Cubs Claim Cole Hamels

[2323]

Hamels probably isnt going to happen, but Theo did confirm that we are going after pitching at market price.

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/not-cole-hamels-now-cubs-will-be-market-no-1-starter

Market price is about what Hamels salary is. This is why a boatload of prospects is a ridiculous overpay. I know you'll have to give up something to get Hamels but not 4 or 5 prospects. The guys on waivers. They're paying him a lot of money just to flounder. They don't have a lot of leverage.

 

[CSF77]

Market price is about what Hamels salary is. This is why a boatload of prospects is a ridiculous overpay. I know you'll have to give up something to get Hamels but not 4 or 5 prospects. The guys on waivers. They're paying him a lot of money just to flounder. They don't have a lot of leverage.

Define flounder

The 30-year-old Hamels is guaranteed $90MM from 2015-18 (plus a $6MM buyout of his 2019 option) and is enjoying yet another elite season on the mound. He’s posted a 2.42 ERA (2.85 FIP, 3.16 xFIP) to go along with 9.1 K/9, 2.6 BB/9 and a 46.9 percent ground-ball rate in 137 1/3 innings. Hamels would be the ace of many staffs around the league and would appeal to a wide range of teams — even non-contenders. In his Insider-only blog today, ESPN’s Buster Olney speculated that it would behoove the Cubs to claim Hamels and try to work out a deal for the dominant southpaw, as he could serve as a building block for their rotation for several years.

dont sound like floundering

 

[CSF77]

Again the flappers over value prospects.

 

[brett05]

All guys go on waivers

He's worth more than the A's parted with

 

[2323]

Define flounder

The 30-year-old Hamels is guaranteed $90MM from 2015-18 (plus a $6MM buyout of his 2019 option) and is enjoying yet another elite season on the mound. He’s posted a 2.42 ERA (2.85 FIP, 3.16 xFIP) to go along with 9.1 K/9, 2.6 BB/9 and a 46.9 percent ground-ball rate in 137 1/3 innings. Hamels would be the ace of many staffs around the league and would appeal to a wide range of teams — even non-contenders. In his Insider-only blog today, ESPN’s Buster Olney speculated that it would behoove the Cubs to claim Hamels and try to work out a deal for the dominant southpaw, as he could serve as a building block for their rotation for several years.

dont sound like floundering

Face it. Your Idea was all kinds of stupid and now you're over compensating to save face by flooding the board with relentless hamster wheeling. And sorry, it's not about people overvaluing prospects. The cost of being wrong with prospects doesn't hurt as much as when you're paying a 30+ year old pitcher north of 30 20 something million. There's a significant chance a 30+ year old pitcher going south early into his acquisition. It might be greater than none of those prospects panning out. And you're paying him 23 million on top of that. It's about risk/reward more than it's about over esteeming your own prospects out of homerism. Saying this is default and it's also lazy. It's something someone says when they're tired of defending their ridiculous comments.

 

[chibears55]

Why did cubs make this claim ?
Most likely to see what the Phillies are looking for in return.
Maybe start small discussion now and could possibly reopen that door in off season once cubs get better idea of who they want to hold onto ad far as prospects goes.. maybe they get that cuban OFer or sign / trade for veteran player which could open up more tradeable prospects.

Just don't see now, hoyer/theo trading off their top prospects before they even established a positional core yet.

 

[CSF77]

Face it. Your Idea was all kinds of stupid and now you're over compensating to save face by flooding the board with relentless hamster wheeling. And sorry, it's not about people overvaluing prospects. The cost of being wrong with prospects doesn't hurt as much as when you're paying a 30+ year old pitcher north of 30 20 something million. There's a significant chance a 30+ year old pitcher going south early into his acquisition. It might be greater than none of those prospects panning out. And you're paying him 23 million on top of that. It's about risk/reward more than it's about over esteeming your own prospects out of homerism. Saying this is default and it's also lazy. It's something someone says when they're tired of defending their ridiculous comments.

Again it sounds like you are over valuing untested prospects vs a TOR that has plenty of play off history. 30 old...lol That is rich. If he was 36 then I would never make the claim. Swear sounds like you think 30 is the edge of the cliff with these guys. Good to know that. I keep that in mind when thinking of Glavine and Lee and many other lefties who played much longer than 30... clown

 

[TL1961]

Highest I would go is #3 Addison Russell, #4 Albert Almora, #11 Pierce Johnson, #15 Eloy Jiminez

That would be a haul for the Phills and not affecting next years team. Phills are going south and the Cubs would become legit next year.

I wouldn't trade Russell for him straight up, much less add others!

Pitchers will be available in free agency. No need to trade a ton of prospects.

Now, if they want to take Sweeney for him, let's talk.

 

[CSF77]

Why did cubs make this claim ?
Most likely to see what the Phillies are looking for in return.
Maybe start small discussion now and could possibly reopen that door in off season once cubs get better idea of who they want to hold onto ad far as prospects goes.. maybe they get that cuban OFer or sign / trade for veteran player which could open up more tradeable prospects.

Just don't see now, hoyer/theo trading off their top prospects before they even established a positional core yet.

2 main reasons. 1 they need a TOR because they want to become competitive. (note the pushed the button with Baez).
2. To block any other NL team. Hammels is a long term buy. Wavers goes NL first then AL so a block has long term effect.

 

[CSF77]

I wouldn't trade Russell for him straight up, much less add others!

Pitchers will be available in free agency. No need to trade a ton of prospects.

Now, if they want to take Sweeney for him, let's talk.

wow are you for real?

 

[modo]

Hamels is a reliable starter that has a friendly salary down the road..........Trading what Oakland gave us is more than worth it. Although it will take more than that.

 

[brett05]

I wouldn't trade Russell for him straight up.

Funniest comments for 2014

Here's some more kook aid for you

 

[chibears55]

2 main reasons. 1 they need a TOR because they want to become competitive. (note the pushed the button with Baez).
2. To block any other NL team. Hammels is a long term buy. Wavers goes NL first then AL so a block has long term effect.

Obviously their looking for a TOR starter...

Your 2nd reason, yea ok BUT..
Phillies would be stupid if they planned on trading him to whomever laid claim now....

Their better off waiting til off season when they can get offers from every team interested.


Telling you, only reason Cubs made that claim was to get an early read on what Phils were looking to get, and have first opportunity to maybe wow them with an offer...

 

[TL1961]

Lets see about this:

#1 LF: Chris Coglan .302/.382/.498 Fangraphs has him at a .384 wOBA. He could be the comeback player of the year.
#2 2B Javy Baez
#3 1B Rizzo
#4 3B Kris Bryant
#5 RF Jorge Soler
#6 SS Starlin Castro
#7 CF Arismendy Alcantara I like that he has HR power at the bottom of the line up.
#8 C Wellington Castillo

That is a pretty impact line up next year. To be honest you could go forward with it alone. Adding Schwarber, Almora, Russell just means that you are selling Castillo, Castro Alcantara etc anyways.

It makes sense for the Cubs to become legit now. Loosing Russell and Almora is not hurting the future of this team. If anything all they are doing is being forced to trade someone anyways. Might as well be fore a ace vs a prospect....

Russell is the best defensive SS they have. I have said I don't want them to trade Castro right now, but I would really be surprised and disappointed if they traded Russell.

When it comes to Cole Hamels specifically, I can't see the Cubs trading Shark (And Hammels) for Russell, only to trade Russell away for a more expensive pitcher with injury concerns. Not alot more expensive, and maybe Shark actually would have cost more in the long run (though I doubt it), and Cole is not much older than Shark.

But they would send 2 pitchers for Russell, and get back one pitcher who is older and at least as of now has a higher salary. No arguing that Cole Hamel is far, far more proven than Shark. But I would think if they truly are looking to trade for him, the Cubs would be dealing much less heralded prospects.

Being non-contenders, they don't have the same incentive to overpay as other teams do at the July 31 deadline. If the Phils still think they can land a prospect package, they may wait until offseason. We shall see.

 

[CSF77]

Russell is the best defensive SS they have. I have said I don't want them to trade Castro right now, but I would really be surprised and disappointed if they traded Russell.

When it comes to Cole Hamels specifically, I can't see the Cubs trading Shark (And Hammels) for Russell, only to trade Russell away for a more expensive pitcher with injury concerns. Not alot more expensive, and maybe Shark actually would have cost more in the long run (though I doubt it), and Cole is not much older than Shark.

But they would send 2 pitchers for Russell, and get back one pitcher who is older and at least as of now has a higher salary. No arguing that Cole Hamel is far, far more proven than Shark. But I would think if they truly are looking to trade for him, the Cubs would be dealing much less heralded prospects.

Being non-contenders, they don't have the same incentive to overpay as other teams do at the July 31 deadline. If the Phils still think they can land a prospect package, they may wait until offseason. We shall see.

They offered 85 mil to shark and he turned them down. He wanted Bailey cash and to be honest here he he is not play off tested. Bailey was with the Reds.

Shark wanted to prove his worth and he is getting his opportunity. Theo and Jed were looking at a return value because Shark wanted more than his value dictated.

anyways Hammels > Shark. More control. More proven. This should not even be a debate here.

 

[TL1961]

wow are you for real?

That was in jest. I truly am not expecting him for Sweeney.

I value defensive play at SS (as most major league GM's do). I would like to hold onto Russell and have defense be a plus rather than another way to allow games to get away.

I actually wouldn't mind Cole Hamel, but the Cubs just are not in a position of needing to trade a lot since they are not trying to contend this year.

I didn't think Theo/Jed would trade two starters for Russell to flip him for one. But maybe that's exactly what they'll do. Just seems they must really like him if they traded Shark and didn't get pitching back. So I expect they wouldn't jettison him so soon.

If you don't want to wind up with Russell, why not keep Shark? (A move I must admit I was not really in favor of.)

I just think once the phillies are in August, the price goes DOWN, not up. And it's not that I over value Russell or any single prospect. I value the idea of keeping as many as possible if you can acquire though free agency instead of trades.

But given the fact they have built depth, clearly some prospects will be traded. I just am not ready for that to be Russell. I think he's our SS of the (very near) future.

Give them Schwarber and somebody else. And Sweeney!

 

[TL1961]

They offered 85 mil to shark and he turned them down. He wanted Bailey cash and to be honest here he he is not play off tested. Bailey was with the Reds.

Shark wanted to prove his worth and he is getting his opportunity. Theo and Jed were looking at a return value because Shark wanted more than his value dictated.

anyways Hammels > Shark. More control. More proven. This should not even be a debate here.

I am not debating he has more value than Shark. (though it's Hamel, not Hammels. We traded Hammels) I just can't lose this idea that he is on the downside of his career. But he is doing well this year and is not much older than Shark. (I personally am not a big Shark fan, but he is continuing to do well, so i will tip my hat to him.)

 

[Parade_Rain]

I am not debating he has more value than Shark. (though it's Hamel, not Hammels. We traded Hammels) I just can't lose this idea that he is on the downside of his career. But he is doing well this year and is not much older than Shark. (I personally am not a big Shark fan, but he is continuing to do well, so i will tip my hat to him.)

Actually you are wrong. The Cubs traded Hammel. They want Hamels.

 

[brett05]

Oh boy...

 

[CSF77]

I am not debating he has more value than Shark. (though it's Hamel, not Hammels. We traded Hammels) I just can't lose this idea that he is on the downside of his career. But he is doing well this year and is not much older than Shark. (I personally am not a big Shark fan, but he is continuing to do well, so i will tip my hat to him.)

December 27, 1983 (age 30), San Diego, CA

So 31 next year. Control would be 2015-2019 Age 31-35 $20M Team Option, $24M Vesting Option

Vests if he 1) has 400 IP in 2017-18, including 200 IP in 2018, and 2) is not on the disabled list with a shoulder or elbow injury at the end of the 2018 season

That is really not old. That is called prime years.