MLB 2014-15: It's Time for the HOT STOVE

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cubs Acquire Miguel Montero From Diamondbacks for two prospect pitchers :up:. It's something to tide me over, at least.

I'm getting worried, though, because Giants assistant GM Bobby Evans keeps saying that he doesn't think they're getting Lester...he's talking an AWFUL lot about it. I don't know what he's up to, but he's making me suspicious.
 
Yeah. I'm....I can't pull myself away from SB Nation. I know he's not going to decide tonight...and yet.....
 
My guess is he ends up on the Cubs. I'd guess six years at $150-160 million, just a little higher than Hamels' deal two years ago (even though Hamels is better).
 
Ahem, more professional hat:

Red Sox offer was 6/135. Cubs sign Lester for 6/155 plus a 7th year vesting option for 15 million.

Stove.

So.

Hot.

B4eauV-CEAAbsZx.jpg

MLB @MLB Follow .@CubsJoeMadd, all smiles. Who can blame him? #WinterMeetings
 
Gonna be a cold stove for the Nats. Only a handful of players have a year left, most are tied up for 2-3 or beyond. And the team is damn good.

But if the Rangers want Doug Fister so badly, as they're hinting, Rougned Odor would solve our one weakness: 2B.
 
Would have been cool to get Lester back, but I think most were resigned to the fact that it wouldn't happen.

Larry Lucchino f'ed this thing up royally. Could have extended Lester last spring for 5 yrs and $100m-$110m, thought he'd play hardball and ends up with egg on his face. Dude really should stay out of baseball ops and let Cherington do his job.
But hey we got Cespedes.
 
Larry Lucchino f'ed this thing up royally. Could have extended Lester last spring for 5 yrs and $100m-$110m, thought he'd play hardball and ends up with egg on his face. Dude really should stay out of baseball ops and let Cherington do his job.
But hey we got Cespedes.

That 4/70 extension offer looks ridiculous now...

Phillies should offer to pay the entirety of Hamels' contract and get at least Betts, and possibly Betts/Bogaerts, in return. I doubt Amaro will do that, though. And maybe Cherington won't, either.
 
They shouldn't have to pay any of his contract. He's that good.

Crashburn Alley – Why the Phillies Can’t Trade Cole Hamels Rashly

Two top prospects and a solid third piece and you take on the whole salary. Otherwise, we'll just keep him. We don't need to deal him. The Dodgers have to include Urias and Seager, the Red Sox have to include Betts and Bogearts. Or no deal. That teams are overvaluing Mookie Betts isn't gonna force us to make a move we shouldn't make.
 
That teams are overvaluing Mookie Betts isn't gonna force us to make a move we shouldn't make.

I agree with this, generally. But I think you are overestimating Hamels' trade value a bit. Look what other very good starters - Price, for example - went for recently. Obviously Hamels is under control for longer, but he's much more expensive. There's not much value in the last year or two of his contract given his salary.

Let’s Design a Cole Hamels-to-Boston Trade | FanGraphs Baseball

And sure, the Philies can keep him. They could keep Cliff Lee, too.
 
A comment I enjoyed:

Remember South Park - "Scott Tenorman Must Die"?

There is a scene in which Cartman tries to get his $10 back from Scott, but Scott only has a $20. He asks Cartman for change, but Cartman only has $6.12.
They try to make change (OK, now I give YOU the $20, and I take back the five… then you give ME the 12 cents, and I take the $10, now you give ME the $20…) and Scott winds up with all the money.
Somehow, Theo just entered into a series of transactions with Billy Beane in which he traded Shark and Hammel to Oakland for Addison Russell, and the A’s traded Yoenis Cespedes for Jon Lester. And 6 months later…
The Cubs have Jon Lester, Jason Hammel AND Addison Russell (and other prospects).
The Red Sox still have Cespedes.
The White Sox, somehow, have Shark.
And the A’s have Marcus Semien. That’s what they got for Yoenis Cespedes and Addison Russell.
If I were Theo, I’d stay away from Billy Beane’s upcoming Chili Con Carnival. No pony rides, no chili cook-off.
 
I agree with this, generally. But I think you are overestimating Hamels' trade value a bit. Look what other very good starters - Price, for example - went for recently. Obviously Hamels is under control for longer, but he's much more expensive. There's not much value in the last year or two of his contract given his salary.

Let’s Design a Cole Hamels-to-Boston Trade | FanGraphs Baseball

And sure, the Philies can keep him. They could keep Cliff Lee, too.
Hamels has an eminently reasonable contract for a player as good as he is. You have one of the 10-15 best pitchers in baseball locked up for five years on a deal that is in no way an overpayment, a guy with as clean an injury history as you'll find, and a guy who will age better than most because he relies on finesse rather than power?

I've read FanGraphs' thoughts on these deals and, I don't mean to dismiss some of the smart people there, but they've got no fucking clue what they're talking about with this. I got into it with Sullivan on Twitter after he put that piece out. They want everything to come down to $/WAR and "surplus value" which just cannot be the end-all-be-all when it comes to trades. Dave Cameron said the Phillies should eat the ENTIRE Hamels contract and "that still might not be enough to get Betts." What a fucking moron.

The rarity of a cost-controlled, bonafide ace starting pitcher at a reasonable rate who isn't signed into his late 30s (even if you guarantee the option year as an incentive for him to wave his partial no-trade, that takes you to the end of his age-35 season) factors in. The teams that want/need him aren't worried about money, just like the Phillies aren't. The contract really doesn't matter.

Also, comparing it to Lee makes little sense. Different ages, different contracts, different situations.

To summarize my point: there is greater risk in giving Hamels up for Betts and lotto tickets or Pederson and lotto tickets than there is in keeping him for now. Those kinds of deals will be there at the deadline or next offseason. You only bite now for a trade you can win. Is there a risk he gets hurt or declines? Sure. But there's greater risk in giving him up for something so starkly below his value. The market is already turning in our favor.
 
Hamels has an eminently reasonable contract for a player as good as he is. You have one of the 10-15 best pitchers in baseball locked up for five years on a deal that is in no way an overpayment, a guy with as clean an injury history as you'll find, and a guy who will age better than most because he relies on finesse rather than power?

I've read FanGraphs' thoughts on these deals and, I don't mean to dismiss some of the smart people there, but they've got no fucking clue what they're talking about with this. I got into it with Sullivan on Twitter after he put that piece out. They want everything to come down to $/WAR and "surplus value" which just cannot be the end-all-be-all when it comes to trades. Dave Cameron said the Phillies should eat the ENTIRE Hamels contract and "that still might not be enough to get Betts." What a fucking moron.

The rarity of a cost-controlled, bonafide ace starting pitcher at a reasonable rate who isn't signed into his late 30s (even if you guarantee the option year as an incentive for him to wave his partial no-trade, that takes you to the end of his age-35 season) factors in. The teams that want/need him aren't worried about money, just like the Phillies aren't. The contract really doesn't matter.

Also, comparing it to Lee makes little sense. Different ages, different contracts, different situations.

To summarize my point: there is greater risk in giving Hamels up for Betts and lotto tickets or Pederson and lotto tickets than there is in keeping him for now. Those kinds of deals will be there at the deadline or next offseason. You only bite now for a trade you can win. Is there a risk he gets hurt or declines? Sure. But there's greater risk in giving him up for something so starkly below his value. The market is already turning in our favor.

I don't think it's all about $/WAR, although efficient allocation of resourses is part of it. Just wanted to summarize my argument:

1. Ace pitchers have been systematically traded in the past few years for less that what we generally assumed beforehand. If you look at all the recent trades for so-called aces, we often get the sense that the seller got less than what would be "fair value" (even the Phillies in both the Haladay and Lee trades, I would argue). The only exception was the Shields trade, and that is telling because (i) Shields cost half of what Hamels would cost; and (ii) they still did not get a prospect on Betts level (although Myers is not far, even though the consensus seems to be that they were overrated).

2. You can't ignore the contract. It's not an overpay per se, but it's still a lot of money. Of course teams would give him that money in free agency, but they would not give their top prospects plus that same money.

3. Young talent is valuable currency these days, more than ever before, given the costs. Betts does not have to become a young version of Pedroia to have huge trade value. Even if he settles as just an above average player, there's a lot of value attached to it because of his negligible cost for the next 4 years.

4. Hamels is a devaluing asset (that's where the Lee comparison comes from). Most of the surplus value in having him will come in the next couple of years. Chances are that even an injury-free Hamels would not be super valuable in the final two years of his contract. The Phillies can keep him, but I don't think this will enhance their chances of getting a good return.

In sum, if I was Boston, for example, I would rather sign Shields for 4 years and less that what Hamels is worth and keep Betts and Bogaerts. There's more value there. The equation shifts if the Phillies are paying a significant chunk of that contract.
 
I don't think it's all about $/WAR, although efficient allocation of resourses is part of it. Just wanted to summarize my argument:

1. Ace pitchers have been systematically traded in the past few years for less that what we generally assumed beforehand. If you look at all the recent trades for so-called aces, we often get the sense that the seller got less than what would be "fair value" (even the Phillies in both the Haladay and Lee trades, I would argue). The only exception was the Shields trade, and that is telling because (i) Shields cost half of what Hamels would cost; and (ii) they still did not get a prospect on Betts level (although Myers is not far, even though the consensus seems to be that they were overrated).

2. You can't ignore the contract. It's not an overpay per se, but it's still a lot of money. Of course teams would give him that money in free agency, but they would not give their top prospects plus that same money.

3. Young talent is valuable currency these days, more than ever before, given the costs. Betts does not have to become a young version of Pedroia to have huge trade value. Even if he settles as just an above average player, there's a lot of value attached to it because of his negligible cost for the next 4 years.

4. Hamels is a devaluing asset (that's where the Lee comparison comes from). Most of the surplus value in having him will come in the next couple of years. Chances are that even an injury-free Hamels would not be super valuable in the final two years of his contract. The Phillies can keep him, but I don't think this will enhance their chances of getting a good return.

In sum, if I was Boston, for example, I would rather sign Shields for 4 years and less that what Hamels is worth and keep Betts and Bogaerts. There's more value there. The equation shifts if the Phillies are paying a significant chunk of that contract.
Look, if paying down some of Hamels' contract gets you a package of Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, and Owens for example, I'm all for it. I want the talent, and the Phillies can afford to eat some salary. But I think you're either overstating how much money is owed to Hamels or understating how good he is. You can't just compare it to what has happened recently, either. The market isn't the same as it was when those other deals happened, and the need may just be greater for Boston right now since they've really gone all in this offseason. They NEED some starting pitching badly, and I don't see Shields alone being an answer.

If we were talking about sending him to Oakland or Tampa, where efficiency matters much more, I could understand it. But Boston not only can afford to pay for it, they're probably getting more bang for their buck than they are paying anyway. It's a really fair deal. For a team like Boston, this contract looks more like a positive than a negative, honestly. I don't want to ignore the contract: I want to celebrate it. They are locked in to a top-15 pitcher for five years where his value will likely not diminish much over the course of the deal and they're not overpaying so they're not hamstringing themselves.

It really is a fascinating debate, and I appreciate that you're arguing the merits of it. You have a very reasoned argument and a lot of good points. It's refreshing to read a debate about the Phillies' transactions without it devolving into "LOL Amaro overvaluing his players again." Because this is one of the few times in the last five years where I feel like Amaro is playing this right.
 
Look, if paying down some of Hamels' contract gets you a package of Betts, Bogaerts, Bradley, and Owens for example, I'm all for it. I want the talent, and the Phillies can afford to eat some salary. But I think you're either overstating how much money is owed to Hamels or understating how good he is. You can't just compare it to what has happened recently, either. The market isn't the same as it was when those other deals happened, and the need may just be greater for Boston right now since they've really gone all in this offseason. They NEED some starting pitching badly, and I don't see Shields alone being an answer.

If we were talking about sending him to Oakland or Tampa, where efficiency matters much more, I could understand it. But Boston not only can afford to pay for it, they're probably getting more bang for their buck than they are paying anyway. It's a really fair deal. For a team like Boston, this contract looks more like a positive than a negative, honestly. I don't want to ignore the contract: I want to celebrate it. They are locked in to a top-15 pitcher for five years where his value will likely not diminish much over the course of the deal and they're not overpaying so they're not hamstringing themselves.

It really is a fascinating debate, and I appreciate that you're arguing the merits of it. You have a very reasoned argument and a lot of good points. It's refreshing to read a debate about the Phillies' transactions without it devolving into "LOL Amaro overvaluing his players again." Because this is one of the few times in the last five years where I feel like Amaro is playing this right.

Appreciate your considered response too. I feel that it's harder and harder to have level-headed arguments about these things, even in places that are supposedly rigorous and analytical.
 
I want the Yankees to sign Headley and McCarthy and call it an offseason. Perhaps another cheap arm for rotation and bullpen depth, but that's it. McCarthy may get hurt, but will still be entertaining on twitter.
 
They shouldn't have to pay any of his contract. He's that good.

Crashburn Alley – Why the Phillies Can’t Trade Cole Hamels Rashly

Two top prospects and a solid third piece and you take on the whole salary. Otherwise, we'll just keep him. We don't need to deal him. The Dodgers have to include Urias and Seager, the Red Sox have to include Betts and Bogearts. Or no deal. That teams are overvaluing Mookie Betts isn't gonna force us to make a move we shouldn't make.


Lol. As if Seager alone is even worth it for renting out Hamels. No thanks. We'll be very happy keeping what looks to be one of the game's best shortstops real soon.

Dodgers have money and who says they can't purchase Scherzer instead?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom