Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested

[lxt]

Philly needs so many things and with Amaro there is no realm of reality that is possible.
 
I try Webster, De La Rosa, Middlebrooks, Craig, and Mujica for starters and see what Amaro comes back with.
 
Tyrone Biggums suggestion about throwing in Papelbon would be interesting. Wonder if he'd agree to be setup mam?

 

[MakMan44]

No. He wouldn't. 

 

[nattysez]

Philly needs so many things and with Amaro there is no realm of reality that is possible.
 
I try Webster, De La Rosa, Middlebrooks, Craig, and Mujica for starters and see what Amaro comes back with.
 
Tyrone Biggums suggestion about throwing in Papelbon would be interesting. Wonder if he'd agree to be setup mam?

 
RTFT

 

[lxt]

 
RTFT

I was wondering which one you meant? I assume that you were being kind as I would expect from most people found on this board.
 
RTFT: Right The First Time


RTFT: Revised Texas Franchise Tax


RTFT: Read The Fucking Thread
RTFT: Read The Friendly Topic
RTFT: Rio Tinto, Fer et Titane
RTFT: round-trip flying time
RTFT: rising tide fair trade

 

[rodderick]

The likelihood of Owens becoming a top of the rotation guy is slim, and becoming a top 10 guy ala Cole Hamels slimmer.
 
If anything, he's closer to a LHP version of Ian Kennedy. 

 
I honestly don't get the Kennedy comparison. Owens has pitched in AAA for two months and has had success in every single level he's played in. His fastball command/velocity may very well prevent him from ever becoming a top flight pitcher, but there's no way of properly evaluating him so far. He has the same risks associated with him that every top flight pitching prospect who doesn't sit 94+ does.

 

[mauf]

Theo will presumably be doing some serious shopping, and other teams will be floated, if only to drive up the price.  Theo will be in there.  Hamel's not being moved for two middle-of-the rotation projections and a lottery ticket.

With three #1s on the free agent market, I think Hamels's market will be limited. Prospects of Owens's caliber are seldom traded; I don't think anyone is going to go there for Hamels. Which may well mean Hamels is staying put.

 

[The Boomer]

I think people are over-estimating any potential package for Hamels.  Amaro is either going to lower his crazy demands from the deadline or he's not going to trade him.  No one is dumb enough to trade elite prospects when you can sign Lester for similar money and they are the same age.  And if Lester gets something really crazy like 7/175 there are other options besides trading Betts for Hamels. 
 
That's not to say I think Hamels has no trade value.  I think he'd be a pretty good pickup at the right price.  But Betts and Bogaerts should not be going anywhere.  I like Owens but if he was the best player included with other depth prospects added in it might be a decent deal. 

 
I agree with this.  With Rodriguez, Escobar, Johnson and Ball in the system, the Sox would still retain quality LHP prospect depth.  You have to hope that, in scouting the ML team, the Phillies are considering acquisitions from where the Sox have depth.  Some combination of Owens (as the centerpiece), WMB or Bradley and Webster or DLR or Ranaudo or Barnes would get this done.  More than a package like this will be too much.

 

[nothumb]

The two big pieces of info we won't have in all of this is 1) what other teams are offering for Hamels and 2) what other teams are offering for our prospects. I assume Ben will be pursuing top FA SP, Hamels, and position player trades simultaneously and will have to decide ahead of time not just which is his top priority but how he will balance opportunity costs at different points in the off season.
 
All that being said, I am on board with the idea that a package for Hamels headlined by Owens is unlikely to make me too unhappy. Depending on how the market shakes out, I could see how going for Lester AND Hamels and filling out the roster with kids / minor trades / minor FAs might be the best approach, so long as we keep a couple of top tier SP prospects in the fold for 2016 and beyond. I think that's doable.

 

[CaskNFappin]

Whoever we deal, can very likely be mitigated by a college pitcher ala Brian Finnegan, who can come in quickly to help us at the upper levels. Pull the trigger. Lacking an SP1/2 going into 15 is a certified punt.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

 
I agree with this.  With Rodriguez, Escobar, Johnson and Ball in the system, the Sox would still retain quality LHP prospect depth.  You have to hope that, in scouting the ML team, the Phillies are considering acquisitions from where the Sox have depth.  Some combination of Owens (as the centerpiece), WMB or Bradley and Webster or DLR or Ranaudo or Barnes would get this done.  More than a package like this will be too much.

Agreed that Owens is the obvious match being a LH starter both with his ability to fill that role in Philly and as you stated our ability to fill his role here with Rodriguez (and others). The issue is I have with your offer is that WMB and JBJ don't carry much trade value and the pitchers you included are more back-end types.

The only way to give up Owens and scraps for Hamels would be to take on Howard's remaining $60m. Would that be worth retaining Swihart/Betts/X in addition to additional pitching? We already have leveraged this bench spot with Craig so that is extremely unlikely. Acquiring Hamels isn't going to come cheap.

 

[seantoo]

I would be really opposed to giving up Owens, Betts, or Boagerts for anyone, especially someone like Hamels. There's free agent pitching available. Trading Hamels for any of those guys doesn't significantly improve the teams future in the near term, does it?

I agree and I'm sure the SOx know this as well. In order for any potential trade for Hamels to make sense the Sox would also have to sign one of the top free agent pitchers available. 
Then they'd have a formidable top of the rotation, with Kelly and Buchholz slotted for the third and fourth spot in the rotation. The remaining rookies/farmhands that are not traded in a potential deal for Hamels, would battle it out for the fifth spot.
 
PS: Another potential black hole for the Sox is third base. MLB traderumors does seasonal summaries http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014-15-offseason-outlook for each team once the regular season is over and they did the Twins and mentioned that, "Plouffe strikes me as an under-the-radar trade target for teams in need of help at the hot corner." Fodder for thought.

 

[benhogan]

Agreed that Owens is the obvious match being a LH starter both with his ability to fill that role in Philly and as you stated our ability to fill his role here with Rodriguez (and others). The issue is I have with your offer is that WMB and JBJ don't carry much trade value and the pitchers you included are more back-end types.

The only way to give up Owens and scraps for Hamels would be to take on Howard's remaining $60m. Would that be worth retaining Swihart/Betts/X in addition to additional pitching? We already have leveraged this bench spot with Craig so that is extremely unlikely. Acquiring Hamels isn't going to come cheap.

This makes absolutely zero sense.
 
So basically you're saying the cost of 4 years of Hamels is 90MM + 60MM (Howard's contract)  + the top LHP prospect in baseball + more prospects?
 
For $150MM @ 6yrs we probably can get Lester and keep our prospects. 
 
We are not taking bad contracts along with Hamels big/somewhat fair contract. No one else will do it and the Sox are not going to hamstring themselves with Howard or Papelbon's inflated deals.

 

[seantoo]

I would be very disappointed if they traded one of Betts, Owens, or Swihart for Hamels.  I'd rather trade elite prospects for the elite bat we can't find on the free agent market at any price than for the elite arm we could find on the free agent market for perhaps a slightly-inflated price.
 
I'm of the mind that we only need to add one frontline starter.  But if we want to sign one and trade for one, I'd rather look at Samardzija, whose acquisition cost should be less since we're only getting a year, and then hoping Owens is ready in 2016.

The only problem here is that ready Owens and the Owens he's to be are a few years apart. Pitchers and Hitters usually need a few years to reach their own level. In other words immediate success is so unusual, that's it's the exception that validates the rule. This is why even with a few keys moves, the Sox return to prominence likely will not be imminent. For that to happen it's also going to be how quick can at least two of our younger players approach their prime year production levels. The Sox should be notably better next year, contend for a wild card even but by 2016 I think we may be able to contend for it all and more important than that, contend for the foreseeable future.

 

[ehaz]

God you should not plan on sitting on a prospect's value.  Look at a guy like Michael Bowden who at one point could have netted you Miquel Montero.  
 

Age 21 seasons of former top prospects with similar MiLB stats:

Player A: 52 games .291/.368/.444
Player B: 43 games .293/.373/.580

A is Mookie and B is our north of the border friend Brett Lawrie. Not advocating that Ben should package him for Hamels per sey, but all avenues should be explored and they shouldn't consider anyone 'untouchable'.

 

[MakMan44]

Lawrie has played in 125, 107 and 70 games from 2012-2014. Dude gets injured, a lot. I don't think the two are comparable, unless you have some knowledge of future Mookie injuries. 

 

[jscola85]

Yeah, not a great example either, as his follow-up year to the cup of coffee produced over 4 WAR in just 125 games.  Injuries have done in Lawrie, not ability.

 

[seantoo]

 
 
To understand the "holes," it's important to understand what we're expecting from the spots that aren't deemed to be holes:
 
-- Another healthy, elite season from David Ortiz, who will be 39 next season.
-- Another strong season from Napoli, who will be 33 next season, and whose 119 GP this season was the 3rd highest total of his career.
-- Health and continued league-average production at a premium defensive position from Pedroia.
-- Substantial improvement from X, who posted a 659 OPS in his first full major league season.
 
I think all four of those things are worth betting on, but the smart money says at least one of them, and quite possibly two, won't come to pass.
 
The other known quantity is CV -- I'm all in favor of handing him the catching job, but I expect nothing from the bat.
 
I'm in favor of giving two of the starting OF jobs to Castillo and Betts, but they're both unknown quantities. It's likely that one will fail to meet expectations.
 
In a different context, I'd be happy to grab a stopgap option at 3B and roll the dice on a bounceback season from Cespedes, but I think something more robust is needed to address the downside risk and known holes elsewhere in the offense. And with the underwhelming FA options, that's going to require trading prospects.

Overall great points, which appears to be overlooked by the masses perhaps thinking a worst to first to worst to first scenario is not that unrealistic. Several points I think I needed to be reminded about as well, although I have some minor counters to your supportive points your overall point stands regardless. I think based on X's season, 2 very good months followed by 3 months of suck and ending with a good month suggest that he should be counted on to improve whether or not that actually happens. The only other minor point is that CV does not have to do much to be a average hitting catcher, the AL average 2014 season for a catcher has a low bar set at 240/300/373. Christian hit .240 w/ a .308 in limited bats. He should be expected to approximate those numbers. He improved alot in his final seasons in the minors displaying a good eye and had a low strike out rate. While his defense was never questioned his offense certainly was.
 
That label (any label sticks to all young players for years no matter how un-true it is as perception lags behind reality) however goes back at least two years now. He may never be a good hitter but he should be expected to be at least adequate for his position. That with along with his superb defense I'll take. I hope we hold on to both him and Swihart for a few years together in Boston as I see both of their respective values rising.

 

[seantoo]

I'm not suggesting you trade the farm for Hamels but I think the opinion that you let the fear of 2016 dictate what you do this offseason is a bit silly.  

Shouldn't every move consider the balance of now verse tomorrow?

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

What masses are overlooking the holes in this roster? I think pretty much everyone here understands that this team is currently bad and needs to make some serious changes to be a contender for the division again. At the least, they need to sign one front of the rotation starter and one find a big left handed bat, and that's just if they want to get back in the playoff picture. Two starters that would be their 1 and 2, a 3rd baseman and a lefty bat if they want more than a wild card run. You can probably add an elite bullpen arm to that as well, considering Koji's age. Ben has work to do. It's not impossible that this team will be competitive, and they've already made some bets on players hoping to head in that direction, but who on this board is arguing that they are likely to pull off a "worst to first to worst to first?"

 

[MakMan44]

Shouldn't every move consider the balance of now verse tomorrow?

Of course, but Rudy was asking how you fills the holes that are going to crop up next off season. My point was that you have no idea what's going to occur between now and next off season, and ignoring 2015 in an effort to plan for 2016 is silly. 

 

[BeantownIdaho]

Here are some comparisons

Player A: 52 games .291/.368/.444
Player B: 52 games .291/.368/.444
 
Player A is Mookie - Player B is Mookie. As you can see we certainly cannot compare Mookie to Mookie. It's not a good example when Mookie is not injured as much as Mookie is not injured. It's fair to say that anyone who considers Mookie not expendable will find the only viable comparison is not comparing Mookie to the non-Mookie.

 

[Fireball Fred]

If the Phils really are changing their ways, and trying to beef up their pipeline, they need prospects plural - so they might bite on several pretty good prospects and not insist on more than one top-three guy.

I'd like an established LHH 3B with power, of course, but Cecchini could be a player. Apart from that, and a backup catcher, the most glaring weakness on the position player side could be addressed by DFAing Craig.

When we think about aging overpaid players we might accept from Philly, why not begin with Cliff Lee? There'd have to be a health contingency, but he's something we actually need. Much rather have Lee than Pap, Rollins, Howard.

 

[Plympton91]

What masses are overlooking the holes in this roster? I think pretty much everyone here understands that this team is currently bad and needs to make some serious changes to be a contender for the division again. At the least, they need to sign one front of the rotation starter and one find a big left handed bat, and that's just if they want to get back in the playoff picture. Two starters that would be their 1 and 2, a 3rd baseman and a lefty bat if they want more than a wild card run. You can probably add an elite bullpen arm to that as well, considering Koji's age. Ben has work to do. It's not impossible that this team will be competitive, and they've already made some bets on players hoping to head in that direction, but who on this board is arguing that they are likely to pull off a "worst to first to worst to first?"

That should be "...considering Koji's age and free agent status."

I definitely agree that if the resign Koji, they also need to resign Miller or sign or trade for someone similar.

If they don't resign Koji, they need two relief aces. I'd be looking to try to get Holland or Davis from the Royals, who won't want tto tie up that much money in the back of their pen.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

That should be "...considering Koji's age and free agent status."

I definitely agree that if the resign Koji, they also need to resign Miller or sign or trade for someone similar.

If they don't resign Koji, they need two relief aces. I'd be looking to try to get Holland or Davis from the Royals, who won't want tto tie up that much money in the back of their pen.

Miller could solve a lot of problems. What would he cost....2/$15m?

 

[benhogan]

That should be "...considering Koji's age and free agent status."

I definitely agree that if the resign Koji, they also need to resign Miller or sign or trade for someone similar.

If they don't resign Koji, they need two relief aces. I'd be looking to try to get Holland or Davis from the Royals, who won't want tto tie up that much money in the back of their pen.

You've floated this idea before and I'd love to see the Sox grab Davis or Holland for the pen, but I just don't see the Royals moving either one.
 
Royals are already losing Shield's salary, potentially Butler's salary, Hochevar's salary, plus losing Frasier and Downs from the pen.  They'll have plenty of $$$ after this years play-off run.
 
Davis goes from 4.8MM to 7MM next year and Holland goes to his 2nd year of arb.  Very manageable increases for a strong part of their team.

 

[mattymatty]

The original report that started this thread referenced a piece from Howard Eskin, and that's a bit problematic. Eskin is all over the media in Philly, on the radio and TV and I believe has a column in some paper as well (or did). Thing is, [SIZE=14.3999996185303px]Eskin is a giant jackass, sort of an angrier more Philly version of Dan Shaughnessy. He knows little about baseball, and likes to rant and yell a lot. [/SIZE]Eskin is the one who recently reported that the Phillies are using President Dave Montgomery's cancer to push him out of upper management, a report that has been rejected both off and on the record. He's made incorrect reports before (said last offseason the Phillies were deep in discussions to acquire Jose Bautista) and though he likely knows some people inside the Phillie organization, I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt based on past mistakes and his ever-present desire for attention. 
 
I should say that being a huge wanker isn't necessarily a reason to disbelieve his report, though at least in my case, having lived in Philly and heard Eskin, I can't take anything the guy says seriously. 
 
Also, I believe someone said upthread that they'd take Jimmy Rollins back in trade. That could be difficult as Rollins has an effective no-trade clause as a 10/5 guy. That's not a deal breaker, of course, but potentially an issue (however, if the Phils are tearing things down to the studs, that could entice Rollins to move on.)

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Miller could solve a lot of problems. What would he cost....2/$15m?

Everything I've read about Miller says the bidding starts at 3/21.

 

[snowmanny]

The Tigers could use him.

 

[sfip]

I wouldn't take anything Eskin says any more seriously than mattymatty would. Very unreliable, especially with Hot Stove talk.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

They tried to get him at the deadline, but couldn't match Baltimore's offer.

 

[OptimusPapi]

You've floated this idea before and I'd love to see the Sox grab Davis or Holland for the pen, but I just don't see the Royals moving either one.
 
Royals are already losing Shield's salary, potentially Butler's salary, Hochevar's salary, plus losing Frasier and Downs from the pen.  They'll have plenty of $$$ after this years play-off run.
 
Davis goes from 4.8MM to 7MM next year and Holland goes to his 2nd year of arb.  Very manageable increases for a strong part of their team.

I actually don't think this is a bad idea. The question from the Royals standpoint is less about money and more about starting pitching. There is no way the Royals will be able to retain Shields or sign Lester or any other top of the rotation starter. Maybe the Royals would be interested in one of our arms for one of their relief pitchers. Of course that brings up some interesting questions. Even if Ranundo/Webster/RDLR/Workman/Wright ceiling is a number five starter do you trade that for a relief pitcher? Is even a very good relief pitcher worth giving up a potential 200 inning league average era pitcher? The other question has to do with the volatility of relief pitchers. The Sox have gotten burn before trading for relief pitchers do they take the chance of getting burn again?

 

[MakMan44]

I actually don't think this is a bad idea. The question from the Royals standpoint is less about money and more about starting pitching. There is no way the Royals will be able to retain Shields or sign Lester or any other top of the rotation starter. Maybe the Royals would be interested in one of our arms for one of their relief pitchers. Of course that brings up some interesting questions. Even if Ranundo/Webster/RDLR/Workman/Wright ceiling is a number five starter do you trade that for a relief pitcher? Is even a very good relief pitcher worth giving up a potential 200 inning league average era pitcher? The other question has to do with the volatility of relief pitchers. The Sox have gotten burn before trading for relief pitchers do they take the chance of getting burn again?

Have you watched the playoffs at all? If the Royals are dumb enough to trade Davis/Holland for a 4-5 starter type, awesome. I doubt it'll actually happen though.

 

[nvalvo]

I actually don't think this is a bad idea. The question from the Royals standpoint is less about money and more about starting pitching. There is no way the Royals will be able to retain Shields or sign Lester or any other top of the rotation starter. Maybe the Royals would be interested in one of our arms for one of their relief pitchers. Of course that brings up some interesting questions. Even if Ranundo/Webster/RDLR/Workman/Wright ceiling is a number five starter do you trade that for a relief pitcher? Is even a very good relief pitcher worth giving up a potential 200 inning league average era pitcher? The other question has to do with the volatility of relief pitchers. The Sox have gotten burn before trading for relief pitchers do they take the chance of getting burn again?

 
A 200-inning league average ERA pitcher is not a number five. That is the profile of a number 2-3 starter. 
 
League-average ERA is 3.74. Pitchers this season who threw 190+ innings of 3.74-ish ball include Jered Weaver, John Lackey, Ian Kennedy, R.A. Dickey, Hiroki Kuroda, Jake Peavy, Ervin Santana, Mike Leake, Scott Kazmir, Brandon McCarthy. That's a decent group of pitchers. 
 
Actual number five starters: Ubaldo Jimenez, 125 IP of 4.81 ball; Mike Minor, 145 IP of 4.77 ball; David Phelps, 113 IP of 4.38 ball; JA Happ, 158 IP of 4.22 ball; Drew Smyly, 105 IP of 3.93 ball. 
 
Now, ERA is a limited stat — putting up a league average ERA in Coors or Fenway is pretty great, while doing so in Safeco or Petco is less impressive. But even so, there is simply no way a pitcher who throws 200 IP can be considered a fifth starter. 

 

[OptimusPapi]

My bad. I meant a pitcher with an era in the fours that pitches 150 to 200 innings that happens to be slotted in the back of the rotation. Point still stands.

 

[nvalvo]

My bad. I meant a pitcher with an era in the fours that pitches 150 to 200 innings that happens to be slotted in the back of the rotation. Point still stands.

 
It really doesn't. There aren't a ton of those guys, either — 25 in 2014 — and a meaningful percentage of the pitchers who throw that poorly but are allowed to accrue that kind of innings are ex-aces, guys like Verlander, Buchholz, Wilson, Haren, Miley, and Lincecum. Lackey's terrible 2011 with the Sox is a memorable example. You only get the rope to throw that badly (6.41 ERA; 4/71 FIP) for that many innings (160) if you have demonstrable ace upside on your CV — and, generally, the contract to match. A few more are young guys with legitimate upside: Bauer, Odorizzi — guys like that. Again, there's enough upside and few enough alternatives that they get 30 opportunities to be loudly mediocre for five plus innings. 
 
The guy you basically mean is Kyle Kendrick: a pitcher without much upside whose only real value consists in eating innings. There are like five of these guys in the game right now: Kendrick, Hutchison, Guthrie, Danks, and maybe Nuno or Roberto Hernandez?
 
So yes, the Royals would gladly trade a good relief pitcher for an SP who could be reliably projected to approach 200 IP, even without a shiny ERA. But that's not a number 5, and that's not really what the Sox have to trade. Their needs and ours don't actually correspond well. They're not going to trade 60 excellent high-leverage IP from a great reliever for 115 IP worth of mediocre starts, which is basically what the young guys can be projected for. (That's the Steamer projection for Workman.)
 
These guys are young: one of them will likely step up and seize a rotation spot by performing better than that, but KC would have to be confident they could predict which to send Wade Davis back to us. 

 

[OptimusPapi]

 
It really doesn't. There aren't a ton of those guys, either 25 in 2014 and a meaningful percentage of the pitchers who throw that poorly but are allowed to accrue that kind of innings are ex-aces, guys like Verlander, Buchholz, Wilson, Haren, Miley, and Lincecum. Lackey's terrible 2011 with the Sox is a memorable example. You only get the rope to throw that badly (6.41 ERA; 4/71 FIP) for that many innings (160) if you have demonstrable ace upside on your CV and, generally, the contract to match. A few more are young guys with legitimate upside: Bauer, Odorizzi guys like that. Again, there's enough upside and few enough alternatives that they get 30 opportunities to be loudly mediocre for five plus innings. 
 
The guy you basically mean is Kyle Kendrick: a pitcher without much upside whose only real value consists in eating innings. There are like five of these guys in the game right now: Kendrick, Hutchison, Guthrie, Danks, and maybe Nuno or Roberto Hernandez?
 
So yes, the Royals would gladly trade a good relief pitcher for an SP who could be reliably projected to approach 200 IP, even without a shiny ERA. But that's not a number 5, and that's not really what the Sox have to trade. Their needs and ours don't actually correspond well. They're not going to trade 60 excellent high-leverage IP from a great reliever for 115 IP worth of mediocre starts, which is basically what the young guys can be projected for. (That's the Steamer projection for Workman.)
 
These guys are young: one of them will likely step up and seize a rotation spot by performing better than that, but KC would have to be confident they could predict which to send Wade Davis back to us. 

Ok so I am putting you in the no column. Like my original post indicated I was just asking some questions.

 

[MakMan44]

Ok so I am putting you in the no column. Like my original post indicated I was just asking some questions.

You're asking if the Sox should do it, we're asking why would the Royals want to. 

 

[MakMan44]

A little outside the box, but wonder if the Phils - Sox would be interested in a Hamels deal which includes Buchholz. He's got a pretty high upside, and is potentially under control for three years. Moving him would allow the Sox to completely rebuild the rotation, and frees up cash if they still want to go after a Lester. Phils sell it to their fan base as a faster rebuild...and they are the Phils, so you never know what they are thinking.

Don't kill me, just a random thought, wondering what kind of value Clay has in the market and if the Sox would consider / prefer trading him than someone like Owens (obviously they'd have to include other prospects).

It's interesting, but Buch isn't owed a lot of money so I don't agree with the freeing up cash bit of your post. With that out of the way, you're creating another hole in your rotation that's going to have to be filled, whether that means sending out prospects or signing another starter (who will likely cost more than Buch next season.) I wouldn't be completely opposed to the trade, but I don't know if it makes a lot of sense. 
 
EDIT: Then again, you have no clue what Buch is going to give you next season so it might end up being addition by subtraction. Like I said, it's an interesting idea. 

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

A little outside the box, but wonder if the Phils - Sox would be interested in a Hamels deal which includes Buchholz. He's got a pretty high upside, and is potentially under control for three years. Moving him would allow the Sox to completely rebuild the rotation, and frees up cash if they still want to go after a Lester. Phils sell it to their fan base as a faster rebuild...and they are the Phils, so you never know what they are thinking.

Don't kill me, just a random thought, wondering what kind of value Clay has in the market and if the Sox would consider / prefer trading him than someone like Owens (obviously they'd have to include other prospects).

 
I don't think Buchholz has any real value right now. At least, not enough to be worth creating another hole, as MakMan just pointed out. Buchholz is an enigma and it's possible the Phillies think they can "fix" him but it's probably a whole lot more likely they would want no part of him as a major piece of a trade. It's also worth noting that even if they can get him healthy and pitching well consistently, the chances that they turn that roster around and are contending while he's still under team control are pretty slim.
 
So even if we can get beyond the fact that Amaro has demonstrated he has an incredibly inflated sense of the worth of his players and isn't prone to reasonable exchanges, Buchholz as a piece of a Hamels trade really doesn't make much sense. Honestly, I'd be surprised if Hamels is actually dealt, and especially surprised if it's the Red Sox who decide to pay whatever price it requires to pry him out of Amaro's hands.

 

[jscola85]

Trading Buchholz now seems like trading JBJ now - selling low.

 

[foulkehampshire]

 
I honestly don't get the Kennedy comparison. Owens has pitched in AAA for two months and has had success in every single level he's played in. His fastball command/velocity may very well prevent him from ever becoming a top flight pitcher, but there's no way of properly evaluating him so far. He has the same risks associated with him that every top flight pitching prospect who doesn't sit 94+ does.

 
Have you seen Kennedy's minor league numbers? He was similarly touted as an #1 guy due to an advanced arsenal of breaking/offspeed stuff that blew through minor league hitte 
 
Owens looks great because his changeup and curveball are far ahead of what minor leaguers are used to seeing. His fastball command is sub-par, and the velocity isn't elite. Major leaguers will learn to lay off the soft stuff if he can't consistently spot his fastball for strikes and get ahead of batters. 
 
Unless he learns how to paint the corners like Lee/Hamels; he won't come close to matching the expectations people have about him on this board.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Unless he learns how to paint the corners like Lee/Hamels; he won't come close to matching the expectations people have about him on this board.

 
Owens has walked 4.0/9 in the minors, and took a step forward this year. Cliff Lee walked 4.1, Lester 3.8, and neither struck out as many batters as Owens, nor suppressed hits as well as he has. 
 
And your memories of Ian Kennedy's perceived value are quite a bit off. He ranked as a prospect because he had a high floor, but lower ceiling. At the height of his prospect career (pre-2008) Baseball America described him as "a number 3 or number 4 starter", and only called his change-up a plus pitch, which is far from saying he had an advanced arsenal. He was a little-stuff, high-command guy. Especially with the point you're attempting to make, you couldn't find a worse comp than Kennedy.

 

[Sprowl]

 
Have you seen Kennedy's minor league numbers? He was similarly touted as an #1 guy due to an advanced arsenal of breaking/offspeed stuff that blew through minor league hitte 
 
Owens looks great because his changeup and curveball are far ahead of what minor leaguers are used to seeing. His fastball command is sub-par, and the velocity isn't elite. Major leaguers will learn to lay off the soft stuff if he can't consistently spot his fastball for strikes and get ahead of batters. 
 
Unless he learns how to paint the corners like Lee/Hamels; he won't come close to matching the expectations people have about him on this board.

 
Owens clearly will need better fastball command to survive in the majors, and is unlikely to make it out of Pawtucket until his control improves measurably (ie, 2016, not 2015).
 
Buchholz was also an offspeed artist limited only by his fastball command, and had significantly better peripherals as a minor leaguer -- more Ks, fewer BBs. I doubt that Buchholz will be on the trading block because his ceiling remains as high (2007, 2010, 2013, #2 starter) as ever. Certainly he'd be available in a deal if a suitor came calling, so he's hardly untouchable, but his value is at a low ebb.
 
Buchholz had early peripherals to swoon over.
Owens' FIPs and BBs were much less impressive, and lower velocity too.
 
How are Owens' squirrels?

 

[opes]

I would rather spend the money on Scherzer than blow up the minors for Hamels.

 

[benhogan]

 
 
How are Owens' squirrels?

Owens seems a little more 'Southern California chilled',  probably more of a 'dancing bear' type then a 'squirrel' guy...
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjizjCaQekM

 

[pockmeister]

I would rather spend the money on Scherzer than blow up the minors for Hamels.

Why do you think the Sox would need to "blow up" the minors to acquire Hamels? Sure, if the asking price is 3 of the Sox top 5 prospects or some other such idiocy, then nothing will happen and the Sox will follow the FA route. But if Philly are serious about realistic trades, based around one top prospect (such as Owens) plus additional pieces, then there's business to be done.

Given the queue of pitching prospects, its surely a more efficient solution to package them and obtain what should be some of the peak years of Hamels on a relatively affordable and relatively short contract, than to reduce future payroll flexibility for years to come by giving Scherzer 7 years, and having to pay him top money as he declines.

 

[chrisfont9]

I don't worry too much about the "can he pitch in Boston?" factor with Hamels. The guy was a world series and NLCS MVP at age 24 and has a 3.09 ERA in over 80 innings of post-season play. Lester has been a bit more spectacular (2.59) but it's not night and day. As far as the flip side of playing under pressure, I don't really regard the Philly market as that much less intense when things are bad. So what would happen to him in Boston that he can't handle?

 

[mt8thsw9th]

Well, the whole AL and pitchers not batting thing could be a factor. His inter league numbers (not necessarily a great predictor, but something) are pretty lackluster, IIRC.

 
Curt Schilling was pretty bad in interleague as well. 

 

[RG33]

Well, the whole AL and pitchers not batting thing could be a factor. His inter league numbers (not necessarily a great predictor, but something) are pretty lackluster, IIRC.

8-13, 4.54 ERA in 29 GS with 1.325 WHIP, 8.1 K/9, and 3.77 SO/BB in Interleague.

 

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

Miller could solve a lot of problems. What would he cost....2/$15m?

 

I could see Miller getting a 3 or 4 year deal at 5-7 per.
 
Alex Spier estimated that the Sox have between $52-62 million to spend depending on how much they want to hold in reserve for an in season acquisition. Finding a taker for Craig and/or Victorino would help free up more money, but getting 2 of the Hamels/Lester/Shields group seems unlikely without a willing to spend more than $189 mil or find a taker for an existing contract.