Phillies will look to trade Cole Hamels, Red Sox interested

Status
Not open for further replies.

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
mt8thsw9th said:
 
Curt Schilling was pretty bad in interleague as well. 
 
Depends on your denominator. Schilling was bad in interleague compared to Curt Schilling, but still slightly above-average compared to everybody (Schilling interleague 1997-2007: 4.43. MLB overall 1997-2007: 4.47). Hamels has been bad in interleague--not awful, but bad--compared to everybody (Hamels interleague 2006-14: 4.54, MLB overall 2006-14: 4.14). 180 innings is not that much, though, so the split needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
 

opes

Doctor Tongue
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I was curious to see how the current 2015 SP FA class looks:





Name

Team

W

L

SV

G

GS

IP

K/9

BB/9

HR/9

BABIP

LOB%

GB%

HR/FB

ERA

FIP

xFIP

WAR



Jon Lester

- - -

16

11

0

32

32

219.2

9.01

1.97

0.66

0.299

76.10%

42.40%

7.20%

2.46

2.8

3.1

6.1



Max Scherzer

Tigers

18

5

0

33

33

220.1

10.29

2.57

0.74

0.315

77.20%

36.70%

7.50%

3.15

2.85

3.12

5.6



Johnny Cueto

Reds

20

9

0

34

34

243.2

8.94

2.4

0.81

0.238

82.50%

46.20%

10.30%

2.25

3.3

3.21

4.1



James Shields

Royals

14

8

0

34

34

227

7.14

1.74

0.91

0.295

74.60%

45.20%

9.70%

3.21

3.59

3.56

3.7



Hiroki Kuroda

Yankees

11

9

0

32

32

199

6.6

1.58

0.9

0.279

69.30%

46.90%

10.00%

3.71

3.6

3.54

3.5



Hisashi Iwakuma

Mariners

15

9

0

28

28

179

7.74

1.06

1.01

0.287

74.10%

50.20%

13.20%

3.52

3.25

2.85

3.2



Brandon McCarthy

- - -

10

15

0

32

32

200

7.88

1.49

1.13

0.328

70.90%

52.60%

16.30%

4.05

3.55

2.87

3



Ervin Santana

Braves

14

10

0

31

31

196

8.22

2.89

0.73

0.319

71.60%

42.70%

8.80%

3.95

3.39

3.47

2.8



Wei-Yin Chen

Orioles

16

6

0

31

31

185.2

6.59

1.7

1.11

0.296

77.50%

41.00%

10.50%

3.54

3.89

3.75

2.6



Aaron Harang

Braves

12

12

0

33

33

204.1

7.09

3.13

0.66

0.318

74.80%

39.40%

6.40%

3.57

3.57

4.03

2.5



Jake Peavy

- - -

7

13

0

32

32

202.2

7.02

2.8

1.02

0.289

75.10%

38.50%

9.10%

3.73

4.11

4.18

1.9



Yovani Gallardo

Brewers

8

11

0

32

32

192.1

6.83

2.53

0.98

0.294

74.70%

50.80%

12.10%

3.51

3.94

3.64

1.7



Jason Hammel

- - -

10

11

0

30

29

176.1

8.06

2.25

1.17

0.272

78.30%

39.70%

12.00%

3.47

3.92

3.57

1.7



Francisco Liriano

Pirates

7

10

0

29

29

162.1

9.7

4.49

0.72

0.28

74.70%

54.40%

11.60%

3.38

3.59

3.4

1.6



Colby Lewis

Rangers

10

14

0

29

29

170.1

7.03

2.54

1.32

0.339

69.00%

33.00%

10.10%

5.18

4.46

4.36

1.6



Scott Feldman

Astros

8

12

0

29

29

180.1

5.34

2.5

0.8

0.291

71.60%

46.90%

8.90%

3.74

4.11

4.19

1.6



J.A. Happ

Blue Jays

11

11

0

30

26

158

7.58

2.91

1.25

0.297

73.60%

40.60%

11.50%

4.22

4.27

3.95

1.3



Carlos Villanueva

Cubs

5

7

2

42

5

77.2

8.34

2.2

0.7

0.342

67.30%

41.30%

6.50%

4.64

3.13

3.61

1.1



Brett Anderson

Rockies

1

3

0

8

8

43.1

6.02

2.7

0.21

0.314

70.10%

61.00%

3.30%

2.91

2.99

3.55

1.1



Ryan Vogelsong

Giants

8

13

0

32

32

184.2

7.36

2.83

0.88

0.294

72.30%

38.40%

8.80%

4

3.85

3.96

1



Dan Haren *option

Dodgers

13

11

0

32

32

186

7.02

1.74

1.31

0.276

65.70%

41.50%

11.90%

4.02

4.09

3.7

1



Chris Capuano

- - -

3

4

0

40

12

97.1

7.77

3.14

0.92

0.306

70.40%

39.50%

9.70%

4.35

3.91

3.89

1



A.J. Burnett

Phillies

8

18

0

34

34

213.2

8

4.04

0.84

0.302

67.50%

50.90%

11.30%

4.59

4.14

3.95

1



Edinson Volquez

Pirates

13

7

0

32

31

192.2

6.54

3.32

0.79

0.263

77.50%

50.40%

9.10%

3.04

4.15

4.2

0.7



Gavin Floyd

Braves

2

2

0

9

9

54.1

7.45

2.15

0.99

0.302

76.70%

49.40%

12.20%

2.65

3.79

3.47

0.5



Brandon Morrow *option

Blue Jays

1

3

0

13

6

33.1

8.1

4.86

0.54

0.357

65.10%

50.50%

6.70%

5.67

3.73

4.06

0.4



Kyle Kendrick

Phillies

10

13

0

32

32

199

5.47

2.58

1.13

0.29

70.50%

44.60%

11.00%

4.61

4.57

4.35

0.4



Justin Masterson

- - -

7

9

0

28

25

128.2

8.11

4.83

0.84

0.339

64.80%

58.20%

14.60%

5.88

4.5

4.08

0.3



Kevin Correia

- - -

7

17

0

32

26

154

4.62

2.34

1.17

0.315

63.50%

43.20%

9.50%

5.44

4.67

4.67

0.2



Josh Beckett

Dodgers

6

6

0

20

20

115.2

8.33

3.03

1.32

0.257

85.20%

42.50%

13.90%

2.88

4.33

3.73

0.2



Bruce Chen

Royals

2

4

0

13

7

48.1

6.7

2.98

1.3

0.38

60.40%

31.50%

9.30%

7.45

4.58

4.62

0.1



John Lannan

Mets

1

0

0

5

0

4

4.5

4.5

6.75

0.286

41.70%

47.10%

50.00%

15.75

13.38

5.49

-0.4



Felipe Paulino *option

White Sox

0

2

0

4

4

18.1

6.87

5.89

2.95

0.414

60.60%

40.80%

23.10%

11.29

7.99

5.49

-0.5



Roberto Hernandez

- - -

8

11

0

32

29

164.2

5.74

3.99

1.04

0.266

72.90%

49.70%

12.20%

4.1

4.85

4.52

-0.5



Wandy Rodriguez

Pirates

0

2

0

6

6

26.2

6.75

2.7

3.38

0.31

64.50%

42.40%

25.60%

6.75

7.41

4.34

-0.8



Paul Maholm

Dodgers

1

5

0

30

8

70.2

4.33

3.57

1.02

0.311

67.80%

54.40%

12.90%

4.84

4.96

4.57

-0.8
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
Snodgrass'Muff said:
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?"
Perhaps it's only my perception but it appears that even some here on this board think we are Lester and Shields away from contention. Maufman made goods points and I agree with everything you say as well in that regard. That is why I've been focusing on 2016 as a more realistic season for contention and that is assuming we sign/trade for #1 &#2 pitchers, a 3rd baseman and that some of our rookies/prospects will blossom by then too. I don't want the Sox making moves for this season that could interfere with 2016. 
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Rudy Pemberton said:
But in 16, there's potentially no Ortiz, Napoli, Victorino, or Cespedes.

Look at it this way- there are no players under contract for 2016 who won't be here next year.

Is the assumption that young players will suddenly all be effective and productive in 16, but not 15?

I feel like both the 15 and 16 teams could be really good, really bad or anywhere in between. It all depends on what they do. I wouldn't make trades for 15 that hurt the 16 team, but I'm also not sure what such a move would be.
 
Well, the alternative assumption would be that the young players won't be suddenly effective and productive in any one year, but will most likely continue to improve for a few years. Therefore it's rational to assume that they will, as a group, be better in 2016 than in 2015. And most likely better yet in 2017, which I'm thinking is probably the "sweet spot" year in terms of realistic hopes for a primarily homegrown championship contender.
 

FinanceAdvice

New Member
Apr 1, 2008
167
Albany, NY
I would consider trading for Hamels as the top priority for the starting rotation next year.  Honestly do not think Lester is returning. Hamels will do fine with transition form NL to AL East because in my estimation, if you locate like Hamels does, it does not matter what division you're in.  Footnote:  As others have stated,  Owens, Bogaerts and Betts are untouchable  as part of a trade for Hamels.
 

seantoo

toots his own horn award winner
Jul 16, 2005
1,308
Southern NH, from Watertown, MA
Savin Hillbilly said:
 
Well, the alternative assumption would be that the young players won't be suddenly effective and productive in any one year, but will most likely continue to improve for a few years. Therefore it's rational to assume that they will, as a group, be better in 2016 than in 2015. And most likely better yet in 2017, which I'm thinking is probably the "sweet spot" year in terms of realistic hopes for a primarily homegrown championship contender.
What he said and well put. I think next year we'll see guys like XB shows longer flashes of what he will eventually be but still have shorter periods of what he displayed from June to August from this past season.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
CSNPhilly reporting that the asking price is three top prospects. Never change Ruben...at least we know no other team is going to pay that price for him.
 

CaskNFappin

rembrat's protegé
May 20, 2013
254
Woonsocket, RI
Tyrone Biggums said:
CSNPhilly reporting that the asking price is three top prospects. Never change Ruben...at least we know no other team is going to pay that price for him.
How can Amaro look at the utterly bleak state of his team and continue to approach things in such a stubborn way?

Take all the conceivable teams, and all the conceivable offers of ONLY 2 top prospects, and likely within that pool is a cost-controlled stud or two who would be a cornerstone for Philly when the dust settles and Howard, Lee, et al are long gone. Amaro is gonna turn that offer down.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Amaro's primary problem is that Hamels is at full market value on an annual basis. There just aren't that many teams that will want to take on that size contract, even if it's for shorter years than Lester and Sherzer will get. Cubs, Dodgers and Sox might be the only teams with an abundance of good prospects and the willingness to spend that much. Dodgers don't need him and the Cubs and Sox won't be that stupid.

Now, if by "top prospects" he means Owens, Coyle and Ranaudo, then we can talk.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,887
Minneapolis Millers said:
Now, if by "top prospects" he means Owens, Coyle and Ranaudo, then we can talk.
 
Yeah, I'm all for the Amaro bashing, but of course he is going to say this.  It all comes down to which three "top" prospects he is willing to accept.  
 
Until we know what prospect deals he is rejecting, I find it hard to fault him at the moment in this particular case. 
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,621
“@Ken_Rosenthal: Sources: #RedSox one of 20 teams on Hamels’ no-trade list. He would need to give #Phillies approval to trade him to Boston.”

“@Ken_Rosenthal: Hamels would not necessarily reject #RedSox, but likely would require any team on no-trade list to pick up his $20 million option for 2019.”

https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/531871556394164224

https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/531871556394164224

link to tweet

https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/531871561678983168

https://twitter.com/Ken_Rosenthal/status/531871561678983168

link to tweet
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
91,041
Oregon
Smart on Hamels' part. He knows the Sox have been linked, so gain any sort of leverage he can
 

gammoseditor

also had a stroke
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
4,255
Somerville, MA
E5 Yaz said:
Smart on Hamels' part. He knows the Sox have been linked, so gain any sort of leverage he can
 
Unless he actually wants out.  From the Red Sox point of view it makes even more sense to just sign a free agent pitcher and not give up prospects for Hamels. 
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
91,041
Oregon
gammoseditor said:
 
Unless he actually wants out.  From the Red Sox point of view it makes even more sense to just sign a free agent pitcher and not give up prospects for Hamels. 
 
If he wants out, and the Red Sox don't want to play ball, there are other teams out there
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
gammoseditor said:
 
Unless he actually wants out.  From the Red Sox point of view it makes even more sense to just sign a free agent pitcher and not give up prospects for Hamels. 
 
Right, once it becomes a 5-year contract much of the advantage over a Lester or a Scherzer disappears. At that point, the prospect haul needs to be pretty modest for the deal to make sense--and then it doesn't make sense for Amaro.
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
408
So that makes Hamels's contract what, 5/$110m (assuming the option is picked)? It's a good move from Hamels, but I think this decreases the probability that he gets traded. There's no way anybody picks this up and gives up 3 top-end prospects. That's probably more than Shields would get, and I'd rather give 4/90 to Shields than give Swihart+ to Amaro. 
 
I don't think Hamels getting traded until Lester/Scherzer/Shields sign, so whoever is desperate enough goes for it/if they have the prospects - but even then, I wonder what the Phillies get here.
 
Edit: Err...what others said above. 
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Snoop Soxy Dogg said:
So that makes Hamels's contract what, 5/$110m (assuming the option is picked)? It's a good move from Hamels, but I think this decreases the probability that he gets traded. There's no way anybody picks this up and gives up 3 top-end prospects. That's probably more than Shields would get, and I'd rather give 4/90 to Shields than give Swihart+ to Amaro. 
 
I don't think Hamels getting traded until Lester/Scherzer/Shields sign, so whoever is desperate enough goes for it/if they have the prospects - but even then, I wonder what the Phillies get here.
 
Edit: Err...what others said above. 
Last time the Sox inquired the rumor was that Amaro was asking for Betts Swihart and Owens. Swihart + doesn't even get the conversation started. Hamels will still be on that roster until Amaro is fired.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,487
radsoxfan said:
 
Yeah, I'm all for the Amaro bashing, but of course he is going to say this.  It all comes down to which three "top" prospects he is willing to accept.  
 
Until we know what prospect deals he is rejecting, I find it hard to fault him at the moment in this particular case. 
 
I'm inclined to agree - Hamels is still relatively young, he's a top performer, and his contract is likely to be more team-friendly than the ones Lester and Scherzer will sign even with the extension factored in. Given that this is his best shot at filling a lot of holes and that nothing suggests he needs to trade Hamels now, hard to fault him for asking for the moon.
 
If he was asking for three top guys for Lee or Utley or Rollins, it'd be a different story.
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
408
Danny_Darwin said:
 
I'm inclined to agree - Hamels is still relatively young, he's a top performer, and his contract is likely to be more team-friendly than the ones Lester and Scherzer will sign even with the extension factored in. Given that this is his best shot at filling a lot of holes and that nothing suggests he needs to trade Hamels now, hard to fault him for asking for the moon.
 
If he was asking for three top guys for Lee or Utley or Rollins, it'd be a different story.
 
That's fair enough. It's fine to ask for the moon, but with alternatives around at this time of the year, the moon will probably have to wait. Maybe at the trade deadline when teams are more desperate. The fact that 1)The Phillies don't really have to trade him, so they are looking to be blown away  2)There are other options 3)There is a limited number of teams that can take that contract + give out the prospects they want make it less likely that the guy is going to get traded.
 
Add to that, the fact that Hamels now has the Red Sox on his no trade, and I don't think he's coming here. He didn't add the Cubs on his no trade, but added BOS, which means that he doesn't really want to come to the AL East (why would you add Boston and not the Cubs?), the only way he comes to the AL East is if he gets paid.
 
He's not coming to Boston.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Can he switch teams that are on his no trade clause? If not, think about when he signed his deal. It wasn't like the Cubs were in the same place they are today.
 
Players probably routinely place Boston on their no trade list because they know the franchise can afford to give them a bonus, or pick up an option if they agree to waive the no trade. It's simple leverage, nothing more. 
 

swingin val

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,162
Minneapolis
MakMan44 said:
 
Players probably routinely place Boston on their no trade list because they know the franchise can afford to give them a bonus, or pick up an option if they agree to waive the no trade. It's simple leverage, nothing more. 
Exactly. He has 20 teams on his no trade list. I imagine all the top payroll teams are on there, along with a splattering of places he really doesn't want to go, and a few of the perennial bottom dwellers.
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,614
Providence, RI
MakMan44 said:
Can he switch teams that are on his no trade clause? If not, think about when he signed his deal. It wasn't like the Cubs were in the same place they are
 
I'm pretty sure players are allowed to adjust their lists at the end of the baseball season.
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Darnell's Son said:
I'm pretty sure players are allowed to adjust their lists at the end of the baseball season.
I thought that was only certain no trade clauses. I know certain players have switched teams, but I wasn't aware that it was for all no trade clauses. 
 

Snoop Soxy Dogg

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
May 30, 2014
408
swingin val said:
Exactly. He has 20 teams on his no trade list. I imagine all the top payroll teams are on there, along with a splattering of places he really doesn't want to go, and a few of the perennial bottom dwellers.
 
Perhaps. He did just readjust his no trade list recently; I just found it curious that he would not add the Cubs on that list, considering that the cubs have been mentioned as a likely suitor, and even placed a waiver claim on him. Or perhaps he just wouldn't mind being traded to the NL Central, which is perfectly fine as well.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2007
17,363
Washington
Snoop Soxy Dogg said:
Or perhaps he just wouldn't mind being traded to the NL Central, which is perfectly fine as well.
Yeah. We don't know the other 19 teams, but I could easily see a strong preference for NL over AL being a factor.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
swingin val said:
Exactly. He has 20 teams on his no trade list. I imagine all the top payroll teams are on there, along with a splattering of places he really doesn't want to go, and a few of the perennial bottom dwellers.
 
This must leave a really interesting list of teams he could be traded to. 
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,552
Not here
kieckeredinthehead said:
 
This must leave a really interesting list of teams he could be traded to. 
Kansas City, Tampa, San Diego, Minnesota...who else are we pretty sure wont be trading for pitchers with big contracts? Oakland?
 

NDame616

will bailey
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,397
Darnell's Son said:
I'm pretty sure players are allowed to adjust their lists at the end of the baseball season.
 
Depends on the contract. Blindly letting players just add to the NTC hurts the team because it limits their options. I'd say most are set in advance, when the contract is signed,, but some are probably different.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Rasputin said:
Kansas City, Tampa, San Diego, Minnesota...who else are we pretty sure wont be trading for pitchers with big contracts? Oakland?
I would put KC as a wild card here. Honestly they already declined Butler and Shields made a lot in 2014. Not to mention there is that World Series appearance in the background. That's the one team that could go either way. Especially since it seems like Shields is gone.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
KC could get desperate and reactionary, but they could probably get Shields for 5/$100. They think that's too much for their budget, so instead they're going to pay $10m more and give up good prospects for Hamels?? Highly doubtful.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
25,151
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Rasputin said:
Kansas City, Tampa, San Diego, Minnesota...who else are we pretty sure wont be trading for pitchers with big contracts? Oakland?
 He also may have a positive in there - say, someplace his family lives that he wouldn't be opposed to.  Or a high visibility perennial contender.  
 

glennhoffmania

meat puppet
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,411,807
NY
From Cots:
 
  • limited no-trade protection (may block trades to 20 clubs each season) (for 2014, may block deals to all clubs except Atlanta, Boston, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, NY Yankees, San Diego, St. Louis, Texas and Washington)
 
 
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
Cool. Thanks GHoff, that also clears up whether he can change teams or not.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Minneapolis Millers said:
KC could get desperate and reactionary, but they could probably get Shields for 5/$100. They think that's too much for their budget, so instead they're going to pay $10m more and give up good prospects for Hamels?? Highly doubtful.
I disagree here since the value would probably be less than 3 top prospects since they would probably take Howard on as well. They've been linked to him. I wouldn't be shocked.
 

The Filthy One

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2005
3,519
Los Angeles
Tyrone Biggums said:
I disagree here since the value would probably be less than 3 top prospects since they would probably take Howard on as well. They've been linked to him. I wouldn't be shocked.
 
Is it insane to think the Sox might take on Howard in exchange for a lesser prospect package? Something like Owens/Rodriguez + Brentz for Hamels and Howard? They could deal Napoli and live with Howard at first for a year, maybe splitting time with Craig. He's owed $60 million over the next two years, but it's only two years. 
 

MakMan44

stole corsi's dream
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2009
19,363
I wouldn't give up a top 10 prospect if we're taking on Howard entire contract. 
 
Can't imagine it happening anyway, but mentioning that regardless. 
 

Yaz4Ever

MemBer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2004
11,302
MA-CA-RI-AZ-NC
MakMan44 said:
I wouldn't give up a top 10 prospect if we're taking on Howard entire contract. 
 
Can't imagine it happening anyway, but mentioning that regardless. 
In fairness to Filthy One, with his scenario we're also getting a decently priced Hamels for longer than we'd be paying Howard.  Without taking on Howard's contract, you'd be paying MUCH more in prospects.
 

TigerBlood

Banned
Mar 10, 2011
330
Taking on Howard's and Hamels' contracts at full value, even after dumping Napoli would take them close to the cap I would think. I can't find the chart that someone was kind enough to post somewhere on these boards recently, but was the thinking that we had about $50 million to spend? Hamels at 22 per, Howard at 25, Koji at 9, less Napoli at 16 = 40. Then, if they're staying under cap, best they could do with the remaining $10 to add the second starter that they are known to be seeking would be Masterson. Not to mention the third base situation. No thanks.
 

NoXInNixon

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 24, 2008
5,359
I don't see why it makes sense for the Sox to take on a contract like Howard's, even if it is relatively short, in exchange for giving up fewer prospects when they have an abundance of prospects to deal away.
 

turnthe2

New Member
Jan 13, 2007
82
Las Vegas, NV
The Filthy One said:
 
Is it insane to think the Sox might take on Howard in exchange for a lesser prospect package? Something like Owens/Rodriguez + Brentz for Hamels and Howard? They could deal Napoli and live with Howard at first for a year, maybe splitting time with Craig. He's owed $60 million over the next two years, but it's only two years. 
 
I was thinking about the possibilities of including one of their other big contracts. The one I was eyeballing was Utley. If he could be persuaded to move to third base, it would help fill two holes. Would Utley be better than other free agent options in terms of production and value?
 

E5 Yaz

polka king
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
91,041
Oregon
turnthe2 said:
 
I was thinking about the possibilities of including one of their other big contracts. The one I was eyeballing was Utley. If he could be persuaded to move to third base, it would help fill two holes. Would Utley be better than other free agent options in terms of production and value?
 
You mean, the Chase Utley who has 10/5 protection and has never played 3B in the majors? Not any crazier a suggestion than taking on Howard's contract.
 

ItOnceWasMyLife

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 16, 2008
1,827
The Filthy One said:
 
Is it insane to think the Sox might take on Howard in exchange for a lesser prospect package? Something like Owens/Rodriguez + Brentz for Hamels and Howard? They could deal Napoli and live with Howard at first for a year, maybe splitting time with Craig. He's owed $60 million over the next two years, but it's only two years. 
 
Jez people, Tyrone was referring to Kansas City, not the Sox.  RIF.
 

Minneapolis Millers

Wants you to please think of the Twins fans!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,753
Twin Cities
Wow, this thread derailed quickly.  Take on Howard?  The only things good you can say about him are that he was basically healthy this past season and he used to be Ryan Howard.  The guy's OPS+ was 93, and he led the NL in whiffs.  He's basically replacement level.  Why would you even want him on the roster, let alone pay anything for him?
 
And KC absolutely isn't taking on Howard for the privilege of paying Hamels full market value.  Criminy, they're not the Dodgers.
 

turnthe2

New Member
Jan 13, 2007
82
Las Vegas, NV
E5 Yaz said:
 
You mean, the Chase Utley who has 10/5 protection and has never played 3B in the majors? Not any crazier a suggestion than taking on Howard's contract.
Balls........forgot about 10/5.  My bad. That's what I get for thinking outside the box..........
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,621
PHOENIX — Day 1 of the general managers meetings is in the books, and we already have a couple of key pieces of information that could influence the shape of the Red Sox rotation in 2015.

First there’s the news — first reported by FoxSports.com — that Phillies left-hander Cole Hamels has a no-trade clause that includes the Red Sox. This doesn’t preclude the sides from striking a deal, but it means the Sox theoretically have to give Hamels something to waive his no-trade. That theoretical something probably would be his $20 million option for 2019.

Then there’s the notion coming out of Reds camp that Cincinnati does not want to move ace right-hander Johnny Cueto this winter, preferring instead to start next season with him on the roster and think about a trade deadline deal if things go south.

Both pitchers could be of interest to the Red Sox, but both might now be harder to acquire. This all shines some light on just how tricky it’s going to be to upgrade a rotation that needs two and maybe even three new arms this winter.

Let’s start with Hamels. If the Red Sox want to acquire him to anchor their rotation, they’re going to have to step to the plate in a big way.

Hamels has four years and $90 million remaining on his current contract. Those terms are viewed as favorable from a Red Sox perspective, but Hamels also has the $20 million option for 2019 that he could demand as a condition of waiving his no-trade.

That would bump his deal up to five years and $110 million, which still is below the market rate for a No. 1 starter who turns 31 next month. But it would alter the calculus of acquiring him, and that’s before even considering what the Red Sox might have to part with in a trade. Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro is expected to demand at least three top prospects in return, according to CSNPhilly.com.

Hamels’ no-trade list is more about leverage than a desire to avoid a particular city. Listing a big-market club on the no-trade provision attached to a big-money contract is good business, since these are the teams most likely to assume such a deal and most capable of paying a concession to make it happen.

The thought out of Philadelphia is that any trade for Hamels would require the Red Sox to give up catcher Blake Swihart and left-hander Henry Owens as a starting point, with another upper-level prospect in the mix as well. That’s a steep price to pay when all it would take to sign a superior pitcher like free agent Jon Lester is cash.

Put another way, the Sox would have to decide if three top prospects are worth the extra $30-$40 million it would take to land Lester.

Then there’s Cueto. He was the second-best pitcher in the NL behind Dodgers ace Clayton Kershaw after going 20-9 with a 2.25 ERA and league-leading 242 strikeouts.

Cueto turns 29 in February and would give the Red Sox an explosive young arm to build around. But the Reds are hosting the All-Star Game next year and are only one season removed from the NL wild card game (which Cueto lost to Pittsburgh in 2013).

They believe they can contend in the NL Central and don’t necessarily agree with the narrative that they’ll have to trade a starter this winter, since four of them are set to be free agents after next season — Cueto, Mike Leake, Mat Latos and Alfredo Simon.

If Cueto is available, he’d rank high atop the Red Sox’ Sox wish list. If he’s not, they’ll have to turn their attention elsewhere.

The offseason intrigue is only just beginning.
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/boston_red_sox/2014/11/hamels_cueto_not_easy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.