Cole Hamels Traded to Rangers

[Guest]

Yeah. Don't know why we'd do that when just traded a slightly younger pitcher for Russell just recently.

[tfarks]

These talks won't go anywhere. This system is so bountiful everyone is gonna want a piece. When you're this loaded, the greed of potential trade partners will just be more stringent.

[Rob]

Yeah, there's just about a zero percent chance that anything gets done. Amaro has already shown he has unreasonable expectations about what Hamels should return in a trade. And maybe there was a chance he'd get it when playoff teams were shopping for upgrades, but the Cubs aren't under the same market pressure to add wins this season.

 

I'd be shocked if the Cubs were willing to include someone of Almora's prospect status. Vogelbach, and spare parts maybe.

 

Then the Cubs have unreasonable expectations about what Hamels should return too

 

Do they?

 

Hamels is signed for 4/96 after this year. He's a 4 fWAR pitcher on the wrong side of 30 with recent injury issues. He's worth almost exactly what he's getting paid.

 

If the Cubs want to acquire Hamels, they need to do so for a prospect cost of less than they feel Lester and Scherzer are likely to overpaid by. Otherwise, what's the point? Almora straight up would probably be just about an even match for that figure, but when was the last time you saw a guy like Hamels traded straight up for a guy in the middle of a team's top 10 list? Amaro is going to insist on other good prospects in the deal. I don't see our front office doing it. And I don't think they're wrong.

 

Thanks Dave Cameron

 

Fair enough.

 

The only real advantage Hamels has over his peers is the length of his contract. Scherzer and Lester have higher ceilings, and can probably be acquired for something like 6/144. (That's the same AAV as Hamels). I'd rather see the Cubs flex their financial muscle a bit. The prospects can be better used elsewhere, to acquire something harder to get (Stanton, maybe).

[apete6]

Yeah. Don't know why we'd do that when just traded a slightly younger pitcher for Russell just recently.

 

Fair enough, but we also got McKinney (for Hammel, let's say) and Straily.

 

Also, I like Samardzija, but Hamels is only 13 months older and is not quite the pitcher Hamels is. Also, 4/96 remaining for Hamels is less of an overall financial commitment than Samardzija will likely get (or was at least asking for).

 

If the Cubs somehow would end up with 4 years of Hamels, Straily, and McKinney for 14 months of Samardzija and 2 months of Hammel, that's pretty good. Maybe not as good as Russell, Straily, and McKinney, but could fit a need enough to cover the difference.

[abuck1220]

yeah, not saying i'd do russell for hamels, but hamels is waaaaaay more valuable than samardzija right now. not even close.

[Guest]

Let's project Hamels as a 5 win pitcher for the remainder of his contract. He's never reached 5 fWAR in his career, but we'll be generous. Using 7 million/win as a value(slightly more than it is now, but inflation over 4 years makes that about right), that means that Hamels would be providing about 44 million in surplus value.

 

That 44 million is less than the expected surplus value of a prospect of Addison Russell's caliber(top 10/top 5, hitter, already successful at AA). And remember, that's with projecting Hamels for 4 consecutive career years starting at age 31.

 

No, Russell or any player in his vicinity is an absolute non-starter for Hamels. The reason the Cubs were able to get Russell in the first place is a combination of deadline inflation, Oakland's urgency, Samardzija's pre-FA pricetag for this year/2015, and maybe some mild uncertainty about Russell with his leg injury. None of that applies to Cubs/Hamels.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Let's project Hamels as a 5 win pitcher for the remainder of his contract. He's never reached 5 fWAR in his career, but we'll be generous. Using 7 million/win as a value(slightly more than it is now, but inflation over 4 years makes that about right), that means that Hamels would be providing about 44 million in surplus value.

 

That 44 million is less than the expected surplus value of a prospect of Addison Russell's caliber(top 10/top 5, hitter, already successful at AA). And remember, that's with projecting Hamels for 4 consecutive career years starting at age 31.

 

No, Russell or any player in his vicinity is an absolute non-starter for Hamels. The reason the Cubs were able to get Russell in the first place is a combination of deadline inflation, Oakland's urgency, Samardzija's pre-FA pricetag for this year/2015, and maybe some mild uncertainty about Russell with his leg injury. None of that applies to Cubs/Hamels.

 

 

 

^this

[Guest]

It is the start of a conversation. Of course they will start high. I'd reply that Baez, Soler, Bryant and Russell are completely off the table. How about Almora+?

[Cubswin11]

It is the start of a conversation. Of course they will start high. I'd reply that Baez, Soler, Bryant and Russell are completely off the table. How about Almora+?

Agreed, I'd do Almora, Vogelbach and Pierce or Hendricks (if they want a ML ready guy).

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, the Phillies love overpaying big, immobile, overrated hitters. Vogelbach is probably like crack to them.

[Rob]

yeah, not saying i'd do russell for hamels, but hamels is waaaaaay more valuable than samardzija right now. not even close.

 

Noooope.

 

Better pitcher? Sure. But Samardzija's market value blew Hamels' out of the water.

[SouthSideRyan]

Yeah, there's just about a zero percent chance that anything gets done. Amaro has already shown he has unreasonable expectations about what Hamels should return in a trade. And maybe there was a chance he'd get it when playoff teams were shopping for upgrades, but the Cubs aren't under the same market pressure to add wins this season.

 

I'd be shocked if the Cubs were willing to include someone of Almora's prospect status. Vogelbach, and spare parts maybe.

 

Then the Cubs have unreasonable expectations about what Hamels should return too

 

Do they?

 

Hamels is signed for 4/96 after this year. He's a 4 fWAR pitcher on the wrong side of 30 with recent injury issues. He's worth almost exactly what he's getting paid.

 

If the Cubs want to acquire Hamels, they need to do so for a prospect cost of less than they feel Lester and Scherzer are likely to overpaid by. Otherwise, what's the point? Almora straight up would probably be just about an even match for that figure, but when was the last time you saw a guy like Hamels traded straight up for a guy in the middle of a team's top 10 list? Amaro is going to insist on other good prospects in the deal. I don't see our front office doing it. And I don't think they're wrong.

 

Thanks Dave Cameron

 

Fair enough.

 

The only real advantage Hamels has over his peers is the length of his contract. Scherzer and Lester have higher ceilings, and can probably be acquired for something like 6/144. (That's the same AAV as Hamels). I'd rather see the Cubs flex their financial muscle a bit. The prospects can be better used elsewhere, to acquire something harder to get (Stanton, maybe).

 

I'd be pretty shocked to see Scherzer sign for 6/144. I have no [expletive] idea what to think of what Lester will get

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It is the start of a conversation. Of course they will start high. I'd reply that Baez, Soler, Bryant and Russell are completely off the table. How about Almora+?

 

Nope. I could package Almora-plus for someone younger.

[abuck1220]

yeah, not saying i'd do russell for hamels, but hamels is waaaaaay more valuable than samardzija right now. not even close.

 

Noooope.

 

Better pitcher? Sure. But Samardzija's market value blew Hamels' out of the water.

 

well, that's crazy, but I guess we agree to disagree.

[ScrubMD]

It is the start of a conversation. Of course they will start high. I'd reply that Baez, Soler, Bryant and Russell are completely off the table. How about Almora+?

Agreed, I'd do Almora, Vogelbach and Pierce or Hendricks (if they want a ML ready guy).

 

If Hendricks finishes the year close to what he's been so far, I don't think I'd trade him for Hamels straight up. With how fragile pitchers are, I'd hate to give up a dirt cheap good one for an expensive very good one, especially since the dirt cheap one is several years younger with no injury history.

[Rob]

yeah, not saying i'd do russell for hamels, but hamels is waaaaaay more valuable than samardzija right now. not even close.

 

Noooope.

 

Better pitcher? Sure. But Samardzija's market value blew Hamels' out of the water.

 

well, that's crazy, but I guess we agree to disagree.

 

Do you think Beane would have given up Russell for the right to pay Hamels $24M per year for the next 4 years? Do you think the Cubs will?

 

Samardzija is a lesser pitcher, but the gap between their salaries was much bigger than the gap between their production.

 

Also, Hamels' value now is artificially depressed due to the fact the Phillies can only deal with us. (And we aren't in a playoff hunt that could warrant an overpay)

[abuck1220]

yeah, not saying i'd do russell for hamels, but hamels is waaaaaay more valuable than samardzija right now. not even close.

 

Noooope.

 

Better pitcher? Sure. But Samardzija's market value blew Hamels' out of the water.

 

well, that's crazy, but I guess we agree to disagree.

 

Do you think Beane would have given up Russell for the right to pay Hamels $24M per year for the next 4 years? Do you think the Cubs will?

 

Samardzija is a lesser pitcher, but the gap between their salaries was much bigger than the gap between their production.

 

Also, Hamels' value now is artificially depressed due to the fact the Phillies can only deal with us. (And we aren't in a playoff hunt that could warrant an overpay)

 

maybe to the cash-strapped a's, samardzija is a better fit than hamels, but I bet you the cubs would have traded samardzija to the phils for hamels if they had the chance.

[ctcf]

MLB Trade Rumors @mlbtraderumors

Via @PWSullivan, #Phillies have pulled Cole Hamels off waivers after they were unable to make a deal with the #Cubs

 

SHOCKED

[Guest]

yeah, not saying i'd do russell for hamels, but hamels is waaaaaay more valuable than samardzija right now. not even close.

 

Noooope.

 

Better pitcher? Sure. But Samardzija's market value blew Hamels' out of the water.

 

well, that's crazy, but I guess we agree to disagree.

 

Do you think Beane would have given up Russell for the right to pay Hamels $24M per year for the next 4 years? Do you think the Cubs will?

 

Samardzija is a lesser pitcher, but the gap between their salaries was much bigger than the gap between their production.

 

Also, Hamels' value now is artificially depressed due to the fact the Phillies can only deal with us. (And we aren't in a playoff hunt that could warrant an overpay)

 

maybe to the cash-strapped a's, samardzija is a better fit than hamels, but I bet you the cubs would have traded samardzija to the phils for hamels if they had the chance.

I bet you any amount of money you like that the Cubs would have done that A's trade over Shark for Hamels.

 

BTW - if we do trade for Hamels I really want to re-sign Hammel during the offseason just for the fun of it.

[imb]

According to Wittenmeyer, they asked for Addison Russell. So much for that...

:lol:

 

new market inefficiency is to have two prospects by each name. You draft Kris Bryant, 21 year old 3B out of san diego state in the first round, and you draft Kris Bryant, 37 year old subway sandwich artist in the 50th round. Then you [expletive] over the Amaro's of the world.

[Him]

This has to be a good sign for payroll limitations. The Phillies could've just dumped his salary on us (and received no prospect in return). Obviously they didn't and I wouldn't say it was ever likely, but Theo was comfortable taking on $96 million if they did. That's a big chunk of change.

[Guest]

This has to be a good sign for payroll limitations. The Phillies could've just dumped his salary on us (and received no prospect in return). Obviously they didn't and I wouldn't say it was ever likely, but Theo was comfortable taking on $96 million if they did. That's a big chunk of change.

The Phil's weren't going to let him go as a cash dump. Amaro would get killed. The Cubs were always going to have to pay a premium in prospects if they wanted him.

 

Get Lester in the offseason.

[abuck1220]

I bet you any amount of money you like that the Cubs would have done that A's trade over Shark for Hamels.

 

 

fine. but they still would have also traded samardzija for hamels (assuming the russell trade wasn't on the table).

[Rob]

I bet you any amount of money you like that the Cubs would have done that A's trade over Shark for Hamels.

 

 

fine. but they still would have also traded samardzija for hamels (assuming the russell trade wasn't on the table).

 

I sincerely doubt it.

[Guest]

This has to be a good sign for payroll limitations. The Phillies could've just dumped his salary on us (and received no prospect in return). Obviously they didn't and I wouldn't say it was ever likely, but Theo was comfortable taking on $96 million if they did. That's a big chunk of change.

The Phil's weren't going to let him go as a cash dump. Amaro would get killed. The Cubs were always going to have to pay a premium in prospects if they wanted him.

 

Get Lester in the offseason.

 

We don't know that. Part of the package might have been the Phillies picking up some of the salary, which might be why the Phillies would have been asking for a premium prospect.