When the Cubs traded for Cole Hamels just days prior to the non-waiver deadline, he was largely viewed as a rental. The discrepancy between his performance at Globe Life Park in Arlington (6.41 ERA, 6.16 FIP, 16 of his 23 homers allowed) and his performance on the road (2.93 ERA, 4.17 FIP, seven homers) led to some speculation that he could at the very least make the Cubs think. However, few could’ve predicted this level of dominance to open his stint with the Cubs.
Through 34 innings, Hamels is sporting a masterful 0.79 ERA with a 30-to-8 K/BB ratio, no homers allowed and a 54.2 percent ground-ball rate that would be the best of his career over a full season. The 34-year-old allowed a whopping 44.9 percent hard-contact rate with the Rangers but has seen that mark plummet to 27.9 percent with the Cubs. A sub-1.00 ERA surely isn’t sustainable for the lefty, but fielding-independent metrics — 2.36 FIP, 3.19 xFIP, 3.41 SIERA — all feel he’s very legitimately improved his performance. He’s leaned far more heavily on his fastball, shying away from cutters/two-seamers and (to a lesser extent) his breaking offerings since switching uniforms.
The rapid turnaround considerably enhances the possibility that the Cubs would want to retain Hamels for the 2019 season, though as Yahoo’s Jeff Passan reports in his latest 10 Degrees column, the finances aren’t exactly straightforward. Per Passan, at the time of the trade, the Rangers agreed to pay the $6MM buyout on Hamels’ option. That money, however, wouldn’t go to the Cubs in the event that Chicago decides to exercise the option. So while some may have previously looked at Hamels as a $14MM decision for the Cubs, it’s a costlier one than that: either let the Rangers buy out the option or pay the full $20MM with no financial assistance from the left-hander’s former team.
It’s a small but dominant sample for Hamels, but if the improvements in his performance are as legitimate as they prove to be, a one-year deal worth $20MM for the Cubs would hardly be a stretch. Chicago already has plenty of starters under control for the 2019 season in Jon Lester, Kyle Hendricks, Jose Quintana, Yu Darvish, Tyler Chatwood, Drew Smyly and Mike Montgomery, though the front office could conceivably look to dump Chatwood in a swap of bad contracts and/or look at Montgomery and Smyly in long relief/sixth starter roles. Creating that level of depth in the rotation would hardly be a bad thing for the Cubs — especially with so much uncertainty surrounding Darvish, Chatwood and Smyly.
Conversely, if the Cubs opt not to pay Hamels at a premium rate for the 2019 season, the veteran’s free-agent stock will be fascinating to monitor. Much has been made of Hamels already regaining the velocity he appeared to have lost early in the season, and his recent work with the Cubs has potentially set the stage for a multi-year deal in free agency. Even one month ago, that would’ve seemed a long shot at best.
A month ago, Hamels looked like a back-of-the-rotation rental destined for a one-year deal in free agency. Now, the final month of the season and any potential postseason appearances, will prove pivotal for both Hamels and the Cubs in terms of each party’s future — to say nothing of the Rangers, who’d apparently be absolved of a $6MM commitment if Hamels remains with the Cubs.
With the caveat that things can once again change dramatically in a month, let’s see where readers stand on the issue at the moment (link to poll for Trade Rumors mobile app users)…
Is this alone isn’t a reason to fire Doug Brocail, I don’t know what is.
This crazy thought just occurred to me – can the cubs and rangers rework the compensation involved in the deal?
Let’s say the cubs are willing to pay him $17,000,000 but not 1 penny more because of luxury tax considerations. The rangers are better off chipping in half of the buyout towards his salary and saving $3,000,000 compared to if the cubs bought him out and offered a new contract after.
I’m sure in actuality the rangers say ‘go screw, this is the deal you signed’, but I feel like $17,000,000 would be a no brained for the cubs and the rangers save $3,000,000
No brainer*
joshua.barron1…..MLBPA may have something to about that considering the $6M is guaranteed and would violate the CBA.
It’s complex as the Cubs could decline Hamels’ deal, let him collect the $6MM, then sign him to a new deal. If the Cubs simply opt in there’s no money the Rangers owe.
To answer the original post with my own guess: I don’t think the Rangers would be involved if it is legal. The Cubs will either keep him at a year for $20MM or opt out and negotiate (along with other potential teams) a two or three year deal with Hamels for more money than the $20MM.
Cole Hamels would still be getting his $20 mil. It’s just be the Rangers not paying a 6mil buyout. It would make sense but I don’t think that MLB would allow that. Although I could see maybe a separate trade for a player “for cash considerations” that would offset the cost.
Cat Mando – I’m not suggesting Hamels forfeit $3,000,000 in salary, I’m saying the cubs pick up the option and the rangers contribute $3,000,000 to his $20,000,000 salary next year. That’s a much better outcome for them than the cubs outright declining the option and signing him to a lower AAV multi year deal.
Why couldn’t the rangers be involved?
only 6 million is guaranteed and this would basically give him 17 million guaranteed assuming he accepts it.
But the question is more if Cole would accept the lower deal which I think he would prefer to be a free agent instead and i think he could get more guaranteed even if he slows down a little bit. something like 2 / 30 based on what he has done with the cubs this year along with what he gets with the buyout portion as well. Especially with so many big markets resetting their luxury tax.
Do you think MLB and/or MLBPA will start allowing trades and such to be re-written and open a whole can of worms.
How often have you seen a deal voided after the player has played in 5 games successfully?
Why couldn’t any team be involved for that manner? Team Y trade 3 million for prospect X.
Nope
I bet you $5 they revisit talks, no deal is reached, but an article is linked to it on this site come November
I get where you’re coming from here, but I don’t think the Cubs would do it. Sure, if this were possible, it would guarantee them to keep Hamels – however, there are two points that would make this not worth the Cubs while:
1- They could work out a deal with Hamels prior to declining the option, paying him $17 million, with the Rangers picking up an additional $6 million for the buyout. The end result is more lucrative for Hamels, and would be accepted in a heart beat.
2- the free agent market no longer looks favorably at 35 year old starters. Sure, he’s had a good run the pst month, but does anyone really think he’s put himself in consideration for a $15 mil / year deal?
Once a deal with future cash considerations are set,they cannot be changed unless approved by the commissioner’s office.
@sheff86 This is what I was thinking. Not saying the Cubs wouldn’t want to potentially do this, but it would be odd if the terms of a trade weren’t binding without the commissioner’s office getting involved.
The cubs and hamels would just agree to resign for 15 mill for 1 year.. so Hamels gets the 6 mill buyout and 15 from cubs.. hamels would agree just to make a extra mill
What happens if another team comes around offering a multi-year deal? Why would Hamels reject his right to sign anywhere at that point? The truth is it’s a 20M decision for the Cubs, however people want to picture it.
I’d let the year play out because the conversation will change if he has a few poor starts.
Definitely this. Even now, it is a big risk since it is such a small sample size. I would still decline the option with where things stand now.
The Cubs should let the Rangers pay the buyout no matter how he finishes the season. They have the resources to vie for his services in Free Agency if they want him. If they get outbid, there will always be other FA pitchers available they can compete for. Personally, I wouldn’t sign any older player to a potential albatross contract, even with the Cubs’ financial ability. There would likely be too much dead money & luxury tax to take the chance.
He is only due 20 mil for 1 year! That is by no means an albatross contract. Signing him to a 3 or 4 year deal for 15 mil per could be worse than 1 year at 20. IMO anyway!!
Now if the Cubs could work something out before the buy out at say 2 years 30 mil, then let the Rangers buy him out the contract and resign him the next day! Dirty I know, but it is possible.
Hamel wouldn’t do 2 for 30 if he’s looking at 1 for 20
You are probably correct, but it would also be 2 for 30 plus 6 mil from the buyout…1 @ 20 or 2 @ 36 total…
Like anything, only time will tell. Mistake contracts are made every year in all sports, but the guaranteed contracts in baseball handcuff or cripple many team’s payroll flexibilty.
Yeah sure, except he knows the Cubs handed Chatwoood 3 for 38. And even with the age difference, Hamels is the lesser risk
Hamels isn’t looking at a 1/20 though. That’s entirely up to the Cubs. He’s only guaranteed 6mm for next year. A 2/30 could makes sense plus the 6mil from the buyout. Hamels may value familiarityor comfort over dollars at this point too. He’s made plenty of money
a 2/30 plus a 6mm buyout is a better deal than 3/38. Unless he turns into Chris Tillman he could find himself a deal for a few million bucks after that.
Why wouldn’t he? 30 is still more than 20
But if the Cubs say they are not signing 1 for twenty than he might. 1 for 20 might not even be a real option.
So he’s going back to the Phillie’s,where he is comfortable?
Just depends on how much longer he wants to play and where. FAs today tend to look more at guaranteed $ than just AAV.
I would think a 2 yr deal w the Cubs, assuming he cont to pitch well for them into Oct, would be pretty attractive. A month ago he was looking at being unemployed in ‘19.
$6M from the Rangers plus a 2 year deal from Cubs for $30M should be very attractive to a guy in Cole’s shoes, who likely just wants another shot or two at rings.
However, Cubs and Rangers seem to have a good relationship and I would think declining the option, forcing Texas to pay Hamels $6M, then resigning him wouldn’t go over well. Just speculating. But Texas made the deal that way, so maybe they’re OK w the $6M, they may have already discussed these scenarios just in case and have an agreed upon format to follow.
It would be 2 for 36m. And Hamels would do that right now.
Cardinal fan ☝️there
The Yankees will jump on Hamel pay him keep him Chatwood is piss poor talent wise Hamel at this pace is worth that 20 mil, so DFA That Chatwood no one will pick him up except the A’s maybe trade him and pay Oakland 2/3 of his Bad contract he is better than Edwin Jackson was but close so close.
What would the cubs get for Chatwood
Lol
What would the Cubs have to give away in addition to Chatwood?
About $30M
How about Cincinnati for Billy Hamilton and a bunch of cash? They get a starter and Cubs get a lead off hitter. Obviously not happening but ya never know
Gas station sushi.
Lol
One, maybe…two, rosin bags?
If Theo eats 90% of his salary.
5% outof his own money would stop the Crawford Chatwood type Signings
So far, yes but if he has a few rough starts in the postseason it could be interesting.
Yankees!!
Assuming he doesnt have a horrible regression let the Rangers buy him out for 6. Resign him for 2 years + an option @ 12-14 or 3 years @ 12 for a total of 36m. Throw in the buyout he’ll clear over 40 and have the security his camp woild be looking for.
For sure. Gotta make use of the Rangers’ money.
I have a feeling that having an agreement with the player that they’ll decline the option so that the Rangers have to pay and they’ll sign him after is against the rules. if not it would probably piss off the Rangers leadership and possibly other teams. shady moves like that don’t typically go unnoticed
And why would Hamels even agree to this?
My response would be “Pay me $20 million or cut me loose and I’ll be OK in free agency.”
Per BR, he’s made over $170 million in his career. He has security, with free agency he could pick a city that’s good for his family.
He chose Chicago as the team he wanted to be traded to, by the sounds of it.
My guess is that the option gets declined, and he signs a two-year deal with Chicago that’s about five million below what it should have been.
Good for his family?
That leaves Chicago and Baltimore out. SF out too regardless of the poop patrol
If the Rangers were smart, they would have said ‘we’ll pay half the option if you exercise it’ or something like that.
Think about it. Let’s say the cubs ARE willing to pay him $20,000,000 over 1 year. The conversation goes ‘Cole – we’ll pay you $20,000,000 over 1 year but first we decline your option so you get a $6,000,000 bonus as well!’
You risk that he doesn’t end up signing the new contract. But I think that would make him feel the Love
So 2 years for 28? To Hamels that looks like 1 for 20 and the second for 8 million. Why would he do that? If he continues to pitch well, he’ll make more on the open market than 12 a year. Guys out for the year with TJ are signing 2 year deals worth 10. Hamels should want around the QO, somewhere between 17 to 20 a year. He’ll point to Chatwood’s deal as a comp and say “I’m better at age 36 than that”
The potential Ranger pay out is irrelevant to the Cubs. Their choices are 1 year at $20 million or let him test the open market.
If the Cubs don’t exercise the option Hamels easily gets a 2 year deal for $35-40 million. He can probably get a third year at $10-12 million guaranteed with a vesting option that makes it go to $18-20 if he pitches enough innings.
He’s not taking a discount to stay with the Cubs just because the Cubs not exercising the option gets him $6 million.
What he’s doing now is unsustainable. I guess it depends on how the market shapes out in the off-season.
When exactly does the team need to either accept or decline the option? If that’s in the article and I missed it, give me a break – it’s Monday morning.
It’s not in there. It’s typically five days after the end of the World Series — option decisions are due. Some contracts stipulate that decisions are made sooner, but there’s no indication that’s the case here. Should be sometime in early November, depending on the World Series dates.
Obviously this is a very early look, but Hamels has produced at such an absurd level since being traded, that it presented an interesting situation to look at on a slow morning in late August.
Last year, it was November 4th.
cbssports.com/mlb/news/2017-18-mlb-offseason-free-…
Off season market for SPs? Depends, but few bargains.
When does the decision have to be made? Early November.
The Cubs rotation needs to get a younger pitcher in there next year. Maybe a couple of older pitchers for a prospect that’s MLB ready
Maybe the Cubs and Braves could look into an interesting trade. The Cubs have lots of young controllable position players while the Braves have a stock pile of young controllable starters. It makes some sense to me anyway LOL.
I do not think anyone is trading the Cubs a good MLB ready pitching prospect in exchange for older expensive pitchers
That is why a team looking for young controllable position players makes sense. Atl for example, if they could improve by possibly trading one or 2 or their pitching prospects for a Happ, Russell, or even Bote.
The Braves have a lot of young pitching and the Cubs have a lot of young position players. I am not saying it will happen at all, but I could see it making sense for both sides. However I think both teams will look for more experienced options first.
The Braves also possibly have a corner outfield spot open next year!
Right but we’re assuming all things remain constant. Hamels a month ago wasnt in line for the deals we’re making up. Thst being said what he wants and what he gets are two different things. I dont see him getting anywhere near QO as AAV in his next contract. But if he does more power to him.
it just amuses me that hes faced pitt,kc,wash,pitt again and cincy and all of a sudden hes so awesome lol. NL teams plus hot garbage teams will get you those numbers
dewssox79……If you want to go with an argument like that he also faced Boston and has a 3.00 ERA in 1 start, the Indians 1.80 ERA in 1 start, Dodgers 1.50 ERA in 1 start, Yankees 2.57 ERA in 1 start and the Astros 3.60 ERA in 4 starts.
By contrast Thor has a 5.86 ERA against the reds in 1 start. deGrom has a higher ERA against the Pirates…3.86 (3 ER) in one start and a 1.09 (4 ER) against the Braves in 4 starts. Hamels has not given up an ER in 2 starts against Pitt and deGrom has given up 3. Does that make Hamels better?
See how numbers work? When using selective small samples you can paint any picture you want.
Exactly. That’s what I was thinking also Cat!
I meant exactly what I was thinking few Sox!
Tell that to Quintana…
Hamels pitches great against great teams, as well. He’s a winner. So, that argument is null and void. The guy is still an ace…period.
Do the Rangers pick up the equivalent of the buyout even if the cubs pick up the option?
This factor is important. If they do not cover the 6mil or so if the Cubs pick up the option, then I would guess that they don’t, and that they pay him the buyout and try to work out a two-year deal for a bit over the 20mm they would be paying for 1 season.
If Hamels gets bought out and signs a 2-year 24mil deal, he’s getting 30mil and essentially averaging 15mil per season for the next two years while going back to the cubs.
This scenario makes a lot more sense to me. Is it possible for the cubs to decline his option and work out a new deal before the free agency exclusivity period ends?
If so, this would even make more sense for the cubs to decline it, because they would still have an exclusive window to negotiate with hamels.
If he just balls out in the playoffs like absolutely shoves and wins awards, they would obviously pick it up.
It’s clear from the article that the Rangers are only on the hook for the $6MM for a buyout. No money goes to the Cubs if the Cubs pick up the team option.
I get an error when trying the poll on the app…
Phillies will do the Phillies kind of thing… Make little or no effort to trade for Hamels despite his success in Philly, good road splits this year, and a pitching staff with a bunch of question marks after their #2, while in the playoff hunt.
See him succeed with new team for a short while. Go after him hard in free agency with a contract offer that has them bidding against themselves.
That ballpark in Arlington has always been the second most hitter friendly ballpark in the majors behind the one located in Colorado. It’s really not surprising to see pitchers do well outside of it, Hamels may be a bit older but he’s certainly still a decent pitcher and I think the Cubs are going to want that security of a one year deal if Hamels finishes the year off strong.
Im inclined to agree, the more I think about it, if Cole continues to perform well- not saying at current level, but pitch well- I think Cubs will just pick up his option. Gives Chicago some insurance for big question marks in Darvish and Quintana and Chatwood. But doesn’t leave them stuck w another bag of $h!t if he bombs in ‘19.
I think it’s a pretty simple solution:
Decline the option, Hamels gets 6mil from Texas
Cubs offer 1-year 14mil deal.
Hamels still gets his $20m.
Or Cubs could offer 2 years $25m.
Either way, Hamels comes out getting paid favorably, and Cubs don’t get stuck paying $20m for one season.
Or, you decline the option and another team ofs more money and the Cubs get nothing but a rental. Which is what they were originally expecting.
I think it will come down to what he does for them in the postseason (which, if his track record is any indication, he’s got a sporting chance).
This is a no brainer. 20 mil for one season of commitment. 100% Jed/Theo will take that. Also, those chirping about luxury tax concerns. Theo addressed this already. He purposely worked hard to keep the Cubs below the tax threshold this year so next winter he could blow past it without being a repeat tax offender. So, the Cubs are already gearing up to spend a ton this winter. He wasn’t cryptic about it, no play on words. He said point blank that they have been planning for winter 2018 for a few years now.
So it even further drives home the point that it’s a no brainer to bring Hamels back on that option. It’s one year, if he continues pitching like an ace then NEXT winter they can decide if they want to re-sign him.
Why wouldn’t they just let the Rangers pay him his opt-out, and then negotiate a new salary for 2019?
The Rangers don’t have the opt out anymore. Also, on the open market, Hamels would do better than a 1 year 20 mil contract, especially if he keeps pitching like an ace. This works out perfect for the Cubs, they get another year of Hamels, if he continues to pitch well, they can offer him a new contract for 2020 and perhaps beyond. If he doesn’t, they’re only tied to him for 2019. Another option, they can attach a qualifying offer after 2019. The Cubs hold the cards here.
It would still only cost the cubs about 15 mill to sign him.. they can make a deal with Hamels to resign 1 year.. cubs could get rangers to pay buyout, and then resign him for 15 mill.. Hamels ends up making a extra mill.. 15+6=21.. obviously hed agree to that for the extra mill instead of leaving it on the table
My point is, why risk it? If he keeps performing, especially at this level or anywhere close, he’ll have plenty of suitors on the open market. Money is not an issue for the Cubs; the luxury tax next year will already be in play… so it won’t matter to them. At his age, a 1 year 20 mil contract is actually ideal for the Cubs. If he’s great next year..: then you think about an extension or a multi year deal when he hits FA. Buying him out just makes it complicated and again, allows a team like the Yanks to offer him a big, multi year deal.
Who else has a horrible contract like tyler chatwood? Why not option him to Iowa? Or even double A
ONLY way I see them picking up that $20M option is if Cole Hamels continues to dominate throughout not only September but is also unbelievable in the postseason. Even then I have a hard time rationalizing having 3 pitchers in the rotation making $20+ million – Lester, Darvish, and Hamels. While Hendricks and Quintana are cheap in comparison I just can’t imagine the Cubs willing to have a salary cap hit wrapped up in JUST their rotation totaling about $85 million (pretty sure cap hits are the average salary over the course of a contract…. that means Lester is a $25.833M hit, Darvish is a $21M hit, I THINK with Hamels being an option year the salary he is paid will be the cap hit, so that is $20M… if not the average over his contract is actually $24M…. I think it would “just” be $20M though…. if they pick him up, I assume Hendricks in arbitration will hit the $10M mark as he is only at like $4.5M this year. Quintana has a club option for $10.5M next year). IF they are sold on Hamels….. and if Quintana continues to underwhelm……… I could see them bringing Hamels back and NOT picking up the Quintana option. But that makes little sense because who’d be their 5th starter then? Chatwood? He makes MORE than Quintana (foolishly).
The most likely scenario is they buy him out and sign him to a $30M 2 year deal or something. That would technically be a $36M commitment because he has a $6M buyout. That still averages “only” $18M per season which is pretty cheap for a potentially solid/experienced starter who’s pitching set plays perfectly in Wrigley (Hamels is KNOWN to induce a ton of ground balls throughout his career, and with the Cubs defense on the infield he should do VERY well there).
Bottom line….. I’d love to see him back….. assuming he pitches more Hamels like the remainder of the season and throughout the postseason. Verlander looked like he was fading in Detroit before he went to Houston and since arriving there he has pretty much reverted back to his Cy Young caliber former self. If they were to bring him back they’d almost HAVE to find a way to rid themselves of Chatwood without picking up too much of his money. Hell, I think that should be the goal regardless if they bring Hamels back, haha. I didn’t mind the move to add Chatwood I just never understood why they gave him so much money. It’s not like he had the stats to back up such a deal but to make matters worse…. the guy has been a habitual visitor to the disabled list over the course of his career. How that warrants a 50+% raise annually is beyond me, haha. If the Chatwood deal was more like $20-24M over 2 years, not $38 over 3 it would’ve made more logical sense to me. Hell, I would’ve preferred a 1 year deal worth whatever they wanted to give him over the 3 year commitment they gave him. What did he do in Colorado that said, “man, this dude deserves a 3 year deal.”
To me the Chatwood question is more pressing than the Hamels question. Maybe if they can just give him away for nothing to a team in dire straits and rebuilding….. like, say, the Orioles then they could use that money to bring Hamels back. If they can dump Chatwood onto someone the possibility of Hamels in Cubbie Blue in 2019 is much more likely. Then their 2019 rotation would be Lester, Hamels, Hendricks, Darvish, and Quintana……. man….. if this was 2013-2014 that rotation would be flat out disgusting, haha. This is the problem when you are reliant on free agents and trades to build your pitching staff instead of cultivating from within. It gets expensive…. and OLD fast.
The Cubs could pull a fast one.
They could make a deal with him to sign.
Technically let him go. Forcing the Rangers to pay the buyout then resigning for the balance on a new contract (14 million). If they legally release him Texas has no choice but to pay the buy out. Nothing says they can’t sign him to a new deal after that. That’s what I’d do
Not resigning him would be absolute idiocy. Same goes for Murphy. If I Theo, I lock both of them up for the next 3-4 years. This team is playing like an All-Star team.
These guys have completely transformed the team. Hamels is basically an automatic win, and Murphy is basically an automatic hit.