Hamels: Nothing Is Happening Right Now

[GaryPeters71]

The Red Sox may have not made his top 10 list, but if the Red Sox make an offer the Phillies desire, he won't hesitate going to Boston.
 
"Of course, I would,'' Hamels says. "It's a fun city. There's no better feeling than to have a chance to win every year, and they give you that chance.
 
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/02/18/cole-hamels-phillies-trade-spring-training/23629509/

 

[RedOctober3829]

 
The Red Sox may have not made his top 10 list, but if the Red Sox make an offer the Phillies desire, he won't hesitate going to Boston.
 
"Of course, I would,'' Hamels says. "It's a fun city. There's no better feeling than to have a chance to win every year, and they give you that chance.
 
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/02/18/cole-hamels-phillies-trade-spring-training/23629509/
 

From that same article, here is who Philadelphia is asking for from various teams.
 

The Phillies keep shopping Hamels, and have had plenty of talks with the likes of the Los Angeles Dodgers, San Diego Padres and Boston Red Sox, but continue to await an acceptable proposal. They won't trade Hamels to Boston without getting catching prospect Blake Swihart in return. The Padres' offer of prospects Hunter Renfroe and Austin Hedges isn't enough. The Dodgers have yet to include any of their top four prospects in a proposal. And the Phillies won't listen to the St. Louis Cardinals unless pitcher Carlos Martinez is in a deal.
 

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The Red Sox may have not made his top 10 list, but if the Red Sox make an offer the Phillies desire, he won't hesitate going to Boston.
 
"Of course, I would,'' Hamels says. "It's a fun city. There's no better feeling than to have a chance to win every year, and they give you that chance.
 
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/02/18/cole-hamels-phillies-trade-spring-training/23629509/

Ruben Amaro is probably the only GM in sports that will most likely up his asking price after his star player openly says that he doesn't want to play there anymore. Brilliant

 

[bosockboy]

Hamels seems to be gently pushing this forward. He wants out of there.

 

[The Tax Man]

That's a great development, if he wants out bad enough to not force a team on his no trade list to pick up his option.

 

[Fireball Fred]

Specifically, Hamels may be signaling that he won't necessarily invoke the 5th-year option - which makes his contract perhaps a bit below market. 

 

[joe dokes]

So Amaro wont listen unless player "x" is in a deal......could he possibly not be litening to alternatives.  "we wont give you Swihart but we will give you  . . . . " Click. Could he be that un-creative.

 

[benhogan]

So Amaro wont listen unless player "x" is in a deal......could he possibly not be litening to alternatives.  "we wont give you Swihart but we will give you  . . . . " Click. Could he be that un-creative.

It does sound like that, which is crazy.
 
Sox have had 'blocked' prospects/young players in the past that have blossomed elsewhere (Reddick, Murphy, Melancon, Lowrie).
 
The Phils should look at going for several of the 'blocked' Sox prospects (Brentz, Coyle, Cecchini, Brian Johnson, Barnes, Wright, JBJ, Escobar, Shaw) plus one of low-level high upside guys (Margot/Devers)

 

[Minneapolis Millers]

Come on. Amaro has pulled off trades THIS OFF-SEASON. I know it's fun to act superior and all, but the idea that he just pouts and hangs up on his fellow GMs is ridiculous.

However, I agree that, absent Betts/Swihart, Amaro's next move should be to say, "Fine, then I'll need Kelly, Owens, Cecchini, and Margot."

 

[joe dokes]

Come on. Amaro has pulled off trades THIS OFF-SEASON. I know it's fun to act superior and all, but the idea that he just pouts and hangs up on his fellow GMs is ridiculous.

However, I agree that, absent Betts/Swihart, Amaro's next move should be to say, "Fine, then I'll need Kelly, Owens, Cecchini, and Margot."

 
I hope the "click" was seen as the hyperbole that it is.  If not, my bad.
Otherwise we are in agreement as to what he should do; but it seems like not-Swihart is a non-starter.  Maybe he's kicking himself for not getting crown jewels for Byrd and Rollins.

 

[Rasputin]

Come on. Amaro has pulled off trades THIS OFF-SEASON. I know it's fun to act superior and all, but the idea that he just pouts and hangs up on his fellow GMs is ridiculous.

However, I agree that, absent Betts/Swihart, Amaro's next move should be to say, "Fine, then I'll need Kelly, Owens, Cecchini, and Margot."

Come the deadline, I might be willing to make that trade.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Well , if sufficient pressure mounts on RAJ - either from Hamels or from Gillick - then he will, one presumes,make the best deal possible. Because it sounds like the other suitors are in the same boat in that they won't give up their prime prospects it will just come down to which team makes the most attractive (from RAJ's perspective) offer. One would think that a Kelly/Owens/Margot offer would put the Sox at the head of the line. Whether the Sox would even do that without a significant salary easement is an interesting question.

 

[NDame616]

Specifically, Hamels may be signaling that he won't necessarily invoke the 5th-year option - which makes his contract perhaps a bit below market. 

Perhaps?
 
Hamels, without the option is essentially 4/100 (including the buyout)
With the option he's 5/118 (if B-R is correct)
 
What do you think Hamels would've gotten this post season? Quibble all you want at who is better, him or Lester, but he would've received a very comparable deal.
 
Of course, with Hamels you factor in the cost of acquiring him (prospects) but no matter who gets him, the monetary cost will be much lower than market value

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

That's a great development, if he wants out bad enough to not force a team on his no trade list to pick up his option.

 
 

Specifically, Hamels may be signaling that he won't necessarily invoke the 5th-year option - which makes his contract perhaps a bit below market. 

 
There's absolutely nothing in that quote to suggest that Hamels will waive the no-trade without getting the option year picked up.  At best, he's merely signaling that a trade to the Sox wouldn't be dead on arrival, and (probably) that he won't be demanding an extension.

 

[MikeM]

There's absolutely nothing in that quote to suggest that Hamels will waive the no-trade without getting the option year picked up.  At best, he's merely signaling that a trade to the Sox wouldn't be dead on arrival, and (probably) that he won't be demanding an extension.

 
There has also been nothing solid put forth (that i've seen) suggesting he won't either.
 
Hamels signed that extension back in summer of 2012, when Philly was a team pulling the highest attendance totals in the league and coming off 5 straight years of winning their division. A lot has changed there between then and now. If it came down to getting traded to a place he'd rather play, or holding up/staying put on some principle value, put me down as skeptical he chooses the latter. 
 
Not like the $6m buyout he'd be "stuck with" on that last $20m option year in question is chump change either. 

 

[IpswichSox]

It's doubtful the PA would allow Hamels to waive his no-trade to Boston without the option year being converted to a guaranteed year. The no-trade is viewed as something of value; waiving it would require something of value in return going back to the player.

 

[The Tax Man]

The something of value can simply be getting out of Philadelphia and having a better chance to win in Boston.  He negotiated to have this no trade clause in his contract to protect himself from getting traded to an inferior situation.  He's got the opportunity to be traded to a presumably better situation. He doesn't need to extract additional value out of the no trade if he's comfortable accepting the change of venue as enough value.  

 

[Harry Hooper]

Pad the buyout number by another $2 million as a sweetener for PA concerns.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

It's doubtful the PA would allow Hamels to waive his no-trade to Boston without the option year being converted to a guaranteed year. The no-trade is viewed as something of value; waiving it would require something of value in return going back to the player.

 
No .. the value of the No Trade Clause has nothing to do with any options in his contract. They are completely separate issues. The PA cannot argue they are linked. Its value is simply the fact that he can't be traded to X number of teams without his permission.
 
What's more (and this I'm not sure of), one assumes that once he's traded that No Trade clause is still part of his contract. In other words , if he waives it in order to be traded to Boston (for whatever incentive - including nothing) - then once he's here he would still have a No Trade clause in the contract except it's now X-1 teams.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
No .. the value of the No Trade Clause has nothing to do with any options in his contract. They are completely separate issues. The PA cannot argue they are linked. Its value is simply the fact that he can't be traded to X number of teams without his permission.
 
What's more (and this I'm not sure of), one assumes that once he's traded that No Trade clause is still part of his contract. In other words , if he waives it in order to be traded to Boston (for whatever incentive - including nothing) - then once he's here he would still have a No Trade clause in the contract except it's now X-1 teams.

 
While they're not linked per se, there's no reason Hamels couldn't extract something extra from his current club in exchange for waiving the NTC and allowing a trade to another team.  Or he could just be a nice guy and waive it.  
 
I think you're right about the NTC applying to any new team he ends up with.  I would think the NTC would diminish Hamels worth in a trade.  (Of course, Hamels could always renegotiate his contract if he really wanted to.)  
 
Some of this is chicken/egg though - nobody's going to trade for Hamels contract if the Phillies are going to add to it at the last minute, and the Phillies aren't going to add unless they have a deal in place, and Hamels isn't going to waive unless he knows where he's going (and on what terms if he wants some kind of sweetener).  So the parties would likely all have to sit down and work it out beforehand.

 

[IpswichSox]

 
No .. the value of the No Trade Clause has nothing to do with any options in his contract. 

 
Sorry, I'm mobile and can't easily dig up quotes supporting my position, which is that the PA likely wouldn't allow Hamels to waive his no-trade to Boston without Hamels getting something of value in return, with the mostly likely candidate being guaranteeing Hamels' option year. But I think there are similarities here to the 2003 discussions over the proposed Manny-Alex Rodriguez trade. Theo wanted to reduce the overall value of A-Rod's contract, which the PA would allow but only if A-Rod was given something of value in return (I think the PA/Boras wanted an earlier opt-out and some ability to use Sox logos or Fenway images or something like that in licensing deals Rodriguez wanted to do).
 
My point is not that the no-trade clause and the option year are linked in the contract. Instead it's that the PA views the no-trade clause as an item that represents value (in this case, up to $19 million in value).  It's inconceivable that the PA would allow a player to give away that value for nothing in return. The PA would not view Hamels' wishes to play for a contending team as equal to the value of the no-trade, just as the PA ultimately objected in 2003 to Rodriguez allowing his contract value to be reduced just because he wanted out of Texas and to play for a team that was contending.

 

[TigerBlood]

The something of value can simply be getting out of Philadelphia and having a better chance to win in Boston.  He negotiated to have this no trade clause in his contract to protect himself from getting traded to an inferior situation.  He's got the opportunity to be traded to a presumably better situation. He doesn't need to extract additional value out of the no trade if he's comfortable accepting the change of venue as enough value.  

 
Uhh, why did he put a team like Boston on it then?

 

[Pozo the Clown]

 
...I think there are similarities here to the 2003 discussions over the proposed Manny-Alex Rodriguez trade. Theo wanted to reduce the overall value of A-Rod's contract, which the PA would allow but only if A-Rod was given something of value in return (I think the PA/Boras wanted an earlier opt-out and some ability to use Sox logos or Fenway images or something like that in licensing deals Rodriguez wanted to do)....

 
The A-Rod situation (salary reduction) is very different than a waiver of a no-trade clause.  Perhaps, a stronger analogy would be a waiver of a player's 10-5 rights, as a limited no-trade clause is essentially a paired down version of the 10-5 rights.
 
[Edit: punctuation]

 

[IpswichSox]

Pozo, I think that's a weaker analogy. 10-5 rights were collectively bargained by the PA, not a provision one player negotiated himself.  

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

 
Sorry, I'm mobile and can't easily dig up quotes supporting my position, which is that the PA likely wouldn't allow Hamels to waive his no-trade to Boston without Hamels getting something of value in return, with the mostly likely candidate being guaranteeing Hamels' option year. But I think there are similarities here to the 2003 discussions over the proposed Manny-Alex Rodriguez trade. Theo wanted to reduce the overall value of A-Rod's contract, which the PA would allow but only if A-Rod was given something of value in return (I think the PA/Boras wanted an earlier opt-out and some ability to use Sox logos or Fenway images or something like that in licensing deals Rodriguez wanted to do).
 
My point is not that the no-trade clause and the option year are linked in the contract. Instead it's that the PA views the no-trade clause as an item that represents value (in this case, up to $19 million in value).  It's inconceivable that the PA would allow a player to give away that value for nothing in return. The PA would not view Hamels' wishes to play for a contending team as equal to the value of the no-trade, just as the PA ultimately objected in 2003 to Rodriguez allowing his contract value to be reduced just because he wanted out of Texas and to play for a team that was contending.

 
The PA can view anything they like. But they would be laughed out of court for suggesting it. The NTC is just that. The right of a player to refuse a trade to certain teams. It has no value whatsoever beyond that, If he waives it it's as if it didn't exist. The NTC does not say that he can't be traded AND he can't accept a trade. Its just the option to decline.

 

[splendid splinter]

 
Sorry, I'm mobile and can't easily dig up quotes supporting my position, which is that the PA likely wouldn't allow Hamels to waive his no-trade to Boston without Hamels getting something of value in return, with the mostly likely candidate being guaranteeing Hamels' option year. But I think there are similarities here to the 2003 discussions over the proposed Manny-Alex Rodriguez trade. Theo wanted to reduce the overall value of A-Rod's contract, which the PA would allow but only if A-Rod was given something of value in return (I think the PA/Boras wanted an earlier opt-out and some ability to use Sox logos or Fenway images or something like that in licensing deals Rodriguez wanted to do).
 
My point is not that the no-trade clause and the option year are linked in the contract. Instead it's that the PA views the no-trade clause as an item that represents value (in this case, up to $19 million in value).  It's inconceivable that the PA would allow a player to give away that value for nothing in return. The PA would not view Hamels' wishes to play for a contending team as equal to the value of the no-trade, just as the PA ultimately objected in 2003 to Rodriguez allowing his contract value to be reduced just because he wanted out of Texas and to play for a team that was contending.

 
But Hamels isn't really giving up something of value.  He's executing something of value - the right to control where he goes.  I think the use of the term "waive his no-trade clause" is a bit misleading.  He isn't waiving it, he's using it.  He has the right to prevent the team from trading him somewhere without his permission.  If he goes to the Sox, it's because he's given his permission to be traded there.  The PA might not like it if he doesn't extract some concession from the Sox for granting that permission, but if it went to arbitration I don't know that they'd win the day.

 

[snowmanny]

 
But Hamels isn't really giving up something of value.  He's executing something of value - the right to control where he goes.  I think the use of the term "waive his no-trade clause" is a bit misleading.  He isn't waiving it, he's using it.  He has the right to prevent the team from trading him somewhere without his permission.  If he goes to the Sox, it's because he's given his permission to be traded there.  The PA might not like it if he doesn't extract some concession from the Sox for granting that permission, but if it went to arbitration I don't know that they'd win the day.

For example, Jimmy Rollins waived his 10/5 rights to get traded to the Dodgers.  All he was given was an extra 20 wins.
 
Edit:  It's also possible that someone wouldn't want the option year picked up.  Maybe he's planning on pitching well for four years and signing a three-year contract.  A condition of Manny being traded to the Dodgers was that the option years were negated, not picked up, and he made more money.

 

[MikeM]

 
Uhh, why did he put a team like Boston on it then?

 
Because when given the option to pick 9 teams for 2015, we simply didn't make his top 9 cut? As Hamel's own recent comments do indeed suggest (imo), that's hardly worthy of an automatic assumption that he'll reject a trade to a team not on the list and/or demand to have the option picked up.
 
Cot's previously had Boston on that list for 2014 fwiw, but we apparently got bumped in favor of the Cubs this time around. I honestly doubt it's any more complicated then that, much less worthy of the PA feeling some need to step in over what essentially seems to amount to a formality value. Not like he'd be giving up any actual money. 

 

[lurker42]

A better analogy might be the Sammy Sosa trade to the Orioles.  Sosa had an $18 million team option year in his contract that was to become guaranteed if he were traded.  The Orioles wouldn't take his contract if that option became guaranteed, but Sosa wanted out of Chicago badly enough that he was willing to restructure his contract to eliminate the option year.  Details here:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47757-2005Jan29.html
 
The Players' Union signed off on it, because they knew Sosa wasn't getting that $18 million no matter what.  He was either going to play out the contract in Chicago and have the Cubs decline the option, or he was going to restructure his contract to facilitate a trade.
 
Sosa got something he valued (out of Chicago), in exchange for waiving the trade protections built into his contract.  If Hamels wants out of Philly bad enough to waive his no trade protection without other compensation, I can't see how the Players' Association would have any right to object.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Split this out from the old thread from the new article forward. And other reasons.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

Is guaranteeing Hamels option year really a huge deal for him? It's a $20M option, but has a $6M buyout. He'll be 34 at the end of the 2018 season. Unless he's completely fallen off a cliff / is injured, it seems like he'd be likely to get a lot more guaranteed money on the open market.

Also, didn't Crawford waive his NTC (and lots of other players) for nothing tangible in return?

It's a $24 million option if you include the escalators in his contract.
 
I suppose he could not demand that the option be picked up as a way to get out of Philly, but $18m is a pretty big deal, and he'd have to be guessing that there were no other trade possibilities.  The other thing is that it's unlikely his demand would block a trade in the first place--I would assume that any deal arrived at by Ben and RA would assume that to be part of Hamels's cost.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

"Hamels says he will go to the Sox"
 
Am I the only person who saw this new thread title and thought that Hamels had tweeted or somehow announced that a trade was about to happen?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

"Hamels says he will go to the Sox"
 
Am I the only person who saw this new thread title and thought that Hamels had tweeted or somehow announced that a trade was about to happen?

 
Totally. I was freaking.
 
It should be "Hamels says he would go to the Sox"

 

[C4CRVT]

"Hamels says he will go to the Sox"
 
Am I the only person who saw this new thread title and thought that Hamels had tweeted or somehow announced that a trade was about to happen?

No

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 
The escalators don't bump it to $24M until after the 2018 season and don't apply if it is exercised by the team before than, so I'm not sure why you would value it at $24M. 

Because Hamels's agent will.

 

[strek1]

 
The Red Sox may have not made his top 10 list, but if the Red Sox make an offer the Phillies desire, he won't hesitate going to Boston.
 
"Of course, I would,'' Hamels says. "It's a fun city. There's no better feeling than to have a chance to win every year, and they give you that chance.
 
Link: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2015/02/18/cole-hamels-phillies-trade-spring-training/23629509/
 

 Good news I guess. But I'm surprised there are 10 places he would rather go.  I assume that must be weather related?  Boston is a heck of a place to play. I know the media is tough but you can't beat the fans & organization.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

 Good news I guess. But I'm surprised there are 10 places he would rather go.  I assume that must be weather related?  Boston is a heck of a place to play. I know the media is tough but you can't beat the fans & organization.

2015 list is Atlanta, Chicago, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, NY Yankees, San Diego, St. Louis, Texas and Washington) (it's a nine team list).

 

[21st Century Sox]

 Good news I guess. But I'm surprised there are 10 places he would rather go.  I assume that must be weather related?  Boston is a heck of a place to play. I know the media is tough but you can't beat the fans & organization.

 I don't believe that there are necessarily ten places Hamels would prefer to go. Players will often pick large market team, who are more likely to absorb a big contract, and put those on a No Trade list. Big contract players like a Hamels know that they won't be traded to the Marlin's of the world.
 
By having a NTC to say LAD/BOS/NYY - places you can actually get traded to - you then have leverage - "pick up my option, or I will not waive my NTC". Sounds like Hamels may want out of Philly, and might just waive regardless, but teams on NTC's, are not necessarily places you really don't want to go....

 

[Devizier]

Just for giggles, what would a Hamels for Swihart deal look like? Would the Phillies include Ruiz in the deal? Maybe a bullpen arm or two?
 
I'm genuinely curious, because it seems like this hasn't been explored beyond "pro" and "con".

 

[Doctor G]

Just for giggles, what would a Hamels for Swihart deal look like? Would the Phillies include Ruiz in the deal? Maybe a bullpen arm or two?
 
I'm genuinely curious, because it seems like this hasn't been explored beyond "pro" and "con".

Ruiz would be a deal breaker for the Red Sox.

 

[SoxinSeattle]

 
Uhh, why did he put a team like Boston on it then?

$$$$$$

 

[TigerBlood]

$$$$$$

Mine was a rehtorical question. Read who I was replying to before making a useless comment like this. The Tax Man claimed that Hamels "negotiated to have this no trade clause in his contract to protect himself from getting traded to an inferior situation.  He's got the opportunity to be traded to a presumably better situation. He doesn't need to extract additional value out of the no trade if he's comfortable accepting the change of venue as enough value." That's very obviously not true, he negotiated the no-trade so he could extract money from teams that would likely trade for him, most of whom would be contenders...

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Mine was a rehtorical question. Read who I was replying to before making a useless comment like this. The Tax Man claimed that Hamels "negotiated to have this no trade clause in his contract to protect himself from getting traded to an inferior situation.  He's got the opportunity to be traded to a presumably better situation. He doesn't need to extract additional value out of the no trade if he's comfortable accepting the change of venue as enough value." That's very obviously not true, he negotiated the no-trade so he could extract money from teams that would likely trade for him, most of whom would be contenders...

 
Confusion would be lessened if you had quoted the original post. Be that as it may you (or me) have no idea why Boston was on the the no trade list. It could have been as you suggest. It could have been because he had a rotten time on his last visit. It could have been he left it up to his agent.
 
The reasons are irrelevant to the discussion. There is no PA side issue. There is no linkage between the NTC and his option (or any other clause in his contract). There is no precedent in MLB (or any other sport I know of) of NTCs having any value other than what they are.
 
 
Getting back to Hamels - yes, it's nice that he wouldn't mind a trade here. But it's just one less impediment to a trade. Everyone has fixated on Boston's reluctance to include Swihart. But reading the internet tea leaves seem to suggest that the Sox would want extensive salary relief in any deal as well. I think Hamels stays with the Phillies until the trade deadline. RAJ is probably holding out for a panic offer from some contender with a major injury.

 

[OnBaseMachine]

If Amaro is really rejecting Renfroe + Hedges from the Padres, then we shouldn't pay his price. That is an awfully bold offer for Hamels, and he'd be silly to reject it. Maybe the offer was never official. And I guess fangraphs disagrees with me, so it's not an outrageous offer. But, personally, I wouldn't want to give up those two for Hamels, and our top 4 are better than Renfroe. Or Hedges. So I definitely don't want to do that either. In any case, I don't see how we get Hamels unless Amaro is just plain bluffing.

 

[TigerBlood]

 
Confusion would be lessened if you had quoted the original post. Be that as it may you (or me) have no idea why Boston was on the the no trade list. It could have been as you suggest. It could have been because he had a rotten time on his last visit. It could have been he left it up to his agent.
 
The reasons are irrelevant to the discussion. There is no PA side issue. There is no linkage between the NTC and his option (or any other clause in his contract). There is no precedent in MLB (or any other sport I know of) of NTCs having any value other than what they are.
 
 
Getting back to Hamels - yes, it's nice that he wouldn't mind a trade here. But it's just one less impediment to a trade. Everyone has fixated on Boston's reluctance to include Swihart. But reading the internet tea leaves seem to suggest that the Sox would want extensive salary relief in any deal as well. I think Hamels stays with the Phillies until the trade deadline. RAJ is probably holding out for a panic offer from some contender with a major injury.

FFS I did quote Tax Man's post in my original post, read the thread.
 
And honestly, you're right that we can't know Hamels' exact thoughts, but does that really need to be stated? We're using logic and reason to surmise why certain business/contract decisions were made. Its not all that much of a mystery. This thread is literally the result of a quote by Hamels himself declaring Boston somewhere he would be happy to play, so it seems very unlikely that Boston is on the NTC list because "he had a rotten time once". And if you really think that players, their agents, and teams don't use options, NTC, extension offers etc. as negotiating tactics in trade-talks and the like, you're just being naive. There is zero chance that Hamels agent wouldn't at least say "Hey, tell Boston you'd be much more likely to waive your NTC if they pick up your option. Give Boston a chance to pick it up or give a counter offer."

 

[ALiveH]

This deal would be hard enough to get done without the NTC coming into play.  If Hamels tries to extract $ value from his NTC, then the Sox would have to compensate for that by reducing the prospect value they offer to Philadelphia.  It would scuttle the trade.  The NTC comes down to whether he really would rather be here and I'd bet if it came down to it, Hamels would rather be playing on a winner in a cold weather city than on a loser in a cold weather city.

 

[Doctor G]

That big wall in left might not look too inviting to Cole. That is where lousy change-ups end up. not even Hamels is immune to lousy change-ups.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

That big wall in left might not look too inviting to Cole. That is where lousy change-ups end up. not even Hamels is immune to lousy change-ups.

 
Can't find the link now, but there was a Gammons article earlier this winter that suggested that Hamels was something less than intrigued about his fit at Fenway Park specifically. Which might, in this case, actually be a more likely explanation for keeping Boston on his no-trade list.
 
If he was planning to use his NTC as a negotiating tactic to get some extra money from deep-pocketed teams, then he picked some weird teams to exclude - he wouldn't be able to extract anything extra from the Cubs, Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Nationals, or Rangers, and those are six pretty big spenders right there. Only he knows why he did what he did, but I'm not sure it's as simple as some have suggested.

 

[In my lifetime]

 
Can't find the link now, but there was a Gammons article earlier this winter that suggested that Hamels was something less than intrigued about his fit at Fenway Park specifically. Which might, in this case, actually be a more likely explanation for keeping Boston on his no-trade list.
 
If he was planning to use his NTC as a negotiating tactic to get some extra money from deep-pocketed teams, then he picked some weird teams to exclude - he wouldn't be able to extract anything extra from the Cubs, Yankees, Dodgers, Angels, Nationals, or Rangers, and those are six pretty big spenders right there. Only he knows why he did what he did, but I'm not sure it's as simple as some have suggested.

Actually those are exactly the big spenders from whom he can extract something extra. The thinking would be to put the teams with money on the no trade list to give himself some leverage to ask for extra compensation. The idea would be two-fold: put teams with money on the no trade list and other teams where he really doesn't want to go.

 

[Yelling At Clouds]

Actually those are exactly the big spenders from whom he can extract something extra. The thinking would be to put the teams with money on the no trade list to give himself some leverage to ask for extra compensation. The idea would be two-fold: put teams with money on the no trade list and other teams where he really doesn't want to go.

 
Maybe I wasn't clear enough - he can be traded to those six teams without his permission. He doesn't have to waive the NTC to go there. Therefore, unless there's something I'm not understanding, he can't get anything from them.