The Cubs’ pitching staff is having trouble this month, and it’s unclear where help will come from, Jesse Rogers of ESPN Chicago writes. It isn’t the best time of the year to make trades. While the Phillies likely don’t feel they have to wait until the trade deadline to make a Cole Hamels deal, such a trade might be easier for the Cubs to strike after some time to make sure they’re contenders. And finding relief help in the trade market will likely be more straightfoward later in the summer. Rafael Soriano is available via free agency, but the Cubs aren’t likely to sign him unless they’re more impressed with him than other teams have been. Here’s more from around the big leagues.
- Closer Kenley Jansen’s impending return from a foot injury will result in a tough decision for the Dodgers, whose bullpen has been terrific in his absence, J.P. Hoornstra of the Los Angeles News Group writes. The Dodgers reliever who’s gotten the worst results has been Chris Hatcher, so he might seem like the most obvious candidate to come off the active roster, although he’s out of options and was only recently acquired via trade. (Also, his 13.5 K/9, 2.7 BB/9 and mid-90s velocity strongly suggest the Dodgers would be unwise to give up on him too quickly).
- 30-year-old Nationals rookie reliever Rafael Martin has a highly unusual background, Lacy Lusk writes for Baseball America (subscription-only). The Southern California native spent four years after high school working in construction, then ended up in the Mexican League as the result of a tryout. After three years in Mexico, he signed with the Nationals in 2010, then toiled in the high minors, struggling with injuries before pitching brilliantly at Double-A and Triple-A last year. The Nats finally purchased his contract last month, and he whiffed five straight batters in his first big-league appearance.
- The Rays have a winning record so far this season despite their rotation being decimated by injuries, Andrew Astleford of FOX Sports Florida writes. It’s helped that they’ve gotten remarkable performances from Chris Archer and Jake Odorizzi, who have stayed healthy the entire season. Nate Karns has also gotten reasonable results in seven starts, and Alex Colome has pitched well in two. The team has also already leaned on Erasmo Ramirez, Steve Geltz, Matt Andriese and the now-injured Drew Smyly to start, meaning they’ve already used eight starters even though the season is less than six weeks old.
Go get Hamels Now, why lose games that you could Win and not feel the pressure later on !
You tell him Ruben!
Hamels is an ace! You’ll win the World Series of you get him.
$90M and 4-5 years left on a contract for a guy with the highest WHIP and second-worst FIP of his career. That’s a lot for a guy on the decline who is currently below replacement level for Travis Wood.
Hamels: 4.94 FIP, 1.273 WHIP
Wood: 4.39 FIP, 1.224 WHIP
Your analysis is based on the first month of a pitcher who historically starts slow…brilliant.
Yeah you can either look at him at 1 month of being average orrrrrrr the past 5 years where he’s been an ace…
Yes, you can look at it that way, but he still has to pitch like an ace before he gets dealt. If I’m a team interested in Hamels, he at least gotta show me that he is still that ace, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth the cost Philly is asking. There is still the possibility that he has declined, we don’t know that yet. Gotta give him until the trade deadline to figure that out. I think he will be fine, but if he isn’t, then that is a deal that could get a GM fired.
Ummmm…that line of reasoning flies in the face of every trade made before opening day.
Well not exactly because trades before opening day are based on previous season results. Personally I think Hamels is fine but he’s not pitching up to his usual standards and you never know when the decline starts for him.
If my team were interested in him I would want them to wait to see if he turns around the walk and HR issues first.
Well obviously what you have done recently is more important than anything in the past, so you would have nothing to worry about. Hamels’ last start was 7 IP, 1 ER, 8 SO and 2 BB. He was good for a 1.29 ERA and 2.16 FIP. Now you can rest at night knowing your team is trading for one of the best SP in MLB, evidenced by his great performance recently.
You can’t just base it on one start. If he continues that trend, that’ll be when I’m 100% convinced that it is the Cole Hamels we all know.
What’s a trend? You dismiss years of data, so what about 4 starts? Hamels has a 2.77 ERA and 3.00 FIP in 26 IP over his past 4 starts. Is this now a trend that would make you comfortable?
Yes. It is. Like I said, I think he will be fine.
Do you change your evaluations on all players after 1 month of sample size?
No, but you got to make sure it isn’t a trend. That is why trades don’t happen in May.
Sure! Wait until he’s pitching well. That way, he’ll cost more.
Philly isn’t gonna lower their demands, so there is plenty of time to see his numbers rebound.
I wasn’t talking about lowering them. I was talking about raising them. If he’s pitching well, more teams will be interested and a bidding war may occur.
Fair enough, but he’s 31 and I don’t think Hamels puts the Cubs over the edge in 2015. Would rather look at Price or Cueto next winter in free agency than deal one of the top prospects. The Phils aren’t taking Javy Baez and I’d rather have Addision Russell than Cole Hamels.
Give it time before I you declare he’s declined. This is a gigantic drop off from last year.
Actually, after 7 games last year he had a 4.48 ERA, the rest of the year…1.91 ERA. This is nothing new to Phillies fans. Almost every year we hear that Cole is declining during the first month or so. We hear it from sports writers and other fans. It’s just the way he is…a slow starter.
Yeah, people are way too quick to declare a decline. I’d take him in a heartbeat right now depending on the trade. People saying he’s not a good asset or he’s declined and done are just jumping the gun way too quickly. I had a Red Sox fan tell me that he doesn’t want a declining pitcher like Hamels without even talking about possible trades. Ridiculous.
While I agree Cole is a slower starter that will turn it around to continue as an ace… After 7 games last year his FIP was 3.40, his BB/9 3.02, and his HR/9 .81.
After 7 starts this year his FIP is 4,93, BB/9 is 4.3, and his HR/9 1.64.
Last year he was clearly getting unlucky with BABIP but this year he actually has a very low BABIP allowed and a high LOB%. The drop in command and rise in HR is much more concerning to me then last year’s unlucky 4.48 ERA.
Exactly. Lot of wear and tear, not to mention what you’ll have to give up to get him. They’re not winning a WS this year, so let these gets get pt, and strike for a SP when they’re really on the brink.
If throwing hard is what it’s all about, then the Dodgers have at least three relievers who should be prioritized above Hatcher.
What I find funny about Hatcher is the 7.20 ERA and the 1.66 FIP. That difference tells me that he is due to get much better results going forward. This is the first time in recent years that the Dodgers actually have a good problem with the bullpen.
The Cubs need to get a reliable reliever (maybe two if Rondon and Strop can’t settle in). Don’t break the bank on an elite guy.
If Wood continues to struggle, I think Wada would do well.
Hope the Cubs revisit their Garza acquisition before they once again empty the prospect truck for Hamels. Every time I see Archer pitch, I get sick all over again.
Archer did have control problems at the time of the trade, and the Cubs got 3 years of Garza and later acquired CJ Edwards and Neil Ramirez from Texas for the Garza rental. As good as Archer has been, I wouldn’t call this a total loss given how good Ramirez has been and how high the ceiling on Edwards seems to be. Thankfully for the Cubs, the other prospects haven’t panned out into much, other than Sam Fuld.
Garza pitched well for the Cubs while healthy. The biggest problem with the Garza trade was that the Cubs were a bad team at the time. The Cubs are in a much better position on the win curve now and acquiring a TOR SP would be a huge get for them. It could be the difference between 84 wins and missing the playoffs and 87 or 88 wins and getting in.
But those few wins at what price? Russell, Swarber, and Almora? No thanks. Not at this time.
I don’t think there’s a pitcher in the MLB who would warrant that ridiculous return.
Oh there’s quite a few pitchers worth those 3. I like all those cubbies but they’re still unproven prospects. You have your Cubbie colored glasses on if you don’t think I can name at least a dozen SP that those prospects couldn’t bring back in a deal. You just got the best one of 3 by trading Samardzija, who’s a good player but not near elite.
I agree. I think the starting pitching is decent enough to keep them in most games and they desperately need late inning relief. The Coke/Motte combo is turning out to be as ugly as I thought it had the potential to be when they acquired them. I have no suggestions as to whom they should target, though.
Hatcher has been really good other than 2 games in early April. That bullpen is deep this year, they should look at moving a lefty or send down Santos, even if he can opt out. Cutting Hatcher would also make the Dee Gordon trade look worse.
Trade a reliever to the Jays
They aren’t concerned about how the trade looks. That would be entirely the wrong way to make the decision.
No but Gordon is a good player with value. That value was a huge part of Hatcher’s price. You do take into consideration the price you paid for something before you throw it away. That would be the right way to make a decision. It’s pointless really because Hatcher’s not getting cut and he shouldn’t.
This is the sunk cost fallacy. What you paid for something has no bearing on its current value. I doubt Hatcher will be cut too, but not because of what they paid to get him.
I get your point but I don’t think it’s very relevant. First Chris Hatcher isn’t a sunk cost, he has been awesome besides the 2 games in April. ERA is a terrible way to evaluate a RP through 1 month. You should factor in the cost of something before letting it go, it’s smart economics. I would hope they don’t weight it too much but it should be one of many factors taken into consideration.
The argument you made was that the trade would look like a mistake if they cut Hatcher. That’s a classic sunk cost argument. (it’s also the faulty reasoning people use to rationalize hanging onto bad investments of all kinds). I’m not saying that Hatcher was a bad investment, only that how much a player cost a team should not have any bearing on the decision about who gets a roster spot. I’m sure the current FO gets it. Remember they paid Wilson $10m to go away. Anyhow, it’s probably a moot point now, with the apparent injury to Baez.
Why does the Gordon trade look so bad? Is it because of a completely unsustainable start from Gordon? He had a really good start last year, then disappeared. No doubt he is playing well and may have made improvements, but I will take the consistency of Kendrick over Gordon at this time. Let’s at least wait more than 30 games to call a trade bad.
I think it was a very good trade for LA. Losing one of the big returns in that trade (Hatcher) would diminish the value you received for the young AS 2B. Worse than a great trade can still be a good trade. I got a B in a tough course recently that I was ecstatic over but it’s still worse than an A. My point is simply that you don’t cut bait so quickly when the price you paid was so high, and if you do, you look worse for it. I see where someone could assume I was being critical but that’s not the case at all.