Cubs sign Jason Hammel, 2/20 w/ 3rd year option

[gscool89]

I'm intrigued to see what he got considering he'd be the first SP off the market

I would guess somewhere around where Scott Feldman got last offseason with the Astros (3/30). Deal was front-loaded too (12, 10, 8)

 

Holy crap I hope it's not that much.

I'd be guessing 3/33

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I was thinking more, like 3/36

 

Maybe I'm nutso but I was thinking like 1/$8m. He's not that good?

[Guest]

why did i think hammel was only going to get two years

 

;(

 

I think if he's on the verge of signing before nearly anyone else, and with the Cubs of all teams, that 2 years still might be a possibility. Wouldn't bet on it though.

[Cubswin11]

I'd be shocked if it's anything less than 2/25 guaranteed.

[Guest]

Contract crowdsourcing has Hammel at 3/27, so 3/33 or 3/36 probably would be what to expect.

[Guest]

Maybe he and Lester became best bros on Oakland and this is part of a full court press along with Dempster to lure him here

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Alright. I guess that's just what average pitchers who can pitch almost full seasons cost.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wada is in the Villanueva role, he's only in the rotation if a bunch of people get hurt or he just blows everyone away.

 

With guys like Hammel, you're going to need more than 5. Even if he stays healthy, he's not a 32-start guy.

 

I don't know what that means

[SouthSideRyan]

I was thinking more, like 3/36

 

Maybe I'm nutso but I was thinking like 1/$8m. He's not that good?

 

He just got 1/6 last year coming off a terrible season

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wada is in the Villanueva role, he's only in the rotation if a bunch of people get hurt or he just blows everyone away.

 

With guys like Hammel, you're going to need more than 5. Even if he stays healthy, he's not a 32-start guy.

 

I don't know what that means

 

It means he's never reached 180 IP and doesn't seem likely to start now.

 

Edit: It probably sounds like I'm complaining. I'm not. He's an upgrade. I'm just honestly surprised that's how much he would command.

[Deeg]

The over/under is certainly 3/30 - I'd be shocked if it isn't three years, and within a couple million in total.

 

Obviously, context is the key. If Hammel is the best pitcher we sign this offseason, that will be a major disappointment. As the second signing he's fine - though there are guys with a little higher risk-reward element that I'd have preferred.

[treebird]

The over/under is certainly 3/30 - I'd be shocked if it isn't three years, and within a couple million in total.

 

Obviously, context is the key. If Hammel is the best pitcher we sign this offseason, that will be a major disappointment. As the second signing he's fine - though there are guys with a little higher risk-reward element that I'd have preferred.

 

he needs to be a distant second. if the top guy is lester, this is fine. if it's not, this is a mess.

[Deeg]

The over/under is certainly 3/30 - I'd be shocked if it isn't three years, and within a couple million in total.

 

Obviously, context is the key. If Hammel is the best pitcher we sign this offseason, that will be a major disappointment. As the second signing he's fine - though there are guys with a little higher risk-reward element that I'd have preferred.

 

he needs to be a distant second. if the top guy is lester, this is fine. if it's not, this is a mess.

 

There's plenty of room for "over" guys between Lester and Hammel. Scherzer, Shields, Liriano, a trade for somebody like Zimmerman. But I don't expect the Cubs to go after any of those guys, so I suspect if Theo loses on Lester you're going to hear a lot of the usual mantra chanting - not selling out the future, "15 months", etc - and Hammel will have been the big signing two off-seasons in a row.

[treebird]

The over/under is certainly 3/30 - I'd be shocked if it isn't three years, and within a couple million in total.

 

Obviously, context is the key. If Hammel is the best pitcher we sign this offseason, that will be a major disappointment. As the second signing he's fine - though there are guys with a little higher risk-reward element that I'd have preferred.

 

he needs to be a distant second. if the top guy is lester, this is fine. if it's not, this is a mess.

 

There's plenty of room for "over" guys between Lester and Hammel. Scherzer, Shields, Liriano, a trade for somebody like Zimmerman. But I don't expect the Cubs to go after any of those guys, so I suspect if Theo loses on Lester you're going to hear a lot of the usual mantra chanting - not selling out the future, "15 months", etc - and Hammel will have been the big signing two off-seasons in a row.

 

i think there's an effectively zero chance we go after scherzer or shields. liriano and zimmerman are very unlikely but theoretically possible.

 

that mantra chanting is wholly unacceptable to all non-bretts.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Liriano is Hammel-tier.

[Proven Veteran]

I would rather have McCarthy.

[Tryptamine]

I would rather have McCarthy.

 

I'd rather have had Liriano even with the loss of a draft pick, but Hammel isn't so bad. Let's hope Theo pulled a miracle and got him for a 2 year deal.

[Guest]

 

i think there's an effectively zero chance we go after scherzer or shields. liriano and zimmerman are very unlikely but theoretically possible.

 

that mantra chanting is wholly unacceptable to all non-bretts.

 

What makes you say that? We've been connected pretty consistently to Shields (at least as much as anybody who has been linked to Shields to this point) and Bystro said they're going after him too.

[wvcbxl]

... Hammel isn't so bad. Let's hope Theo pulled a miracle and got him for a 2 year deal.

 

Agreed - I'm guessing Hammel liked playing for the Cubs :-)

I could live with a 2 year + 1 option year deal.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Seeing as Lester hope fades by the day, if we could get Peavy on something incentive based, a Arietta, Peavy, Hammel, and Hendricks, and Wood/Jax/Wada/Turner/Doubront/Straily, we'd be sure to have a well beyond adequate #5. This would be on par with last years rotation that was at times dominant but never got any run support.

[Guest]

Seeing as Lester hope fades by the day, if we could get Peavy on something incentive based, a Arietta, Peavy, Hammel, and Hendricks, and Wood/Jax/Wada/Turner/Doubront/Straily, we'd be sure to have a well beyond adequate #5. This would be on par with last years rotation that was at times dominant but never got any run support.

 

It does? Why?

 

And no [expletive] thanks on Peavy. Seriously. No.

[RynoRules]

This is bad news in terms of the Lester pursuit, but taken in isolation I like it.

 

Does Wood have any trade value whatsoever? Is Wada now in the Wesley Wright role? Would anyone really take on Jaxon's contract?

 

EDIT: Did anyone else notice Hammel's Oakland FIP? :sick:

[fromthestretch]

The over/under is certainly 3/30 - I'd be shocked if it isn't three years, and within a couple million in total.

 

Obviously, context is the key. If Hammel is the best pitcher we sign this offseason, that will be a major disappointment. As the second signing he's fine - though there are guys with a little higher risk-reward element that I'd have preferred.

 

he needs to be a distant second. if the top guy is lester, this is fine. if it's not, this is a mess.

 

There's plenty of room for "over" guys between Lester and Hammel. Scherzer, Shields, Liriano, a trade for somebody like Zimmerman. But I don't expect the Cubs to go after any of those guys, so I suspect if Theo loses on Lester you're going to hear a lot of the usual mantra chanting - not selling out the future, "15 months", etc - and Hammel will have been the big signing two off-seasons in a row.

 

i think there's an effectively zero chance we go after scherzer or shields. liriano and zimmerman are very unlikely but theoretically possible.

 

that mantra chanting is wholly unacceptable to all non-bretts.

 

Some of us named Brett also find it to be unacceptable.

[Guest]

If anything, this is probably good news in terms of the Lester pursuit. Just a couple days ago you had Theo making allusions to (paraphrasing here) how some moves make more sense than others when you've committed to a big FA and time is more of the essence since you know their value is front-loaded. That Hammel is the guy(as compared to a younger or higher upside/riskier guy or someone who didn't just spend several months as Lester's teammate) being added and that he's being added this early in the offseason is an indicator that they have more of that urgency. It could mean other things too(they got a really nice deal on Hammel, they really really like him as an individual pitcher) so it's not some stone cold lock, but it's not a bad sign.

[Guest]

And no one is going to be happy if Hammel is the best SP they acquire, so it'd be neat if we could leave that strawman alone until at least that scenario comes to pass.