Cole Hamels

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm more worried about Hamels being from California, I guess than you are. I don't think having Kershaw is going to hurt the Dodgers chances personally.

 

Hamels hasn't lived in CA in 10 years. Why is this only a concern when a player is from SoCal?? Are we afraid that Garza is going to go to the Giants? Selma's only an hour farther than SD is from LA

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm more worried about Hamels being from California, I guess than you are. I don't think having Kershaw is going to hurt the Dodgers chances personally.

 

Hamels hasn't lived in CA in 10 years. Why is this only a concern when a player is from SoCal?? Are we afraid that Garza is going to go to the Giants? Selma's only an hour farther than SD is from LA

 

Being away from your home state for 10 years does not make it any less of your home state. It's not like he was elsewhere by choice. He was drafted. Free agency can give a guy options, and in a state like CA with 5 teams there's a lot of opportunity for guys to move back, if they want. I think it's something that does happen, so no reason to dismiss it as a potential hurdle.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm more worried about Hamels being from California, I guess than you are. I don't think having Kershaw is going to hurt the Dodgers chances personally.

 

Hamels hasn't lived in CA in 10 years. Why is this only a concern when a player is from SoCal?? Are we afraid that Garza is going to go to the Giants? Selma's only an hour farther than SD is from LA

 

Being away from your home state for 10 years does not make it any less of your home state. It's not like he was elsewhere by choice. He was drafted. Free agency can give a guy options, and in a state like CA with 5 teams there's a lot of opportunity for guys to move back, if they want. I think it's something that does happen, so no reason to dismiss it as a potential hurdle.

 

Does it happen more in California than anywhere else?

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I remember when CC was returning to Oakland and Baltimore had a leg up in chasing Teixeira.

 

OTOH Wilson did take less money to play for the Angels...He's also not as good or proven as Hamels so he would see less money than any of those two above and Hamels.

[Tracer Bullet]

Wilson was fairly public about his desire to play in SoCal and willingness to take less money to do so.

 

He was also the top or among the top FA pitchers last year, so his options weren't exactly limited by his "unproven" status.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Wilson was fairly public about his desire to play in SoCal and willingness to take less money to do so.

 

He was also the top or among the top FA pitchers last year, so his options weren't exactly limited by his "unproven" status.

 

OTOH they were limited by vocalizing that he'd take less money to go to a SoCal team. Also, didn't call him unproven, just not as much as Hamels...Call it a shorter track record...lesser pedigree...whatever you want to call it, it wasn't there for the kind of contract Hamels might get or the kind of money CC and Teixeira got.

[Tracer Bullet]

That doesn't limit his options.

[dew1679666265]

I'm certainly not FA averse or even close to it considering I was pushing very hard for Pujols this past offseason, but 7-8 years for a pitcher, any pitcher, is borderline ludicrous.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Double. Edited May 15, 2012 by PriortoTheoIhadWood

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

I'm certainly not FA averse or even close to it considering I was pushing very hard for Pujols this past offseason, but 7-8 years for a pitcher, any pitcher, is borderline ludicrous.

 

Not if it's the right guy.

 

CC who came up at 20, hit FA in his 20's, been a top tier performer most of the time, gets Ks, limits base runners, possesses elite size, a top tier fastball from the left side, and two other pitches he can get K's with? Yep.

 

Carlos Beltran hitting FA at 27 or whatever it was? Batting average, contact, elite base stealer, strong CF defense, good arm, stepped up in bigger scenes, not walk adverse, and so on? Hells yeah (still IMO a mistake to not chase him).

 

A guy who's been injured, pops up for a couple of strong years, doesn't possess any top tier attributes otherwise or has major, obvious holes? Nope.

 

Context...learn to apply it because it's everything in team building and FA. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but knowing as much as you can and finding value in it improves your odds.

 

Cole Hamels, IMO, has the kind of combo of health, pedigree, skill, talent, and performance that lessens the fear. You're going to take the dive at some point....

[dew1679666265]

Not if it's the right guy.

 

CC who came up at 20, hit FA in his 20's, been a top tier performer most of the time, gets Ks, limits base runners, possesses elite size, a top tier fastball from the left side, and two other pitches he can get K's with? Yep.

 

Carlos Beltran hitting FA at 27 or whatever it was? Batting average, contact, elite base stealer, strong CF defense, good arm, stepped up in bigger scenes, not walk adverse, and so on? Hells yeah (still IMO a mistake to not chase him).

 

A guy who's been injured, pops up for a couple of strong years, doesn't possess any top tier attributes otherwise or has major, obvious holes? Nope.

 

Context...learn to apply it because it's everything in team building and FA. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but knowing as much as you can and finding value in it improves your odds.

 

Cole Hamels, IMO, has the kind of combo of health, pedigree, skill, talent, and performance that lessens the fear. You're going to take the dive at some point....

 

I am taking context into account. Hamels is a better risk than most pitchers, but he's still a pitcher and it's still nearly insane to pour that much money into such a high-risk product. Keep in mind as well that Hamels having the long track record he has only increases the amount of innings he's thrown over his career and the more mileage a pitcher has, in general, increases the risk. I'm not saying he will get hurt, but the risk is far higher even for a healthy pitcher than it is for most any position player.

 

And I'm not sure why you mentioned Beltran. I didn't say anything about offensive players in FA, just pitchers. I'll give certain position players 7-8 years without thinking twice, not sure I would ever give that many years to any pitcher.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Beltran was just an example....you're looking for skills/attributes that project long term...for position players it's things like athleticism (look at SB, SB%, 2Bs, BA, contact, then obviously the scouting side), the ability to handle all types of pitches, performance under pressure (Generalize of you're comfortable with then other numbers), ARL (Beltran was ROY at 20/21).....as much as you can...Same for pitchers....and size matters with pitchers....6' Santana with his short arm action was going to lose velocity quickly.... Pedro same thing... Not an exact science but again, FA is all about taking calculated risks and very piece of info.

 

Personally, I'm excited to See if/when the Cubs put themselves in play for players like that. Hamels hasn't done anything crazy as far as IP, and that's an inexact science as well.

[dew1679666265]

Not an exact science but again, FA is all about taking calculated risks and very piece of info.

 

Personally, I'm excited to See if/when the Cubs put themselves in play for players like that. Hamels hasn't done anything crazy as far as IP, and that's an inexact science as well.

 

It clearly is an inexact science, which is why I'm not arguing he's a certainty to get hurt. But, we do know that pitching is a very unnatural motion, the more you do it the more wear and tear your arm suffers, and the more likely you are to get hurt. Hamels is a better bet than most pitchers because of his skillset and his general health, but he's still a pitcher, he'll still be 29 when he opens the 2013 season, and he'd still be 35-36 when a 7-8 year contract ran its course. He might be fine over the course of the deal, but that's a really huge commitment to make to such a volatile commodity.

 

This is not advocating sitting out free agency or not spending money by any stretch. I'd much rather make lesser commitments on the pitching side and commit the money to offense where the risk is much lower, even on a long term, big money commitment.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

It clearly is an inexact science, which is why I'm not arguing he's a certainty to get hurt. But, we do know that pitching is a very unnatural motion, the more you do it the more wear and tear your arm suffers, and the more likely you are to get hurt. Hamels is a better bet than most pitchers because of his skillset and his general health, but he's still a pitcher, he'll still be 29 when he opens the 2013 season, and he'd still be 35-36 when a 7-8 year contract ran its course. He might be fine over the course of the deal, but that's a really huge commitment to make to such a volatile commodity.

 

This is not advocating sitting out free agency or not spending money by any stretch. I'd much rather make lesser commitments on the pitching side and commit the money to offense where the risk is much lower, even on a long term, big money commitment.

 

35-36 isn't even that old anymore. It's 2012 for Jah's sake...and again, there are things that make some guys less volatile than other guys and Hamels has alot of those things. I already know I'd rather have Hamels for 8 than Sanchez for 5, easily no contest even then for me.

 

I also don't think the Cubs will be limited to one contract. They could do both, that's the advantage that comes from being the Cubs.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Speaking of Upton he's not having a very strong contract season a month and a half in.

 

BABIP is slightly below his career average (.315, career .327)...slash line is not terrible offensively...260/.333/.397 with a .333 wOBA and a 115 wRC+....fangraphs not liking his fielding or baserunning so far...21 K's in 87 PAs.

 

Edit: Wrong thread.

[dew1679666265]

35-36 isn't even that old anymore. It's 2012 for Jah's sake...and again, there are things that make some guys less volatile than other guys and Hamels has alot of those things. I already know I'd rather have Hamels for 8 than Sanchez for 5, easily no contest even then for me.

 

I also don't think the Cubs will be limited to one contract. They could do both, that's the advantage that comes from being the Cubs.

 

I don't think I'd want either at either number of years. I'd probably top out at 4 years for Anibal and, at very most, 6 for Hamels. And mid to late 30s is still old for a pitcher, no matter what year it is.

 

And again, you're correct that Hamels is less volatile than a lot of pitchers, which is what I've said multiple times. But he's still a pitcher and is still a very volatile commodity. I like Hamels a lot and would love to have him on the team, I'm just very uncomfortable with locking into a very long term commitment for a pitcher, even an athletic, healthy one, through most of his 30s.

Edited May 15, 2012 by dew

[jersey cubs fan]

Does it happen more in California than anywhere else?

 

Well, where do most players come from? California, Texas and Florida? Hardly anybody actually wants to play for a Florida team and they have no money. I'd guess it happens in California more than any other state. More than Illinois at least.

[SouthSideRyan]

I seriously can't think of more than 1 or 2 examples.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

 

I don't think I'd want either at either number of years. I'd probably top out at 4 years for Anibal and, at very most, 6 for Hamels. And mid to late 30s is still old for a pitcher, no matter what year it is.

 

And again, you're correct that Hamels is less volatile than a lot of pitchers, which is what I've said multiple times. But he's still a pitcher and is still a very volatile commodity. I like Hamels a lot and would love to have him on the team, I'm just very uncomfortable with locking into a very long term commitment for a pitcher, even an athletic, healthy one, through most of his 30s.

 

It's "old" for any athlete...plenty still produce anyway, and we've seen top tier pitchers pitch well in their very late 30's and even early 40's.

 

I wouldn't even do 4 years for Sanchez, and FA will get him that with ease. You couldn't pay me to pay a multi-surgery arm FA price AND have him be the headliner. Now if he's the AJ Burnett to Hamels' CC? Sure, I guess, but even then you're looking to get out of that sooner rather than later.

 

Sounds like you have FA jitters...don't know how or why (well, I guess I do) but it's something you're going to have to deal with because to be successful the Cubs will have to be players in the FA market. You're pretty much copping out on elite talent because FA forces you to pay to play....I say [expletive] bitches, get [elite, actually elite] talent.

[dew1679666265]

It's "old" for any athlete...plenty still produce anyway, and we've seen top tier pitchers pitch well in their very late 30's and even early 40's.

 

Some do, while many, many others break down in their early-mid 30s.

 

Sounds like you have FA jitters...don't know how or why (well, I guess I do) but it's something you're going to have to deal with because to be successful the Cubs will have to be players in the FA market. You're pretty much copping out on elite talent because FA forces you to pay to play....I say [expletive] bitches, get [elite, actually elite] talent.

 

I'm the guy who would have been fine with giving Pujols 10/300 this past offseason. I wanted Cespedes, I wanted Darvish and his massive posting fee. I have major commitments to pitchers jitters, not FA jitters.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Then why Darvish? Hell, then why would you push a guy like Sanchez, who despite being cheaper will still get years of commitment, has already been injured many times over, and isn't even phenomenal numbers wise?

 

I'm not sure I get your take on this thing...I find it very inconsistent with no real rhyme or reason. You keep going back to volatile commodity but personally I think people in general are volatile (meanwhile you have pushed signing an extremely volatile pitcher as a headliner AND called him elite). Common sense says find those who are less volatile and invest in them because there's a better chance of things ending well. FA is prospecting but with more money on the line...

[Sammy Sofa]

Then why Darvish?

 

Because he's younger (25) and signed for six years, not 29 (as Hamels will be next season) and looking for 8 years.

 

Hell, then why would you push a guy like Sanchez, who despite being cheaper will still get years of commitment, has already been injured many times over, and isn't even phenomenal numbers wise?

 

Because he likely won't get 7-8 years.

 

I'm not sure I get your take on this thing...I find it very inconsistent with no real rhyme or reason.

 

He's been very consistent. His concern over signing Hamels is due to Hamels' age and how many years he's reportedly looking for and has a good chance of commanding because pitchers (especially older ones) are so much more of a crapshoot of lasting over such a long contract.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Sammy Sofa

[Clem Fandango]

Ugh... don't turn this [expletive] into another Anibal Sanchez thread

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

Ugh... don't turn this [expletive] into another Anibal Sanchez thread

 

Yeah apologies there. Nobody wants that.

 

Because he's younger (25) and signed for six years, not 29 (as Hamels will be next season) and looking for 8 years.

 

Younger is the only point not aided by hindsight or rumor. Though I guess it can be said that Darvish was never really rumored to get 8 years.

[dew1679666265]

Then why Darvish? Hell, then why would you push a guy like Sanchez, who despite being cheaper will still get years of commitment, has already been injured many times over, and isn't even phenomenal numbers wise?

 

I'm not sure I get your take on this thing...I find it very inconsistent with no real rhyme or reason. You keep going back to volatile commodity but personally I think people in general are volatile (meanwhile you have pushed signing an extremely volatile pitcher as a headliner AND called him elite). Common sense says find those who are less volatile and invest in them because there's a better chance of things ending well. FA is prospecting but with more money on the line...

 

On Darvish: As mojo said, he's 25 and as you said, he was never even rumored to be getting 7-8 years. He was almost certain to get fewer years than what Hamels is seeking and was likely going to be far less expensive, even if you take the posting fee and extrapolate it out over the entirety of his deal). Hamels is probably looking for $23-25 per for 7-8 years, Darvish is getting $9 mil per if you don't spread out his posting fee and $18 mil per if you do. And while there's less production-certainty with Darvish, the upside is certainly there to be just as good as Hamels.

 

On Anibal: I'm less pushing for Anibal than I am giving him as a preferred alternative to Hamels. If we sign a high-end FA pitcher and guys get what I expect, I'd prefer Anibal (because I think he'll end up with 4 years and maybe a 5th option of some type and I think Hamels will get 6-7 years). That said, I'd have a clear limit in pursuing any of the top FA pitchers who may be on the market.

 

I think I've been very consistent in my arguments: Stay away from very long term, mega-money commitments to pitchers deep into their 30s. Spend the money on the hitters who, in general, are a much less volatile commodity than pitchers.