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

    What I am hearing the most around the league is that many GM’s wish they had a farm system like the Cubs have now.
    Here comes the “Big Blue Machine” for the next 15 years.

    • stl_cards16 12 months ago

      Replace Cubs with Royals and this exact post could have been made 4 years ago.

      • bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

        but Royals did not have Theo & Jed.

      • ubercubsfan 12 months ago

        There ju$t $eem$ to be $omething different between the Royals and the Cub$…

      • Revery 12 months ago

        Not quite the same level. Better comparison is probably the early 1990’s Cleveland Indians: Manny, Thome and company.

        • stl_cards16 12 months ago

          The Royals were in a discussion of best farm system of all time.

          • Revery 12 months ago

            Missed my point. There is always a best farm system. That is the nature of rankings. Royals were #1 overall in 2010 (I think). That crop just does not compare to the current Cubs system. One should think historically, past recent memory, when comparing this Cubs system to others.

          • over101 12 months ago

            The Royals had 3 in the Top 10. That does very easily compare. And yes, there WAS crazy hype for that farm system.

  12. DippityDoo 12 months ago

    If I was a GM and I saw how bad RA was botching things, knowing he probably knows his job is on the line soon, no way I give him any kind of a deal, let him get desperate and make a stupid deal to help my team.

  13. I don’t want them to trade the top level prospects it would take to get Hamels. At this point, I’d wait for the offseason and sign a top free agent pitcher. The salary cost will be the same, they won’t have to give up a Russell or Bryant, and even their draft pick is protected, so they won’t lose that either. I can see why they put the claim in, but I don’t expect this to go anywhere.

    • tune-in for baseball 12 months ago

      You can probably get Shields for the same money but not Scherzer or Lester. So the question would be is he a better value ($$$ plus prospect/ ML player) vs. a FA. Guess it depends on who the player is and how much you value having him locked down now vs. getting into a bidding war in FA.

  14. bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

    okay, we can all relax now……Phillies will not trade Hamels to the Cubs according to Philadelphia reports………..Cubs were on the Hamels “No Trade List”…….Hamels wants to play only for the Red Sox, Dodgers, Angels, Nationals, Cardinals, Braves, Rangers, Padres or Yankees.

    • Gersh
      Gersh 12 months ago

      Where are you coming up with this stuff? We don’t even know that the Cubs are the team that claimed Hamels, and the teams that aren’t on the NTC aren’t necessarily the only teams he wants to play for.

      • bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

        look at Dave Kaplan reports at CSN Comcast sports.

        • Gersh
          Gersh 12 months ago

          All he said was it would be a long shot, still we don’t even know the Cubs claimed Hamels.

    • ubercubsfan 12 months ago

      I don’t see anything about Hamels saying no as of yet. Not saying he won’t, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he OK’d the deal if the Cubs guarantee 2019’s year at 24MM. Thus making his remaining contract from ’15-’19 114MM/5yr instead of 90MM/4yr with possible vest.

  15. bagpipes5 12 months ago

    Imo Hamels would veto trade to Cubs. Hamels wants to go to an immediate contender Angels/Dodgers/Oak etc…If he could he would switch teams on his no trade list e.g. Bos/Tex with Oakland/Baltimore, he would.

    The Cubs might be on the track with a bright future but Hamels wants to win Now.

    • bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

      Other Pitchers who want to win now and not later …….Lester, Shields, Scherzer…..
      When the Cubs start to win……every major league pitcher and their mother will want to jump on the Bandwagon when the Cubs win that World Series.

  16. They must do it :)

  17. new coach 12 months ago

    phils wont dump Cole for nothing. With many big salaries coming off the books in 2016, shedding payroll isnt required. No reason they couldnt reload for a run in 2017 . Nola, their top pick from this year may be up next season (in AA now and doing well).

    • new coach 12 months ago

      to clarify- I think they could be decent in 2017, with a starting rotation of Cole/Nola/Biddle/?/? and adding Crawford, Quinn, Franco to the majors and then making good (which may not be their forte) FA signings the next few years. Wont be a top team but will be heading in the right direction

  18. bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

    If the Phillies want to trade Hamels in the off season, please refer what the return package was for David Price, who is a much better pitcher then Hamels.

    • DickieThong 12 months ago

      They traded him because they couldn’t afford him going forward. Totally different scenarios.

    • Gersh
      Gersh 12 months ago

      I don’t fully agree with your statement saying Price is a much better player than Hamels.

    • Dylan 12 months ago

      You are comparing apples to oranges.

    • Jeff Miller 12 months ago

      4 years of Cole Hamels at $90M w/ an option is worth far more than 14-months of David Price at around $25M, especially when you factor in post-season success and pitching in a large market.

  19. meep 12 months ago

    if cubs got him what would it cost would they use Addison Russell in a trade since they have a surplus in IF depth

    • ubercubsfan 12 months ago

      No, there is a reason to stock pile SS prospects. They can be converted to play almost anywhere. The requirements to be a good SS are much higher than to be a 2B or 3B. So, if the Cubs were to make a trade, you wouldn’t really see any top prospects going from the Cubs unless the Phillies want to eat a TON of money in return.

      • meep 12 months ago

        that is true plus if needed one of the IF could be a OF since cubs could use a OF. then who knows what a trade would be if cubs had a chance to get him

        • ubercubsfan 12 months ago

          Example right now is Alcantara. He was a SS, converted to 2B when Baez got to Iowa, then they put him in CF when Baez went to 2B in Iowa. SS can play almost anywhere since they have the tools to field the position. Now hitting for said position, that’s a whole different story.

      • stl_cards16 12 months ago

        I agree, but SS’ s are very hard to find. So if the Cubs do indeed end up with a surplus, trading them to fill other needs could provide more value to the Cubs than simply shifting a SS to an easier position. For now, I believe the Cubs are going to hold and see which prospects work out, then worry about filling the holes.

  20. meep 12 months ago

    cubs just had a ace and they traded him, i guess they want a more proven ace. not a bad idea to add with all that talent they have in the minors

  21. Curt Green 12 months ago

    Neshek,former Twin, striking gold with another team. Good for him.

  22. meep 12 months ago

    just a guess on what the cubs could look like in the future OF Soler, Alcantara and Bryant,IF Baez,Russel, Castro and Rizzo and the rest unknown. maybe Kyle Schwarber as the future catcher

  23. MLvalue 12 months ago

    Don’t forget we have a surplus @ 3b and CF too.

  24. letsgogiants 12 months ago

    There’s not many jobs other than baseball where you can say “I like how I’m being used” in a happy context.

  25. Frank Richard 12 months ago

    The Cubs shouldn’t offer too much for Hamels I would deal Dan Vogelbach, Chtistian Villanueva, and a low level pitcher for him. I might even add a change of scenery guy like Brett Jackson or Josh Vitters.

    • Jeff Miller 12 months ago


      • Frank Richard 12 months ago

        This trade is a long shot to happen at best and there is no real incentive for the cubs to throw away prospects just to acquire Hamels. So you offer a deal that might at the very least get your foot in the door and have the Phillies counter offer. Vogelbach and Villnueva are solid top 15 prospects in the cubs organization. If you include maybe a Dillon Maples and Brett Jackson I think the depth of that deal has the phillies at least listening. But trading for a pitcher for this season isn’t important. They could try again in the off season and they can sign a free agent also.

        • Jeff Miller 12 months ago

          That doesn’t get the Cubs foot in the door. You don’t get a pitcher like Cole Hamels unless you’re giving up major talent. I know Cubs fans have laughed at this, but it’ll probably cost something along the lines of Russell, Soler, McKinney and a low-level high potential arm like Jen-Ho Tseng.

          • bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

            Listen, the Cubs are not the ones who want to get rid a player who is making $20 million a year………they don’t have to give away top prospects for Hamels…….take what Chicago gives you or pull Hamels and wait for the off season for lesser offers.

          • Jeff Miller 12 months ago

            Where did you get the idea that the Phillies want to get of Hamels?

          • bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

            why did Hamels get put on the waiver wire?

          • Jeff Miller 12 months ago

            Just about everyone is placed on revocable waivers if you’re team isn’t in contention. Even teams in contention place guys on revocable waivers.

          • Frank Richard 12 months ago

            So you think the Phillies should get 1 top 10 prospect, another top 100 prospect, a 19 year old outfielder a year removed from being a first round draft choice, plus the only Cubs minor league pitcher to take huge steps forward all for 1 left handed starter who is 30 and not on a team friendly deal. The Cubs got less for both Samardzija and Hammel.

    • Robbieb7 12 months ago

      Lol talk about a low ball offer

  26. Jeff Snedden 12 months ago

    Neshek is just another great story from the Cardinals. It’s amazing how good that franchise is at taking struggling pitchers and turning them into major assets. Since 2011, Neshek has been waived by the Padres, signed by the Twins, signed to a minor league deal by the A’s, sold to the Orioles, and finally found a home in St. Louis. It’s easy to see why the Cardinals are such a premier professional sports team, they know how to cultivate talent better than just about anyone. If you were a player like Neshek, of course you want to stay in St. Louis. Great fans, great organization. It’s like baseball heaven.

  27. timpa 12 months ago

    With Stark saying Hamels can be traded to Chicago without needing approval

    Hamels & $16M ($2.5M 2015 thru 2018 and $6M in 2019 the buy-out amount) If Cubs decide to pick up the 2019 option he’d cost $14M and if Hamels vests the option (which includes shoulder/elbow injury DL protection to keep it from vesting) he’d cost $18M.

    For Russell/Soler/McKinney/low-level pitching lotto ticket. #15-#30 prospect in cubs

    It effectively becomes Jeff Samardzja, Soler and a bottom prospect for Cole Hamels @ $20M a year for 4 years with injury protection 5th year option. Hamels has been an established top pitcher longer than Samardzja and being a lefty who doesn’t rely on a power arm has a better chance of pitching longer effectively as well.

    Cubs have added more potential OF bats with the draft and players converting from IF possibly so Soler could be expendable and also be attractive to the Phils as MLB ready.

    • bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

      Russell / Soler / McKinney / plus another for Hamels…………….keep on dreaming Philadelphia.

    • Frank Richard 12 months ago

      This is crazy talk! You are saying they should get 2 top 50 prospects and a 19 year old outfielder a year removed from from being a first round pick and more for a left handed pitcher who is 30 and not on a team friendly deal? The cubs got less for Samardzija and Hammel then you think the phillies should get for Hamels.

  28. bigbadjohnny 12 months ago

    Cubs Theo & Jed can pick and choose who they want…….no rush of trading away top notch prospects………..Philadelphia system is in a mess……..they have players no one want………its not what Phillies want from the Cubs….it is more what the Cubs will offer for your guy……..the Cubs are in control….not the Phillies…………next time you expose Hamels on the waiver wire, you get nothing.

  29. Gersh
    Gersh 12 months ago

    I’m pretty sure he is a cubs fan.

  30. Chris Lattier 12 months ago

    I don’t think 1.5 years of Shark & half a season of Jason Hammel is worth a guy like Russell & McKinney…do you?

    I think Beane made that trade so he could get some help early and because he made a decision to go for it.

  31. Chris Lattier 12 months ago

    Also, it’s not that Addison Russel is better than Cole Hamels or worth more for the duration of ownership…just not sure the Cubs should give up Russell for just about anything right now. His worth to them is more than this trade would be right now. Just my opinion…

  32. gaius marius 12 months ago

    right, Beane is in a narrow window where they are legit to win it all. you can bend the valuations in times like that. but the Cubs are nowhere near being in that position. why would they hurt themselves in business terms to get Hamels, a guy being paid the full market rate for the worth of the work he does? he represents no value, unless the Phils eat a big chunk of his salary.

  33. Chris Lattier 12 months ago


  34. NUWildcats36 12 months ago

    Get used to it as long as it keeps working.

  35. over101 12 months ago

    Let’s wait until it translates to major league wins before you declare it as working.

  36. NUWildcats36 12 months ago

    I’m sorry but do you not find signing Scott Feldman and trading him for Jake Arrieta and Pedro Strop a success? What about signing Hammel which allowed the Cubs to get the top 2 prospects from Billy Beane?

    Sure, you can pull the “MLB wins” card any day of the week, and you’re absolutely right. But you’re going to be hard pressed trying to convince a Cub fan that Theo and Jed haven’t vastly improved the outlook for the Cubs future. And for an organization that hasn’t had a future this bright in over a decade, you can’t blame us for being all in on Theo/Jed.

  37. Revery 12 months ago

    Royals fans have NEVER said, “Awesome, we’ll soon spend a quater billion dollars to supplement this awesome farm.”

  38. stl_cards16 12 months ago

    Neither have the Cubs. Though they certainly have a financial advantage over their entire division.

  39. over101 12 months ago

    The Royals in 2011 got the highest class score in Baseball America’s farm rankings EVER.

    “It is not even close”, this guy says…. Truly insulting you claim I’m dead wrong when you are so far away from the truth.

    From article:

    “It’s fair to say that this year’s Royals prospect class is among the best we’ve seen,” managing editor J.J. Cooper said. “In the 22 years of Baseball America’s Top 100 Prospects list, we’ve never before had a team place nine players in the Top 100.

    “We’ve also never had a team place five prospects in the Top 20.”

    First baseman Eric Hosmer ranked eighth, followed by third baseman Mike Moustakas (No. 9), outfielder Wil Myers (No. 10)

  40. Jeff Miller 12 months ago

    Not for 4+ years of an ace in his prime with a market value contract who has pitched great in the playoffs and can handle the pressure of pitching in a large market with high expectations.

  41. BacborisTheOriginal 12 months ago

    These “intangibles” will be the selling pitch next year at the deadline. Knowing your gm, he will ,likely flub it again next year.

    A trade wont happen but thinking you will pull in the haul listed above is simply illusory. (Not that Cubs fans asking to get him for junk is any less funny)

    Also “in his prime” is a little generous for this type of pitcher at 31.

  42. Jeff Miller 12 months ago

    It’s not illusory when you consider the price for high-end pitching with long-term control. 1.5 years of Samardzija brought in a top 10 overall plus a top 5 organizational guy. 4-5 years of a better pitcher will cost significantly more.

Leave a Reply