1:53pm: The Phillies have pulled Hamels back off waivers after the two sides were unable to strike a deal, tweets Paul Sulivan of the Chicago Tribune.
FRIDAY, 8:43am: In an updated version of his original article, Wittenmyer writes that the Cubs may prefer to add an ace-caliber starter via free agency this winter. They’ll have multiple options to do so with Max Scherzer, James Shields and Jon Lester (whom Cubs president Theo Epstein and GM Jed Hoyer know well) hitting the open market. Jon Heyman of CBS Sports hears the same, reporting that the Cubs are “expected to be aggressive” on the free agent market.
THURSDAY: As many have been speculating since Cole Hamels was placed on revocable waivers, the Cubs have indeed been awarded the claim on the Philadelphia ace, Mike Missanelli of ESPN 97.5 in Philadelphia first tweeted. However, Gordon Wittenmyer of the Chicago Sun-Times reports that a deal is almost certainly not going to happen. The Phillies, according to Wittenmyer’s sources, have asked the Cubs for one of their prized young shortstops as the centerpiece to a trade. Because both Starlin Castro and Javier Baez are already on the 40-man roster and would therefore be subject to revocable waivers themselves, Addison Russell (and others) is the likely asking price, according to Wittenmyer.
The two sides will have 48.5 hours from the moment of the claim in order to work out a trade. Any 40-man roster players to change hands in a theoretical deal would also need to clear waivers. If and when the two sides decide that a deal cannot be reached, the Phillies can simply pull Hamels back off waivers. Hamels’ contract does allow him to block trades to 20 teams, but as ESPN’s Jayson Stark reported earlier today, the Cubs are not one of those 20 clubs. So, in the unlikely event that a deal is agreed upon, Hamels would have no say in vetoing the transaction.
While the Cubs have the financial capability to assume the remaining $100MM+ on Hamels’ contract and the prospect depth to acquire nearly any available player via trade, Wittenmyer reports that the team has “no desire” to use both surpluses on a single player.
It’s certainly not outlandish for the Phillies to ask for Russell and other high-end prospects in order to part with Hamels. The Cubs, after all, acquired Russell (along with 2013 first-rounder Billy McKinney and controllable starter Dan Straily) in exchange for a year and a half of Jeff Samardzija’s services and three months of Jason Hammel.
Clearly, Hamels has more long-term value than the combination of the two arms the Cubs sent to Oakland. While his salary is sizable, a $22.5MM annual commitment is actually below-market for a top-of-the-rotation arm, which Hamels clearly is. He’s pitched to a 2.42 ERA with 9.1 K/9, 2.6 BB/9 and a 46.9 percent ground-ball rate in 137 1/3 innings this season. He’s controlled through the 2018 season at that same $22.5MM rate, and his vesting option for the 2019 campaign comes with a $6MM buyout. However, if the Phils truly wish to shop Hamels — and there’s been little to no indication that they do — they’d likely be better suited to wait until the offseason, when all 29 other teams could bid for his services and potentially drive up the price.
For those who are unfamiliar with revocable waivers or post-July 31 trading, check out MLBTR’s primer on August trades.
Do it Ruben!!!
Meh. No guarantee that the Cubs would even trade Russell. Plus, I’d rather have the field open (i.e. in the offseason) that way you aren’t restricted to just 1 team. The only real risk you are taking in waiting (assuming you’d trade him at all) is that he’ll get injured in the next 8-10 starts (which don’t get me wrong, I get it’s still a big risk). While that is a risk – I’m not sure it outweighs only being able to negotiate with 1 team.
Though to be fair the Cubs minor league system is arguably better than the combined value of many of the other club systems at this point. Maybe it’s best to deal exclusively with the best farm system on the table, I don’t know?
On the other end I’m a Cubs fan and just don’t know why you would give up a top prospect when you can get a free agent of similar value during the offseason and keep your prospect for later deals down the road.
My thoughts exactly. They have the money to sign possibly 2 out of Lester Scerzer and Shields. The only question is if 2 out of the 3 want to sign with Cubs, who are probably at least another year away from competing (if the prospects pan out like planned)
Alternatively, why not get (arguably) a pitcher who’s better than the 3 “prime” FA starters this year, and guarantee it’s a shorter contract than what you’ll be forced to pay for the other guys?
It really depends on what you have to give up for hamel. If you have to give up more then Russell (top prospect wise) why put yourself in that position? Not all of their prospects pan out and they have been waiting for the right time to unleash all of them on the major league roster. This is a few years in the making. You don’t trade 2 of your top prospects who have been part of your planned future. Not gonna happen especially if they can fill the void for needing an ace through FA not having to give up anything as long as they don’t have a QO tied to them
He’s going to ask for too much or too little like he always does. Personally I feel RAJ waited too long to make a trade, any major league ready talent has to be exposed to trade waivers before being dealt so the return is likely to include a number of Single-A talent.
I don’t think he’s looking for major league talent. He did a radio interview the other day, where he openly hinted (for the first time) that he’s looking more toward 2016-2017 instead of 2015.
Well it’s more dangerous projecting what talents are going to become when you’re dealing with guys in the lower levels of an organization. Any good return of Hamels likely evaporated by the start of the August Trade Waivers.
I think he might’ve been able to get Arrieta/Russell and some low level A-Ball talent if he made this trade last month.
I proposed a trade like that back when the Price trade was announced. People called me crazy but I feel as though Rays would of jumped at that trade. How do you feel?
Hamels is under contract for a much longer time at under market value. It wouldn’t make sense for the Cubs to give up someone for Price when they’d only be getting 1 and 1/2 years out of him before he hits Free Agency.
So, no it’s a horrible trade for someone who wouldn’t help the Cubs that much in the long run.
The Cubs got Cole Hamels?? Theo is the best GM in baseball!!!1
No, they just claimed him. Nothing happened yet.
They didn’t get him and Theo isn’t a GM.
I like how, in addition to the obvious thing that’s wrong, Theo isn’t even the GM. Poor Jed Hoyer, nobody remembers him xD
Theoyer or Jedstein
I wonder what Cub fan’s think Jed Hoyer actually does? I’d think he gets Theo’s coffee in the morning then sleeps under his desk for the rest of the day like George Costanza.
He makes Theo’s decisions. Everyone knows that silly.
He watches Moneyball on repeat and tries to figure out all of the different meanings.
Lol now that gave me a chuckle. Nicely done.
This is the one time I’m going to applaud Ruben. Russell, if no one else, (I can understand not Bryant or Baez) should be the headline. You got him for Shark, you’re going to need to give him up to get Hamels.
Players on the 25-man roster cannot be PTBNLs in any trade.
I heard RAJ is asking for Rizzo, Baez, Castro, Arrieta and Russel. RAJ is also willing to throw in Ryan Howard and the precious bag of balls he got for unloading Hunter Pence.
Trade all of them Theo! throw in Soler also oh yea
uhhhhh naw
Take Ronnie Woo and its a deal for sure
If I’m the Cubs I’m not parting with any of the top prospects..
Cubs would never give up Russell. It was a mistake by Beane to give him up for Shark. He’s putting up insane numbers at AA along with gold glove D at short
That might be overstating the case, but this article is poor analysis. Hamels simply isn’t valuable because he’s paid so much. A team would have to be desperate to win now – like the A’s – to shed much value to get him. I doubt Beane would have shipped Russell for him. Samardzija and Hammel are controlled salaries and deliver a lot more than they cost. Baseball is a business and what players cost matters.
You do realize come this winter Hamels will be below market value?
Few teams can afford Hamels regardless if he’s below market value. The Phillies could eat a chunk of salary but like people have said before, this is a business and is it really worth eating 50M of a guy’s contract for a bunch of prospects who might never provide anything close to the value of what someone like Cole Hamels will provide in one season?
Yeah, maybe not. But the Phils badly need some cost controlled talent, and if they have to eat $40mm up front to take the chance of getting it they might.
The Cubs can afford Hamels. Including raises for the arb-eligible players and assuming they resign their three FAs, the Cubs’ payroll for next season is looking like ~$60M. Their highest payroll ever was $144M in 2010 and last year it was $107M. Adding Hamels’ $22M takes their 2015 payroll to ~$82M, which would be their lowest since 2003.
I do not understand this assessment. He’s making $22.5MM. Unless Scherzer and Lester sign for like $50MM a season, Hamels will still be above market value next year. It’s $22.5MM. He’s like the 5th highest paid pitcher in baseball. It’s a lot of money.
And even if it somehow becomes literally ‘below market value’, most teams still cannot afford him. ‘Below market value’ is a meaningless descriptor when attached to Cole Hamels to like 90% of teams.
Scherzer is not as good as Cole Hamels. Lester is nearly as good.
If both sign for $25MM over 6+1 years+option, you’re paying them a minimum of about $40MM more over the life of their contracts (maximum in the $85MM range), and you’re doing so for the privilege of playing them when they’re 36 or 37, instead of finishing up with Hamels when he’s 34/35.
“Below market value” is still important, because any team that can’t afford him also can’t afford Lester, Scherzer, Price or Shields. If the market is set in such a way that nobody can take those salaries, it isn’t somehow not the market just because it excludes them. It’s just that the market is high.
Scherzer has more WAR over the last three years than Hamels, and his FIP is better over that stretch. He strikes out way more batters than Hamels with a similar walk rate and WHIP. He’s better than Hamels, and he’s younger with 600 fewer innings on his arm. I’ll grant you that Lester isn’t as good, but Scherzer is a much better investment than Hamels over the next 5 years.
But nevertheless, my point still stands. ‘Below market value’ isn’t a good descriptor when you’re dealing with numbers as high as Hamels because that’s not what you’re signing him (or trading for him) for. Just because some other team on the cusp gives Lester and Scherzer huge deals doesn’t magically make paying for 34 and 35 year old Hamels ‘below market’ because of the disparity of the buyer’s market. A team that can barely afford a top-tier pitcher can’t simultaneously afford to trade away their low cost assets. Nearly every team in baseball could afford to sign Lester or Scherzer if they also had contributing players at well below market value, ie prospects/pre-Arb guys. But they cannot afford a contract that size (ie Hamels’s) if they also have to trade those players away.
You’re using a 3-year average for Scherzer that is greatly affected by a single good year, and a 3-year average for Hamels that is greatly affected by a single poor (for him) year.
Scherzer had a very good 2013. That’s also his only very good year. It’s also the only year he’s been better than Hamels (fWAR indicates his 2011 was 0.2 points higher, but the other aggregated stats – including bWAR and WHIP and xFIP – don’t agree), and was fueled by an unsustainably low BABIP (.259). If Hamels hadn’t missed a month’s worth of starts this year their 3-year fWAR would be approximately even.
Scherzer is literally 5 months younger than Hamels, and part of the reason he has fewer IP is because he averages fewer IP/start than Hamels (207 IP/162’s his career average, and it would be under 200 if not for 2013).
So, no, I don’t think that Scherzer is a “much better investment than Hamels over the next 5 years.” You’re also making a fairly drastic assumption that Scherzer can be had for only a 5-year commitment.
For the record, Scherzer is 7 months younger, not 5. Personally, I don’t think that’s too much of a difference, which is why I mentioned the huge (like three season’s worth) disparity of innings. I don’t care how it got reached. Hamels has 600 more innings (like 50% more than Scherzer) on his arm. But also: over the last three years, Hamels averages 6.82 innings/start, Scherzer is at 6.38. So it’s a one out per start. Not a big difference.
And you’re wrong about Scherzer only having one good year. Last three year FIPs: 3.27, 2.74, 3.01. Hamels: 3.30, 3.26, 2.85. Scherzer’s is better. And again: his K rate is much higher with a similar walk rate and WHIP. Also: his WAR is higher than Hamels’s this season. His BABIP has normalized after last year’s fluke and he’s still great.
And I’m not making any assumption about getting Scherzer for 5 years. I picked 5 years because that’s essentially what’s left on Hamels’s contract. Factor in that Hamels is going to cost you several prospects in addition to his salary, and Scherzer is hands-down a better investment than Hamels.
I realize you “don’t care how it got reached,” but that’s because you’re not paying the dude’s salary. Zach Greinke had an awe-inspiring 2009. It made his 2009-2011 numbers look quite good. That doesn’t change the fact that he had a pretty poor 2010 (100 ERA+, so literally league average), and a forgettable 2011 (103 ERA+, almost ditto).
3-year samples are nice, but unless there’s consistency between those years it’s not a good barometer for future results. The 5-year sample shows that Scherzer is nowhere near as good as his 2013 (his WHIP alone dropped 0.330 points under the average he’d set in his first 4 years as a starter, and .304 points under his 2012). This year he’s looking good, but not great, and his FIP and xFIP are both higher than Hamels’ this year (which, as you pointed out, is due in part to his BABIP normalization).
Scherzer’s WAR is higher this season because Hamels has 3 fewer starts, and WAR is a counting stat. Scherzer’s HR/FB is higher, his GB% is lower (as is his LoB%), his K/9 is higher but his BAA is .020 points higher, and his ERA- (which adjusts for league and park) is 15 points higher. Put Hamels in Comerica Park and he’d likely outperform Scherzer every year other than 2013 and 2009 (the only years his ERA- were higher than Scherzer’s).
As for the market, yes, in fact, that is exactly what it does. There are teams that cannot afford to buy players at market rate. The market is set by what teams will pay, not what the projected $$$/FA WAR value is on Fangraphs. If there are teams “willing to overpay” for Scherzer and Lester, that sets the market for near-top-flight pitching. Other top-flight pitchers will see that, and hold out for higher salary options.
They probably won’t sign a ton of 1-year deals “to build value” either, because they risk getting nailed to QOs for the rest of their careers. If that means that only the richest teams will be able to afford top-flight FA pitchers… Well, that’s already the case, so I don’t know what you’re arguing here.
I don’t know what you’re arguing here, either. Two pitchers signing mega deals this offseason will not magically make $22.5MM pitcher Cole Hamels ‘below market value’, because, again, ‘below market value’ is an irrelevant descriptor at a price like that. For long term deals, you’re essentially paying huge money for the first few years. You know you’re overpaying. ‘Market value’ only puts you in the ballpark when the salaries are that high. Saying his contract will be ‘below market value’ in 4-5 years (which is a huge assumption; you’re assuming both that he’ll be effective and that salaries will jump to the point where $22.5MM is below what he’s actually worth) isn’t why you’d be trading for him.
Jason Hammel? He has no control past this year. And the fact that he was a key to getting the deal done(the idea was it took one of the arms off the market) and subsequently has been so awful in Oakland, that is starting to make the deal look bad for the As. He won’t even make the post season rotation.
Insane? .303/.373/.562/9HR/4SB is great but hardly insane. Kris Bryant’s numbers, on the other hand, are legitimately insane.
This should give them a good excuse to talk about potential offseason trades, actually.
Phillies are a market that could handle the Castro contract, so that could be something talked about in the Winter. But prospects will have to come with Castro.
Keep dreaming my dear friend. The Cubs WILL NOT part with Starlin Castro.
Not sure the Phillies would really want Castro. He’s a nice player, but doesn’t strike me as a building block or a player who should be a centerpiece for an ace in his prime.
Not to mention that the Phillies are pretty heavy on SS prospects at this point, and Rollins will be around for at least another year (I’m thinking he nets a pillow contract after his current one too, unless he has another 2013-like season next year).
I don’t want him near the Phillies
Phillies were pretty hot on Soler when he was coming out of Cuba. He could be the center piece. But I imagine its going to be many pieces not 1 if they do decide to move Hamels now and not in the Winter with more suitors.
If they don’t want to trade him, then why bother putting him on waivers in the first place?
cause everyone is put on waivers basically
Gauge interest in the offseason.
And like Bob said, almost everyone goes on waivers (it’s only a “big deal” for bad teams putting good-decent players on).
Most teams put nearly their entire roster on waivers. Helps to gauge the value of certain players and helps mask those they do really want to move. They can always pull the player back, and really, what’s the harm in letting a club overwhelm you?
I’m sure they don’t want to trade Hamels, but if the Cubs surprised everyone and offered Addison Russell, Kris Bryant and C.J. Edwards (not that they ever would), I can’t imagine the Phillies would stubbornly decline. (And yes, I know, there’s a Ruben Amaro joke to be made here — I’m just electing not to make it.)
Thank you, Steve, for electing not to make the RAJ joke. You’re one of the first reporters to do that – ever, anywhere.
Pretty sure he just made it by not making it… just like Amaro with a trade!
Nah, when writers make their Amaro jokes, they are much more blatant than that (see anything Heyman says about the Phillies).
Because Ruby is Groovy!
There is no way a deal is going to be made unless the Phillies really want to dump salary. The Cubs aren’t going to deal top prospects AND take on $100 mil., at least I think they would be foolish to do so. Now if I’m the Phillies and someone just gave me the chance to dump $100+ mil in salary for seasons 31-34/35 of a pitcher, I’m very intrigued about taking the best deal I can get, even if there are not top prospects in it.
Just because someone was put on waivers and claimed doesn’t mean his team has any interest in trading him. All of this speculation could be for nothing. Most teams put virtually their entire rosters on waivers to A) hide whom they are willing to deal, and B) have more options in trade talks.
Yeah but maybe the fact that Philly tried trading him a few weeks ago means they have interest in trading him
I tend to figure all this is is a chance for the Phillies to get an idea of what a team with a genuine want of Hamels will offer so they know what the general market consensus will be in the offseason.
The waiver part is not as big a deal as you’d think. Any player the cubs want to include only has to get past Colorado and Arizona and anyone the phillies want to get through only has to get past Colorado. Not very limiting. Colorado wouldn’t claim Castro. Arizona might but not likely. Baez probably doesn’t clear though unless the phillies and cubs work out a gentlemens agreement with Arizona and Colorado.
Ill go out on a limb and assume it wouldnt involve Baez. It more than likely would be Soler and Castro (if he snuck through)
Soler and Castro would never make it through waivers.
No thank you
Its not going to happen, but what if the Cubs could get him for Almora has the top prosepct in the deal, you still wouldn’t want to do it?
Depends on what else is inside that package. If I were Jed no way I would do it unless Ruben wants to open up his pocket book.
I give up Almora and Vogelbach for him. Both become Phillies top 6 prospects easily.
Cubs eating all of the contract?
Most of it ya. I mean if the Cubs wanted Phillies to pay like half of it then they will have to trade someone like Russell. Just pay most of it
Cubs wouldn’t take on all of his contract for Almora/Vogelbach. The Phils would have to eat a chunk bigger than JedStein does.
In a perfect world, Cubs rather not give up anything and just take his contract. But yes Cubs are ready to spend money and if it meant not giving up Castro,Baez,Russell, or Soler, Then I eat all the contract
Can we somehow include Edlose Jackson into that package?
im guessing Cubs fans prefer 8 years 180 million for Lester?
Do it, Cubs! You’ve got Castro and/or Baez at short for the next ten years. Worst-case scenario…Russell is the next Shawon Dunston.
Sorry, not giving up any of those 3 or Bryant and Soler.
No, I meant keep Castro or Baez and give the Phillies Russell. Sorry
Yeah right. Russell will force one of them to move. And one of them already has changed positions so
And if that fails we can always use an outfielder. Soler, Alcantara, Russel. Until Almora arrives
I know, I dont want to give up Russell either lol. Those 5 I mentioned are all no’s and should be with the team next season at some point
So you expect to get a top 5 LH pitcher for table scraps?
Haven’t met RAJ huh.
Wow, Ruben Amaro, the worst GM in baseball, just decided to start selling, but he sold the wrong piece! C’mon Ruben.
I don’t think it needs to be said in every article about the Phillies that he is the worst GM, we all already know that.
He hasn’t sold anything (unless you are counting ole’ Rubber Toe).
I realize now that he hasn’t traded him (yet). My understanding of a claim being awarded is that the claiming team is given the player. Kind of like how the Giants got Cody Ross in 2010.
No, Phillies can pull him back and thats whats going to happen most likely
Ya, the Cubbies should at least entertain an offer including one of their infielders and one of their outifielders, and then pay the whole contract so Amaro gets more money off the payroll. I don’t think anything will happen though.
Nope. It just means the Cubs are the team that claimed him. Phillies will either work out deal (unlikely) or pull him back and not put him on waivers again this year (much, much, much more likely).
If I was a Phillies fan, I would not want RAJ trading their most valuable asset.
Ed Wade made his best trade before he got kicked out of Houston… of course that was at the expense of RAJ.
I’m wondering if he could top the “blockbuster” of prospects it took to get 2 years worth of Hunter Pence.
It was techinically only 1 full season, as they acquired him at the 2011 deadline and then traded him at the 2012 deadline.
I’m talking about the trade that sent him to San Fransisco for a bag of balls.
The worst GM in baseball? I think the Dan O’Dowd/Bill Geavitt combo begs to disagree.
No, Ruben is definitely the worst. He had no excuse not to trade Marlon Byrd, Jonathan Papelbon, Antonio Bastardo, and others at the deadline, even if he had to kick in some cash. For whatever reason, he brings the same old players back on terrible contracts, and signs other old players to terrible contracts as well.
Okay, but the Rockies had no excuse not to trade Jorge de la Rosa, Matt Belisle, LaTroy Hawkins, Drew Stubbs (or any of the other 6 outfielders on the big league club). They are also hoping the 41 year old Hawkins is going to be a big part of the next winning Rockies team (said publicly). They are also looking to resign Michael Cuddyer despite not needing him anywhere on the roster, now or in the future. Not to mention the fact that they passed on a free Jacob Turner claim in favor of guys like Brooks Brown and Yohan Flande. My final note, the Phillies All Star middle infielder refuses to waive his no-trade clause because he doesn’t want to leave the team, while the Rockies All Star middle infielder is basically begging for a trade to New York or any other franchise that wants to win. Your move, Ruben.
But the Rockies have the intent to resign De La Rosa, Belisle, and Hawkins (he has an option for next season I think), and with their players already, a couple of good offseason moves could help them tremendously. The Phillies, however, aren’t a couple of moves away from competing, they are several moves. The Rockies are not.
Hi guys I guess you don’t remember me.
Nah, Hendry wasn’t *good*, but still made the team better & had a pretty successful stretch from 2003-08. Since RAJ took over, the Phillies have slid from perennial contender to a tie for 6th with Table Time and Allied Biscuit.
ITT: I’m a Cubs fan, but most of you Cubs fan overvalue prospects and make the entire Cubs fanbase look stupid.
From what we’ve heard about Ruben Amaro Jr., I’m shocked he’s not asking for Castro (with the Cubs picking up ALL of his contract, of course) AND Javier Baez AND Addison Russell AND anyone else the Cubs have of value in their minor league system. If Amaro Jr. thinks Marlon Byrd is worth Aaron Judge, who will be a better player than Byrd by 2016, I can’t imagine what he’s asking for Hamels.
Wait ok so Hamels went to the cubs
No. Phillies will pull him off waivers.
Oh ok I thought Hamels went the the cubs but now the phillies can get him back
I will get this deal done. I will be trading every player in the Cubs farm for Hamels.
Hahahahaa….no
Yes the farm isn’t worth anything to us. I going to bank roll all our money on Shields in the off season. 210 mil over 3 years sounds good on aging Shields. Soriano was a crowning achievement and that’s what I’m going to do.
That really is you Hendry isn’t it.
does Cole Hamels belongs to the clubs?
No they just claim him they have 48.5 hrs to work out a trade with the phillies of they cant come into agreement the phillies can just pull him back out
I’m going to trade everyone in the farm for him. Don’t worry guys we will pay Soriano money to get Lester next year.
If Cole Hamels was a free agent today, he would get more than 4 years/$96 million
not much more. he’s already getting $23mm per as a 4 WAR 30-year-old pitcher. that’s about what Shields is. Shields is probably going to sign for around $23mm a year over five years.
you can’t compare Hamels to Kershaw or King Felix, who are 6 WAR pitcher and getting paid like it — or for that matter Scherzer.
If a team has to go $23M@5 years for Shields I’d pray for their souls.
Shields is 2 years OLDER than Hamels and Hamels has been a more productive player. Hamels is top-10 in WAR over the last 4 seasons. Shields is around 16th I believe it was.
The Phillies also put out there they’d put in $10M for Hamels which effectively makes the next 4 seasons be $20M a season.The last year of Hamels contract which is guaranteed will come when he’s 34 years old. If he’s healthy and doesn’t suffer an elbow or shoulder injury (which would keep his 5th year option from vesting) and pitches enough innings for it to vest that would be an age 35 season.
A team signing Shields for 5 years will be looking at his final being age 37. (I’m not actually sure Shields would sign for 5 years, but age-wise I wouldn’t be comfortable going beyond 3 years and some team probably will)
yeah, good point. Shields will have a tough time getting that 5- or 6-year deal. the standard falloff after 33 or so isn’t appealing to anyone.
Hamels for Bryant straight up!
That’s the one prospect I wouldn’t trade if I were the Cubs, Bryant is as close to a sure-thing as there is.
Bryant is probably the Cubs only untouchable prospect at this time. Castro, Soler, Baez, Alcantara, Lake and Olt are all on the 40 man and would also have to clear waivers so those names are out. That Leaves Russell, and Almora as the only true top guys that Cubs have to use in a deal and Almora is very highly regarded in their own organization. I just don’t see the Cubs giving up the talent it would take to acquire Hamels. The Cubs could easily offer a package that could get him, but from the Cubs eyes it just isn’t worth it at this time.
i think it’s more that Amaro has unrealistic expectations of how valuable a 4 WAR pitcher than is already being paid $23mm a season is to a team. people are not going to line up to dump prospects on the Phils that will likely generate 15+ WAR over the next six or seven years for less money that 4 WAR Hamels makes in one year.
he may not like it, and Phillies fans may not like it, but they can’t obtain value out of thin air just because Hamels is a good pitcher. unless they deal with the Yankees.
Am I wrong here or is the whole “Cubs players who are currently on the 40 man roster would have to clear waivers” issue not as big a stumbling block as most are thinking?? Wouldn’t those players only need to get past the Rockies, Padres and D-Backs and then the Phils place a claim on them, giving them exclusive bargaining power??
If they are looking for any one of our prospects, not a single team in the MLB would pass on any of the Cubs top prospects. So it would be an issue. That said. Cubs did this to see if they wanted salary relief. Anything other than a minor token, will not get this deal done.
The only prospects that would have to make it to the Phillies on waivers are those on the 40 man roster.
Yes but several are already on the 40 man. Obviously Baez and Alcantara. So is Soler. But you are correct, Bryant, Almora and Russell all wouldn’t need to go through waivers.
it’s not just that, though. that affects Soler, Alcantara and Baez. but Bryant, Russell, Almora and many others are not on the 40 man.
the bigger problem is that Hamels is being paid everything he is worth in terms of the work he produces and the price of WAR on the open market. there’s no value there — and trades are essentially about exchanging value.
the Cubs put in a claim in case the Phils wanted salary relief and would take low-level prospects to be rid of a $23mm paycheck for the next four years. if Amaro thinks he can fleece Epstein and Hoyer of tens of millions in value without giving any in return, he’s wrong.
Yeah, I was just addressing the posts which have stated that these potential trade pieces would have to clear waivers (as in make it through all 29 teams) which is not the case, they’d only need to get to the Phillies claim spot (5th)…. but thanks for the quick lesson in WAR and its open market value..
The Cubs are going to make a hard push for Lester. Theo has given minor league deals to quite a few Sox burnouts and Lester won’t require a draft pick. Theo will want to win with a former draftee as his champion.
Lester will have many suitors though and most of those teams are already contenders. Guys like Lester and Scherzer are usually not interested in teams that are rebuilding.
Lester has two rings and a good relationship with Theo. The Cubs can give him the money and I doubt their rebuild will go on for much longer.
YES I can wait to stay up all night and wait while the cubs are a finalist for jon lester so I can see them make “a strong bid” and come in second for his services!
they are going to get one of Scherzer, Lester or Shields, i’ll wager.
I hope your right.
Honestly I think they need to add at least two and I don’t see that happening due to money and actually getting two when so many teams will be bidding for them. I think adding two top pitchers would be easier/more likely if the Cubs take advantage of being the sole negotiating team for Hamels right now and add him.
Now you have FA’s looking at the Cubs with a young roster with talent at some key positions and a Cole Hamels on their staff. I think that’s more likely to attract another top pitcher if the Cubs can come in with the right salary.
they could if they want to — the Cubs have just $27mm committed to next year, plus maybe another $15mm in controlled arbitration guys, so there’s room for a $50mm annual spend — but i agree it’s hard to box everybody off two top guys, and do you want to eat all that flexibility up?
not to mention, there’s something of a logjam for starting time as it is. even if they move Jackson, the rotation looks like [free agent #1], Arietta, Wood, Hendricks — and a pile of guys on the 40-man, including Wada, Straily, Beeler, Ramirez; and at least two they can’t outright in Doubront and Turner (if they get him from the Marlins, and presume Rusin will be DFA because out of options).
In an undated version of his original article, Wittenmyer writes that the Cubs may prefer to add an ace-caliber starter via free agency this winter.
While, this is very exciting, why did the Cubs claim him if they had no real intentions of doing anything!
Probably to see what it cost if they don’t get one of the guys this winter. It sets up a foundation for a trade.
If they don’t clear waivers can’t the Cubs just make them the PTBNL? It’s what the Dodgers did with Rubby De La Rosa as he was claimed when they tried to pass him through waivers in the 2012 trade.
The Cubs claimed Hamels in case the Phillies wanted salary relief. The Cubs plan is to stockpile Position player prospects and sign free agent starting pitchers.
Phils aren’t desperate to trade Hamels so if Cubs don’t want to deal prospects, there would be no deal. I’m not advocating the Phils should do this.. but if they a) trade Byrd b) trade AJ Burnett they will free up a lot of cash. They could then also pursue a Lester/Scherzer/Shields type. In 2015 it would be expensive but they would have a decent staff (Hamels/Lester/Nola (#1 pick this year)/Cliff Lee/?). and a good bullpen.
Point is, I don’t get hubris of some fan bases to think they shouldnt trade any prospect and should get players for free. Phialdelphia isnt a small market or struggling for cash. While they have many bad deals on the books they all come off in 2 years. Hamels is not a bad deal at all. Perhaps a slight overpay but not horrendous.
the thing is, Hamels is never going to bring a lot of prospects in return. there’s no value in his contract. the only way some can materialize is if the price of WAR in free agency skyrockets.
when a 4 WAR pitcher gets paid $22mm per in a market that prices WAR at $6mm, there’s very little residual value left for the team even over four years (in which he will be aging and declining).
if the price of a win jumps to $8mm next year, then he’d have three years left in which he’d have some value. maybe the Phils are best off just hanging on to Hamels and hoping against hope that that happens. or for someone to get desperate next July. or for the Yankees to help them out.
but asking for tens of millions in value in return for a pitcher who is already priced to kill his value? that’s why the Phillies are in such a shithole as a franchise. Amaro clearly doesn’t understand the game.
well, yeah, obviously, if they’re going to ask for a fat prospect package with several tens of millions for a guy that already gets paid everything he’s worth in terms of WAR. the Cubs would be insane to make that move. that’s how franchises get wrecked — giving up value while getting none in return.
unless Amaro is going to create value by eating some salary, just go get the pitching you need in free agency and retain all your in-house value. Epstein and Hoyer play the game too well to do anything less.
The question for Chicago Cubs. Is 4+ years of Hamels at $96 M for 3 of your top prospects a better path and better value than getting involved in the Max Scherzer /Lester sweepstakes. Scherzer probably looking for $180M. Lester probably slightly less.
There is no guarantee of the Cubs actually winning the Scherzer/Lester sweepstakes.
cubs could get both and be fine salary wise
I’ll give Edwin Jackson an extension of 98 mil for the next 8 years.
i think you take Epstein at his word when he says they are going to be aggressive.
Scherzer will take top dollar, as he’s a 5 WAR pitcher, the best guy out there not named Felix or Clayton. but Hamels is a tier below that, more similar to Lester and Shields at 4 WAR. and the Cubs are probably going to be able to get one of those two guys on five years and $125mm.
even if you establish that WAR is going to run $6.2mm, then Hamels’ four years only represent something like $10mm of value. and who is going to give up a pile of prospects for a $10mm advantage? the Cuban unrestricted prospects are fielding $40mm+ — that’s the value a salary controlled guy like Addison Russell represents. why offer $40mm of value for a pitcher with $10mm of value? makes no sense.
FWIW, have read in Twitterverse that the Cubs’ FO not high on Scherzer.
I hope that everyone realizes that nothing will probably come from this, but I enjoy the debating. To all the Cubs fans here, lets just be honest. The Cubs can handle Hamels entire contract with ease, and they have a few high end guys they would be comfortable trading. The whole point of collecting so many elite hitters is that they would have the assets and depth to make a trade like this.
Sure one or the other. I don’t think they’d want to take that contract on AND give up any of their elite prospects. Almost no chance a deal is made.
that was/is some of the point, but that doesn’t mean value calculus goes out the window. If Hamels was working for $15mm the next four years, I’d say go ahead and ship Russell and CJ Edwards for him. but he’s not. he’s making $23mm, and that just eats up all his residual value to the club.
baseball is a business. what these guys cost matters.
Except the Phils have the ability to absorb $7.5MM/year of Hamels’ contract with ease. Hamels can be priced as necessary to get a deal done. The thing at that point is whether the return justifies the sunken monetary cost and if that can be sold to the fans.
Addison Russell and C.J. Edwards doesn’t do that for eating a third of Hamels’ contract, and doesn’t serve the Cubs’ interests by trading away scarce SP prospects with upside. What you’re realistically looking at is Russell, Almora, and McKinney if the Phils are eating between a third and half of Hamels’ contract.
i agree Amaro has to eat some salary to make value out of Hamels. the trouble is that from earlier reports his ask is just totally unreasonable — looking for salary relief AND prospect package in return. and of course he can just sit tight and do nothing.
i don’t think the fans care about the money much as long as they get a name in return that they can hang onto, like Russell plus a couple lower level guys. but looking at what the Cuban defectors are going for — these guys are basically top 20 prospects as free agents, and they’re getting $40mm+ deals for their first six years. that’s the real value of a guy like Russell, according to the market. and so the Phils would have to eat something like $30mm of Hamels’ remaining contract to facilitate getting him in return for the value exchange to be equitable.
for Russell, Almora, McKinney… now maybe we’re talking $30mm + $20mm + $10mm = $60mm of relief. would Amaro eat 60% of the remaining obligation to Hamels to get those kids?
Sorry, I wasn’t clear in that statement, I wouldn’t trade Russell for him at that price. As his contract is I wouldn’t feel uncomfortable giving Edwards and Almora up. However, the AAA squad and Russell are off limits in my view.
Right. And the Phillies can handle Cole Hamels whole contract and keep him. Even with Hamels they’ll have about 40 million to spend in the offseason if they choose to. It may not be the best thing for the future of the club but they have that option. If Ruben thinks he can fill 4 or 5 spots and bring up Franco and thinks Nola isn’t far away, 40 million goes a long way in improving. There are a lot of “IF’s”, perhaps more than most teams but if Ruben thinks Hamels, Lee, Burnett, Buchanan, Pettibone and Nola are some decent starting options then he’ll run with it. There really aren’t many free agent bats available much better than what we have to replace when you consider the guaranteed money involved. Use some of that 40 million (if they would go to Philly) to lure a top 5 starting F/A pitcher and the team gets better. Their top prospect is a third basemen so signing one makes no sense. Is Nelson Cruz for twice as much money a huge upgrade over Marlon Byrd? Is Melky Cabrera a huge upgrade offensively over Ben Revere? I’m not too confident in Ruben being able to make a trade with what he has so free agency might be his only bandaid option.
HR hitters are hard to come by. The Cubs are dealing from strength. Given Hamels age and contract and the fact that there is a good chance that a pitcher will be injured at his age, the Phillies are not dealing from strength.
Just like the Cubs are fishing trying to get Hamels for nothing, Phillies were fishing trying to get good prosepcts for him. They do not need to trade him and are trading from strength. If the trade was mandated by owners or they had to cut salary, they would be in a weaker position.
Obviously, the Cubs want Hamels. Since the Phillies have him they are in power. They can just as easily say no thanks and keep him or trade him somewhere else in a few months. For both teams, nothing that happens in the next few hours will affect the 2014 season anyway. The only power, if any, the Cubs have is getting a deal done now because no one else can make a deal for Hamels. But that “power” is over the other teams in the major leagues, not the Phillies. Once the off season begins the Cubs will have blown their chance. For that right, they will have to “overpay” or not get Hamels. When the other top free agents sign and a few teams are left without an ace, it’s then that they will realize how little some “sure thing” prospects are worth. If the Cubs are one of those teams still looking, the offer will have to get sweetened the Phillies way, not the Cubs. The Cubs want something the Phillies don’t have to get rid of.
it is a risk, but this also leaves Hamels as an option in the offseason. They may irk Amaro with the trade dicussions, but he will be long gone by the offseason, so really a no lose situation for them. if no trade happens, then it is Amaro’s fault, not theirs.
If the cubs trade Russell and other pieces I’m sure the Phillies are sending money back to pay for Hamels. 30+ making over 20mill a year. Giving up cost controlled/ team controlled guys would easily cost the phillies knocking his price down to 12-14 mill a season for the cubs.
Yeah, you’re getting Cole for $12-14 mil/year. Looks like you’re keeping your prospects and paying the market price of $25-30 mil/year if you win the bidding war.
the cubs can afford that. 30m for Lester, and .5m for Baez at 3b is a better deal than Hamels at 15m and Drew/Astrubal/Hardy/Rollins at 10-15m.
I think both pairings have simlar value in year 1, but in 1 side you have Baez for 3 years at that price, and 3 more at a deflated price. The other you are overpaying a SS well into his 30ies
note- i doubt lester gets 30m, i think it is much lower. I also doubt the phils would eat that much of hamels contract, or that any of those ss will get 10m per year, maybe a little less, but a total committment of 25-30 for a pairing like that seems about right.
I don’t disagree. I was simply saying the Phils won’t (and shouldn’t have to) eat that much money to trade Cole Hamels. And if they did, no way they would eat enough to make him a $12-14 mil/year SP for the acquiring team.
I think Scherzer will get 25-30, Lester a few mil less per year than what Scherzer gets, and then Shields somewhere beneath both.
exactly. the Phils have to create value in Hamels by eating some contract in order to get value in return. that’s how trades work, unless you’re the Yankees.
Hamels’ annual salary right now is below market for a top-of-the-rotation arm, and he’s only guaranteed money through his age-34 season. That AAV adds to his value, it doesn’t detract from it.
Maybe Philly would kick in a few million to sweeten a deal and put it over the top, but eating 40 percent of the contract isn’t a realistic expectation, and painting his contract as a negative isn’t an accurate portrayal of his value.
Compared to open-market prices, Hamels is a bargain on a year-to-year basis, and that below-market AAV comes with a shorter-term commitment than a six-year deal for Lester or Scherzer.
that is not a bad point about his duration risk, though i think his age 35 /2019 option vests at $24mm with 200 innings pitched in 2018 and 400 IP in 2017-18.
but i think it’s wrong to guess that the free agent market has moved too far from $6mm per WAR per annum. maybe it goes to $6.2mm — that would be typical — but that only creates a few million in value for Hamels’ contract. and he’s wrong side of 30, so you can expect performance to decline somewhat to remove that value.
that’s just not going to carry enough water to make Hamels worth a top ten prospect — guys who carry a value of $40mm+ in the market, if the Cuban defectors are any measure — by itself.
I am so happy someone else who actually gets the economics of baseball and prospects is here. Everyone here thinks i am crazy when i talk like this here. You basically laid out exactly the thought process 29 GMs go though. The crazyness of hamels in a vaccum without his contract and age is the way Amaro thinks. There is a reason Amaro is about to get fired, and that thought process is exactly the reason.
Amaro is not getting fired unfortunately
he needs to do something fast to avoid the chopping block
It’s a mistake, however, to think that clubs value free agents in strict terms of WAR/$ — or that they even use the same universal versions of WAR that we have available at Fangraphs or B-Ref.
If every club were only willing to go what they expected in terms of WAR/$, free agency would look a lot different. Competition on the free agent market drives price tags well beyond what players will justify via WAR in many cases.
Besides, even at his current price tag, Hamels need only produce four seasons of four wins to justify the guaranteed portion of his deal, and that’s certainly within the realm of possibility. Acquiring Jon Lester or Max Scherzer is going to require guaranteeing Lester money through his age-37 season and Scherzer money through at least his age-36 season, if not his age-37 campaign.
There’s value in limiting the guaranteed portion of the dollars to years in which it’s reasonable to expect a high, albeit diminished level of production. It’s not reasonable to expect that for the final years of free agent deals, and those seasons will still come at an annual value of $25MM+.
You’re looking at Hamels’ contract in a vacuum, but it’s better examined in relation to the entire market, since that’s the alternative for Chicago (or any other interested team).
Hamels is absolutely worth a Top 10 prospect, and then some, on the trade market, and the Phillies won’t move him if they don’t get something along those lines in return.
the post-2014 free agent market will decide, but i don’t think it’s going to be as fearsome as all that — and not enough to drive WAR pricing so much higher as to make Hamels a steal at $23mm per. everyone has their own ideas about WAR, though, and that’s what makes the world go round — but i think the difference between what Hamels brings to the table net of his contract and what a top ten prospect does are not comparable.
If they’ll take Russell for Hamels, straight up, I’d do it. The Cubs in effect would have traded Samardzija and Jason Hammel for Cole Hamels and McKinney. Sooner or later, either Castro or Russell will have to go. So, sounds like a good deal to me
Cubs can drive a better bargain than that. Russell for Hamels and $30mm would be doable. then go deploy that cash in free agency to help land Scherzer.
Don’t think they’ll go after Scherzer. He would cost them a 2nd round pick. Lester won’t.
and Lester will come cheaper, though because of the compensation pick maybe a bit dearer than Shields. good point.
2nd round pick And $180 M for Scherzer. If you are lucky and he chooses your team
And I think you Cubs fans are dreaming if you think Lester is going to take a Cub discount due to Theo ties. Lester is still pretty much working off his original contract. 6/$42 M. He sees Verlander get $180 M . Kershaw $215 M.
Lester is going to want to get paid big bucks .Thats why Boston jettisoned him.
oh yeah, he’ll be full price, no question. and if you believe Cherington you’ll have to contend with the Red Sox to get him.
but the reality is that Lester is a couple tiers below Kershaw and Felix (at the top) and then Scherzer/Verlander/Sale/Darvish/Wainwright/Lee. he’s more akin to Shields and Hamels, so he’s simply not going to command Kershaw money. reasonable expectation might be 5 years $125mm.
I could see a lot of pitchers wanting to be a part of the WS win for the cubs. They would pretty much be legends after 107 years. They will have the lineup that will do some damage. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few pitchers take discounts just to be with the lineup they will have around them. Let’s see how these kids shape up in 4 years. Cubs don’t need to go after anyone right now. My guess is Theo/Hoyer goes after a power arm in the draft next year as we will be 1-2 picks again. Let’s see what the other arms can do before we throw them away on 30 year olds.
You wouldn’t be surprised to see pitchers give up money to play for a team that isn’t good/hasn’t been good in a while on the chance that they could turn the franchise around? If that’s true, then you aren’t easily surprised.
No different than Detroit or LA. Cubs have the money as all the bad contracts are off the books finally. It’s been 105 years not like it’s any big deal to wait a few more years to establish your hitting. Not like the Cubs have a bunch of old players out there. They will be in their mid to late 20’s and need some solid pitchers. Red Sox seemed to do just fine as I recall in 04. Like I said let their hitters get established and see which pitchers have a desire to have a good lineup around them. If I was a pitcher that would be something I’d want but that’s just me. Cubs have had good teams so this well they’ve always sucked for a long time is another myth. Dunston, Sandberg, Grace, Dawson, Maddux and Sutcliffe were a good team. The Zambrano, Wood and Prior team was good. Just wasn’t meant to be. Detroit gave up nothing for Price but yet have an all star rotation. You’re saying cubs could never have that? Ok guess we’ll see. Isn’t that pretty much what every pitchers says in April we might be good this year. Kind of the reason you sign up with a team but yea ok there Jim.
I have no idea what you are talking about or why you are saying it, as none of it has anything to do with what I said. The Cubs may go on to win the next 10 World Series. Good for them if they do. And they might sign every top FA pitcher in baseball this year. Good for them if they do.
But the idea that pitchers are going to not demand every penny they are worth so they can play with a bunch of prospects and bring a WS to Chicago is just laughable. If the Cubs get Lester or anyone else, it’s because they offered the most money to Lester. Not because Lester cares that Chicago hasn’t won a WS in over a 100 years.
You’re not from Chicago nor a Cubs fan so I wouldn’t make any sense to you. If I was a top FA I’d go to Chicago just like Lebron went back to Cleveland. Some athletes care about, you know, the sport. Why would it be surprising if a couple top pitchers said hey lets do this for the game. You need to see more than just dollar signs. More to life.
And who are these Chicago born pitchers that played for the Cubs, love the Cubs, and now want to give up money to go back to Chicago to give their hometown a winner? And why is doing it for Chicago anymore “doing it for the game” than doing it for Kansas City? Or San Diego?
It just seems as if you’ve created this delusional narrative based on what you would like to see (the Cubs win a WS).
I never thought Lester would give us a discount. I expect to pay market price for a TOR pitcher. Also, I think The Bosox jettisoned him because he had refused what they offered, so they did with him what the Cubs did with Samardzija; got what they could before he walked and they got nothing. IMHO
I hear RA is still sore about losing out on Edward Jackson a few years ago, and now’s his chance to get him!
Edlose Jackson
Cole Hamels is worth more than just Addison Russell, not that he isn’t an excellent prospect.
A players worth is what you can get. The Phillies are asking too much for Hamels and there is no trade.
The Phillies can only negotiate with 1 team at the moment so odds are asking price doesn’t even matter. A deal won’t be happening til the offseason if it takes place.
If the Phillies wanted to trade Hamels, they could have traded him before the trade deadline.
Apparently not because it didn’t happen?
So have fun getting into the Scherzer and Lester sweepstakes.
Well the Phillies don’t have to give Hamels to the Cubs. He’s worth at least 2 top prospects and we’re not getting screwed like the Rays did with Price. Unless you want to fight the Dodgers, the Red Sox, and the Yankees in the Lester/Scherzer bidding war.
The market sets the value of any player. The value was was high in the offseason when James Shields was traded. When price was traded values went lower. The Cubs would be dumb to trade multiple top prospects for Hamels when market values have lowered so much. Plus the money Hamels I owed and his age are negative factors. Also the Cubs are not in a win now mode so they aren’t desperate to make a deal. The chances are better to acquire a TOR pitcher in free agency and only losing a second round pick rather then losing top prospects in this trade for Hamels.
The Yankees may go after two top starters, not just one. Seems like the Hamels discussion will heat up when Lester and Scherzer sign and someone overpays James Shields for lack of quality starters available. Then Ruben can sit by the phone and wait for the calls to come in on Hamels. Not that the Dodgers are looking at money but they have Beckett and Ramirez coming off the books and they can use that 30 million for a top starter. Red Sox, Dodgers, Yankees. It looks like the Cubs may have to wait another year to get an ace or settle for a number 2 who they’ll call an ace.
Phillies fans knew when the Cubs claimed Hamels a trade was very unlikely. That said, good luck getting the pitcher you are looking for in next years free agent market.
Until he needs TJS like all these other guys. Then Russell is more important.
This is an amateur type of move. Epstein could not have believed that the Phillies would just let him go and dump the salary via claim, so the Cubs did it only to block other teams. Which to me, make absolutely ZERO sense. This is the equivalent of a 7 year old hiding his siblings toy since he can’t play with it. If the Phillies are going to trade Hamel’s then they’ll just do it in the off-season. If another team claimed him, a real contender, then a trade could have been worked out now, possibly. The Cubs aren’t a contender, so why claim him and furthermore, what do they accomplish by blocking him from another team? I want a sound explanation from the Cubs front office on this. This is the same awful logic I see in play from the front office of the Red Sox and interestingly, the Padres, before they cleaned house. All these guys were cut from the same cloth, ironically. It’s just bad business all around, frankly. Whatever…
Considering Amaro’s reputation and the fact that he went from one day telling Papelbon and others the Phillies would contend in 2015 to then saying “it may be a year or two before we can really contend again” I think The cubs may have just been kicking the tires and see if Amaro had gotten a lot more desperate after the trade deadline passed.
There’s no real risk to Chicago. The Phils aren’t going to just dump his contract and let a team claim Hamels and if they did you’d do backflips over getting him for no prospects lost.
You’re missing my point. This isn’t about the Phillies. It’s a strategy by the Cubs, that is very easy to see through. I fail to believe that discussions hadn’t taken place up to the trade deadline or for that matter, there were players put aside (realistically) by the Cubs that when the claim was made, they would make a competitive offer. From what is sounds like, they don’t want to give up any real good prospects so in a sense, why bother. Futhermore as the article states, the Cubs are far better off dipping into free agency in 2015. When the Cubs made the claim, they themselves probably thought there was less than a 10% chance something could happen. To an extent, that echoes the sentiment of the commenters on here. So I ask, why bother, when from a gamesmanship standpoint, they let him drop down the board or clear and let a contender try to work out a real deal. I think this was more in spite than anything else.
Amateur move is what Amaro has been doing with the phillies. He has a old team with a bunch of bad contracts. I am not saying he should trade Hamels who is his best player unless he get top prospects but not trading Rollins and Utley when the demand was high is not smart. Utley could have brought some very good prospects and Rollins you would get out of a bad contract. The phillies will continue their mediocre run to no playoffs if they keep holding on to old vets in bad contracts.
If only Ruben had a say in trading Utley and Rollins.
10/5 rule says hi.
i think it’s okay to be behind the conclusion that Epstein is trying to make his team better than they are despite the standings. That’s his job and so i don’t think its totally fair to say he’s being selfish or spiteful by making the move. It may not work out (especially if they think they’ll be able to get a guy on the 40 man that has value through waivers) but i think Ep is smart enough to have guys in mind that would be acceptable to the phillies to at least think about it.. If not the phills will just try the market post season.
Umm what? The cubs are known to be looking for an ace. It would be bad business not to take a shot. Why take the chance that a different ml club gets him? Maybe theo would like to try a trade. It’s not the cubs job to care what other teams want. You want a detailed explanation as to why a club would want a ace pitcher under contract?
Come on, please, let’s be serious. “take a shot”? The Cubs weren’t serious with the claim and I’m not sure why so many can’t read btw the lines. Of course the Cubs “want” Hamels, but there is a big difference btw trying and actually doing.
It’s good to know that you and you alone know exactly what the cubs are thinking with every move they make. Thank you for being here to interpret everything for us, you are viewed as a truly credible source on the cubs decision making process.
terrific, but still doesn’t mean that my point is incorrect.
Actually, that part was too obvious to mention.
So you want teams to worry about other teams plans? Who cares if they weren’t serious? There is no rule about making a claim or not. Hell there is not even an unwritten rule. Your complaining about a team that is preparing to be a contender for years to come putting a claim in on a player? And why should they have let him get to a contender? They plan to contend soon and he’s under contract. We have no idea what names were exchanged at all. You just seem to be grasping at straws to rant about the the Cubs and Red Sox. Two teams that are by most account very well run.
i do not think you understand how supply and demand works.
There are only about 20 pitchers who are Aces. True top of the rotation guys. Hamels is one of them.
There are going to be a couple in the FA market this year, Lester and Sherzer. And a few workhorse #2 pitchers (sheilds). If there are 2 or 3 elite options and 3 teams bidding, the prices go up.
Hamels would be another option via trade. If you add him to the mis, and 3 teams are bidding on 3 players, prices stay low. If hamels is traded to a team like the dodgers, who would be unlikely to sign a big name SP (waste of cash for a team with 3 very good pitchers), then he is out of the offseason market.
At worst, the Cubs made the offseason supply of Aces higher. This should help supress prices at least to a more accpetale level.
I understand completely how “supply and demand” works. That’s precisely what I do for a living; dealing with a commodity that’s value is defined by inventory.You make an entirely plausible point, about creating more inventory in the offseason, which validates my comment somewhat more. The Cubs claimed Hamels in bad faith. It’s a very self-serving move considering the fact they really had no motivation to complete a deal. If the Cubs claimed Hamels and immediately put up Russel and a package of 2 other top guys, then I would say “whoa, they’re serious, good on them” but that’s not what’s happening. To essentially block other teams while in a pennant race is just an amateur move like I said.
Castro and Baez could get through. The only teams with priority ahead of the Phillies are Colorado and Arizona. The Rox are set at SS with Tulo, and AZ might not put a claim in on those two.
Is Theo just blocking, or does he think that he can get something done for Hamels? I think the latter. Whether these guys are what the Phils are looking for is another matter.
for a quality bat cost controlled, either team would jump on either guy and play them out of position. either Castro or Baez could as easily play third, second, or center.
yep. Baez is also a rookie, with elite upside. He does not even need to be any better than average to be a complete steal for his price. Castro is relatively cheap and signed long term.
No way Baez gets through anyone
Neither Castro or Baez would make it through with cost controlled young talent that can play 3rd, SS, or 2nd like Baez is playing now.
The Cubs claimed Hammels on the chance that the Phillies wanted salary relief. Just like the Dodgers claimed Cliff Lee in 2012. Do the Phillies want to hang on to Hammels or try to trade him in the offseason?
The cubs likely were just blocking him from getting claimed elsewhere. If he stays on the market during the offseason, they have more options to get an ace. If hamels gets claimed by a team with the money to keep hiim for the rest of his contract, he is no longer on the market, making the overall market weaker this offseason.
Smart move. There may have been an inkling that salary releif was in the card, but considering Amaro is still the GM, and has reportedly asked for the world for Hamels, this is unlikely
If you are contending you can block a team if front of you.
Which makes a little more sense for two contending teams to be competive for a difference maker of a player. Not from a team that is now where close to being competitive and likely wouldn’t do a deal anyway.
Neither Castro or Baez will not get through waivers…….and Russell is not on the trade table……………with $90 million price tag, not many buyers out there for Hamels.
Yes, because only 1 team can “buy” Hamels right now.
The Phillies can try to trade Hanmels in the offseason if they want to trade him. The Cubs can trade in the offseason. The Phillies are not the only team that the Cubs have to trade with.
Hamels is worth every penny and the Phillies will chip in money for a budget oriented team in order to increase the prospect haul. There would be plenty of interested parties for Amaro’s replacement to deal with.
Good news. Would have been dumb to rush a trade when there will be better opportunities this winter and at next year’s non-waiver deadline. Now, what’s the word on Byrd?
Shocking, truly shocking.
Both sides can breathe a sigh of relief.
When 29 teams want one of your three shortstops, you know Theo & Jed control the conversation of who they want in return.
and what does that say about Jimmy Rollins (I see 3-4 solid years left for him so he is not a part timer yet) Amaro wants an upgrade
The Cubs are on the rise…and the Phillies are declining……just remember that baseball fans.
If that were really the case, Cole Hamels would be wearing a Cubs uniform tonight, but he’s not. soo…..
Rizzo
On the rise to what? .500?
See you in 2034
Good grief. Proves my points below. Had the Cubs made the claim in good faith, Hamels would be wearing a Cubs jersey tonight. No doubt in my mind. There are few teams other than the Cubs that could pull off such a trade with ease and still have deep DEEP prospects left over. Silly. It was a bad faith move to block other teams and fine if no one wants to agree, but that’s the truth.
It was unlikely the Phillies would get this complex a deal done with any team in a 48-hour window. And it really isn’t in their best interest to trade him when the other team has the leverage of being the only suitor.
The Phils should have waited until this winter or next July, regardless of who put the claim in. And it’s likely the Cubs DID have some genuine interest in acquiring him, even if they weren’t willing to meet the Phillies demands.
Fair enough and I agree from the perspective of the Phillies. I just hear a lot of talking and not much doing out of the Cubs camp. Nothing about the claim wowed me at all. The moment I heard the claim, I knew they weren’t going to get a deal done, so I say, why bother. He should have dropped to a true contender that may or may not have been desperate and coughed up a heavy prospect package.
Not much doing? Have you seen the deadlines the past 3 years. Why give up prospects when pitchers such as lester, shields, and mad max will be free agents? Stick to your mlb the show championships. Cubs will get their pitching this off season.
also, had the Cubs been dead serious and offered up a package with Russell and two other top end prospects, it may have made the Phillies sit back and think. Sounds like this was a “yeah, not going to happen” type of thing.
I’m not sure I agree. There was probably a deal to be made, but the Cubs almost certainly did not want to pay what they just obtained for Shark, if not more. RA isn’t an easy person to bargain with. Maybe they should have realized that and not bother, but for the right price, Hamels creates a free agent signing without the 6-7 year comittment. And, not to make an obvious point, but the Cubs owed nothing to the Phillies. It was RA’s choice, when he could have dealt him anywhere, to price him so high.
RA is terrible to deal with. He way overvalues his players. Not that Hamels is overvalued but when you see him asking for a top 100 prospect for Marlon Byrd and he is firm on that then you know he is reaching. The general consensus around baseball before the deadline is that the Phillies were open for business but the were asking for the moon on every available commodity.
There is nothing bad faith about it. They don’t have to not claim a player because the Phillies have ridiculous demands. You sound like a Philly fan.
Now you see him now you don’t.
The Phillies fans can cry all they want. The Cubs don’t have to save the Philies sinking ship.
Who is crying? Nobody expected Hamels to be traded to the Cubs. Enjoy your AAA championships.
I think the Cubs have their own issues to worry about, frankly. While the Phillies are a disaster, the Cubs are largely unproven and based on their non-moves, I can’t see that boat pulling into the harbor anytime soon as well.
You can’t see them being competitive next year with Baez, Bryant and a couple free agent starters, not to mention potentially Snydergaard or another top you g arm being acquired via trade?
If they can sign Lester and trade a prospect for Syndergaard (which would be extremely rare and teams hate prospect for prospect deals), AND the rookies play up to their full ability, of course they could be a contender. That’s a lot of If’s though.
I’m just talking competitive. I think the Cubs will be able to add a couple arms to their rotation next year. Legend is acting like the rebuild is nowhere near complete but it is almost over.
Their offense/defense will allow them to be competitive. They need pitching. A guy like Hamels would entice a guy like Shields as well and would make them a contender in a tough, deep division
I don’t understand the mentality of the Cubs fans here. The fact that many refuse to give up any of their top prospects for one of the best starters in baseball is crazy. I understand potential and cost controlled talent but these guys that you’re all high on are not locks. During the Phillies run they traded Singleton, Cosart, Santana, Drabek, Gose, Villar, Carrasco, Knapp, amongst others, these moves helped them be arguably the best team in baseball for 5 years, and so far none of these highly rated guys have turned into stars, or in better words, immediate impact players. I get that the Cubs prospects are probably rated higher than most of the Phils prospects were, but that still doesn’t guarantee success. Sooner or later the team is going to have to take a chance or two to get them a WS chip, and I’m sure if a ring meant trading some of these top guys, many of you would do it.
THANK YOU! That’s the point. Claim the guy, make a sincere offer of prospects, especially when you have about 20 top ones and make the move. Why they made the claim and in 12 hours the Phillies pulled him, just shows that they weren’t even in the same ball park in terms of value. Which again, questions the Cubs motivation here.
Same reason RAJ didn’t do anything before the deadline. Seeing if there was any mutual interest if you don’t do anything nothing is lost. Can’t hurt to try. Should have traded Edlose Jackson straight up. Basically what the Rays got for Price.
Given Ruben Amaro’s insistence on keeping Cliff Lee when he should have moved him, I’d say it is much more likely that the person holding up a deal is him. Nobody is blowing him away to get Cole Hamel’s and Cole Hamel’s contract. It’s not that great of a deal.
I agree with the Cubs fans, why should they trade any of there future hall of famers? They should be MLB ready soon.
“why should they trade any of there [sic] future hall of famers”
Really? Are you joking 🙂 Please tell me your joking. Please..
It was sarcasm. Remember a few years ago when the Royals supposedly had the best farm system ever?
Got it. Like the Rangers, who have no one, but 2 years ago were crazy deep and soon to be the Red Sox and their collection of “can’t miss” types, who are starting to “miss” Yes, I remember exactly. The Cubs should have given the Phils what they wanted. Why they made the claim, remains to be seen.
They are in the heart of a rebuild. I agree that they (as fans of all teams do) overrate their prospects and forget about the high attrition rate for even highly touted prospects, but right now, they need to hold onto as many as possible to increase their chances of having a few pan out to form a core to build around. The time to start adding pieces to the core is after they’ve established themselves in the majors, not now.
For a team like the Dodgers, I think it is very silly to have no desire to trade a lottery or ticket or two for a proven star when your team already has a core in place and could be put over the top by the addition of an elite player.
I disagree with this entirely. This was precisely the time for the Cubs to make the move. They were awarded the claim and could have easily (in my opnion) pulled off a trade and likely not made a huge dent in their minors and then gone out and signed either Shields or Lester in the offseason. The 2015 Cubs would be going in with a bang.
Exactly. There is no guarantee that Shields/Lester want to play in Chicago or if the Cubs are the highest bidder for either of their services.
Besides a deal for Lester will more than likely resemble that of Grienke. As a result I think Hamels has more value considering he is signed through his age 34 seasons w/ a 20MM team option for his age 35 seasons. Lester’s contract will start when he is 31 and likely run through his age 36/37 seasons while Shields contract will start at 33 and also run through his age 36/37 seasons.
Than again if Amaro was asking for 3-4 top prospects than there is no point of trading that for Hamels. I thought a deal of Russell + a couple prospects ranked 8-20 in the Cubs system would have been a fair offer.
Why would the Phillies take that? I mean, I get the argument that the Cubs wouldn’t feel comfortable offering more, but why would that be a “fair” offer for the Phillies as opposed to waiting until the offseason (or next trade deadline or next offseason, etc) to get the best offer they could from 29 teams instead of 1? It’s not as if there’s a reason to think Hamels is a declining asset.
Well Hamels is owed around 20MM per year for the next five years. That is a contract that only a few teams can actually pick up. As a result I picture his market to consist off the NYY, NYM, LAD, LAA, BOS, CHI Cubs, TEX and a few other clubs. Of those I doubt the Phillies will deal Hamels to the Mets. The LAA and NYY do not have the prospect depth to acquire Hamels. That leaves you with the Cubs, Texas, Boston and a few others teams. Of those the Cubs have the best farm system.
Thus I think a fair deal will be Russell (a top 10 prospect in all of MLB) and a few 8-20 type of prospects a fair compensation.
You also have to factor in the arms available on the free agent market such as Sherzer (spelling?), Lester, Shields, etc. that teams will only have to give money and one draft pick for.
Hypothetically the Phillies can eat some money to get a bigger haul, but I doubt that will happen as then the team acquiring Hamels will be giving up too much in terms of prospects.
I was ecstatic last season when Buccholz went 10 and 0, would have been the best time to trade him and then he got injured. If Theo would have offered me Russell and two more, I would have jumped on it in a heartbeat. Hamels value is high now, but can u guarantee this next year at this time? 3 of Theo’s top prospects is worth more than another teams 4 or 5.This guy really knows his stuff.
It makes perfect sense to take a shot at exclusive negotiating even if it’s for a short period of time, it’s why teams do this every year. The fact that it cost the Cubs nothing to try adds more validity to their move. As far as not being willing to trade any of their top prospects, we have no idea if they offered all of them or none of them, it may be the Phillies asking too much or the Cubs offering nothing, we have no idea and to speculate is ridiculous.
The fans may be wrongly attached to their young guys, but if they don’t score big with FA’s, I’m sure they’ll change their tune soon enough.
fellas, you cannot ignore the fact that Hamels is paid $23mm a year. he just doesn’t represent any value to a team with that price tag. he puts up 4 or so WAR every year, which is great pitching, but that isn’t valuable to a team if they have to pay full price for it. the Cubs are far better off signing Lester for $25mm per and keeping all their kids.
until people get the concepts of price, worth, and value down in their heads — including maybe Amaro, which is why the Phils look the way they do these days — they are never going to understand MLB transactions. a guy being really good is not the only factor, and it won’t command a pile of prospects all by itself. outside of finding someone truly desperate to win right now, you need to give value to get value — and Hamels at his price tag just does not represent anything like the value it takes to land a top ten prospect.
Why would the Cubs give up an elite prospect when for a few million a year more they can sign Lester in the offseason and give up nothing? None of those prospects listed had the standing of Baez, Bryant and Russell. Wil Myers is an example of the kind of prospect those three are and he has been very promising in the majors although injured and scuffling this year.
Not that all three are going to hit it big, but they each have a good enough chance that it makes no sense to move them for Hamels.
Just making a general comment. The time to trade freely is on or before July 31, when the only restrictions are no trade clauses and whatever the other guy is willing to pay. From August 1st on, you are at the mercy of your counter-party who is awarded the claim. The Cubs had no obligation to pay RA what he was asking before July 31. They had a clear shot at making a deal on their terms. It didn’t happen because the price wasn’t right for the Phillies. But, that’s the breaks.
Yeah, realists knew that there was a less then 5% chance a Hamels waiver deal would happen. Just waiting for the details on Marlon Byrd, who could be moved for sure.
The Cubs are rebuilding and lets see which prospects pan out. They are not going for the playoffs and trading prospects for an established player.
Wish I could hear RA and JH going back and forth.
For the Phillies fans out there, let me ask the question differently. The Cubs traded Shark for Russell (yes, there were other parts, but they were the linchpins). If Shark and Hamels are comparable (Shark perhaps having more upside and youth, Hamels a consistent force and more years of control) why would the Cubs give Russell plus two other prospects+ more? The value isn’t there. Hamels only makes sense for the Cubs if they can get him for a price that isn’t materially higher than they received for Shark
I’m sorry, in what world are Shark and Hamels comparable?!? If we’re going to say they are comparable, then we might as well say Hamels is comparable to Clayton Kershaw.
my point was that from a cubs perspective, if you had thought about making a three way trade, you wouldn’t have given up shark, and Russell and two more top prospects plus a fourth solid one to get Hamels. It took Shark to get Russel. Not that Hamels isn’t a terrific pitcher. Just that the Cubs didn’t really match up if that was the price
I get that the Cubs don’t match up (or at least, Cubs fans who don’t want to lose their prospects think the Cubs don’t match up). But your 3 way trade scenario is wrong. You wouldn’t have given up Shark, Russell, 2 more top prospects, and a 4th solid one for Hamels. It would have looked like this (throwing in Cubs prospects at semi-random):
Phillies get: Russell (from OAK), CJ Edwards (from CHC), Jen-Ho Tseng (from CHC), and maybe Eloy Jimenez (from CHC)
Cubs get: Hamels (from PHI), McKinney (from OAK), Straily (from OAK), and PTBNL (from OAK)
A’s get: Samardzija (from CHC) and Hammel (from CHC)
So essentially, the Cubs would be giving up Samardzija, Hammel, Edwards, Tseng, and Jimenez to get back Hamels, McKinney, Straily, and PTBNL. I don’t see how that’s a bad deal for the Cubs – especially with the limited control of Samardzija and Hammel.
Not saying what makes sense for cubs, but in terms of Hamels worth. Yes he’s worth more than Shark.
Hamels is a top-10 WAR pitcher this decade, he’s delivered a WAR over 3.0 in every season he’s thrown at least 150 innings and had 4 season (3 recently) of 4.0 WAR or better. Shark has never delivered even 3.0 in a season yet.
Shark is having the best year of his career and guess what? Hamels is still 0.5 WAR ahead of him and that’s with 3 less starts than Shark. Phils were kicking in enough money to make him $20M for his 4 guaranteed years. He’s 13 months olders than Shark.
So yes. Hamels is worth more than him. If the end of the day total is getting Russell + McKinney for Shark. Hamels should have another 50-100 prospect type kicked in.
Philadelphia wanted to get something more from the Cubs when Hamels trade talks started out revisiting the Dejesus / Sandberg deal.
Why did we find out who claimed Hammels off the waiver wire but not Byrd?
Because someone leaked the news to some reporter somewhere. Claims are not supposed to be released to the public unless someone is actually traded…
Just because Theo has a boat load of top 100 prospects, doesn’t mean he is going to give them away in large quality for one guy………..look at today, Cubs got 23 yr old Jacob Turner for nothing….who could turn out like a Cole Hamels …………Cole Hamels could be DFA again in two years, unwanted, over paid, and maybe having TJ issues…………..when the Cubs are close to winning it all, many MLB players will want to jump on the Cubs Bandwagon to be part of that World Series.
Do you really believe that Turner could be Hamels? Like, for real?
Do you really believe that Theo would have given Russell, Almora, McKinney, Baez for Hamels? Like, for real?
No I don’t. I never said he would. The difference is that you actually said that; I didn’t.
the cubs will never win the world series. you heard it here first.
The Phillies pulled back Hammels. The Phillies have to wait until the offseason before they hold someone up.
The only one who got held up was Phillies FO of giving all that money to Hamels and not getting anything from that contract…….
and Ryan Howard also robbed the Phillies with his contract…..good luck on unloading that contract.
Everyone is saying the Phillies were asking to much does anyone really no what the Cubs offered?
Rumor was Almora #5, P Johnson #11 and D. Maples.
People need to be careful because rumors are not always correct. That said Cole Hamels is a top of the rotation pitcher his trade value is and should be very high IMO, this trade with the prospects mentioned just was not enough to land a guy like Hamels. Anyways the Phillies if serious about trading Hamels may be better off waiting to this off season and see what type return can be had by the Cubs or who ever.
Russell was included in that…The Phillies wanted Russell.
“Russell would be a piece, but it’l cost significantly more. Another of their top 6, probably Soler”. Russell and Soler are top 30 prospects and a another of their top 6 (Bryant, Baez, Alcantara, Almora) would be another top 30 prospect.
Meaning Russell AND Soler, or another of their top 6. Not Russell, Soler and another of their top 6.
I love how an ace in his prime for less then what Lester and Scherzer are going to get is seen as a negative, when convenient.
Regardless, the Phillies have been said to be very open to eating salary, so it’s even more of a moot point.
Let’s wait until Shark wins double digit games in a season or pitches more than 1 inning in the post season before we start comparing he and Hamels. If you mention “upside”, I agree, it seems he’s a better pitcher than a .425 winning percentage shows.
P.S. – Yes I brought up wins and winning percentage, sorry and yes I do realize Shark is a whopping 13 months younger than Hamels.