Advertisement:

Report: Cubs claim Cole Hamels

Report: Cubs claim Cole Hamels

Take this with an enormous grain of salt or many, many small grains if that is easier to swallow -- but there was a report last night that the Cubs are the team that has claimed Cole Hamels.

My info sez the CUBS put in the waiver claim on Cole Hamels. Would the Phils trade him there now and would Cole accept?

UPDATE: David Kaplan of CSN confirms the Cubs have claimed Hamels.

I commented about this a bunch in the wee hours of the morning on Twitter, so some of you may have heard this already, but this is a huge long shot.

The first issue is that the Cubs are not on Hamels list of teams he can be traded to per his recently signed 7 year/$153M extension.

The second issue is that this is the waiver trade period.  In other words, the Cubs have to pass anyone and everyone through waivers if they hope to acquire him.  Guys like Starlin Castro, Jorge Soler, Javier Baez, and Arismendy Alcantara are not getting through.

The Cubs would essentially have to acquire him through non-rostered players, the best of whom are Kris Bryant and Addison Russell.  But the list would also include Albert Almora, Jen-Ho Tseng, CJ Edwards, Dan Vogelbach, Pierce Johnson, and Paul Blackburn.

Is there a package to be made?  Considering the Cubs received Russell and Athletics #2 prospect Bill McKinney, it seems rather unlikely.  Hamels is better and signed through  2018 with a club option for 2019.  The rate is $22.5M per year, not unreasonable in today's climate.

Still, it's a rather large commitment for any team to take on and the Cubs can absorb all that cost with their payroll flexibility.  They would have to hope that the Phillies are as interested in getting out of that financial burden as they are in getting prospects.

You almost have to think the Phillies, who are said to be asking for "the world", will ask for both Kris Bryant and Addison Russell. That would be a non-starter for me.

Given the Cubs depth at shortstop, perhaps they can headline a deal with Russell and then deal from depth to create a package of quality and quantity.

I'd be willing to package anyone outside that top 4 in a deal without a problem and my guess is this is what the Cubs are thinking as well.  Perhaps that plus the willingness to take on his entire contract will be enough.  And perhaps Cole Hamels would even agree to go to an up and coming team like the Cubs.

But don't hold your breath on that.

But take heart in this:  If you didn't think the Cubs were going for it before, this should give you a pretty large hint.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Tags: cole hamels

Comments

Leave a comment
  • fb_avatar

    Is there a 48 hour window for a possible transaction?

  • I'd let anyone go other than Russell, Bryant, Soler. That probably wouldn't get a deal done though. Like you said, have to hope that the Phillies are looking to burn it down like the Cubs did a few years ago and are just as interested in dumping salary.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ike03:

    Why wouldn't you trade Addison Russell for Hamels? Russell was an addition to big cache of prospects so in effect if you made him the key piece to this deal you might as well consider him Samardzija. So, if I asked you this a couple of months ago "would you trade Samardzija, Jason Hammel, CJ Edwards and Dan Vogelbach for Cole Hamels?" would you have said yes? Seems like a no brainer to me. Samardzija wanted 18.5 million per for 6 years, and you would get Hamels for 4 years, with a club option for a 5th, at $22.5 mil for the first two year and $24 mil after that. Shorter term, only $4 mil more per year and an infinitely better pitcher AND a lefty to boot. Oh and the way the timeline has been accelerated you would assume that Hamels would absolutely agree to a trade. So the only issue would be Philly accepting the deal. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

  • In reply to TC421:

    Because the Cubs aren't contenders now. If they were in the playoff race then you make that trade, but if they are going to spend a ton of money on a pitcher, do it in free agency when it won't cost you an elite prospect.

  • In reply to TC421:

    "you might as well consider him Samardzija."

    Except we don't. We consider him a top 5 or so prospect with more value than Shark...

    Plus, there's no value in your offer for taking on that whole contract.

    If Hamels was younger, I'd be more inclined to offer more. But with pitchers, I get leery of future success around age 29

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubbie steve:

    I get the age, but taking only 4 years is attractive as opposed to the 6 years you'll have to give to Jon Lester. To me the Samardzija deal only made sense if you were ready to go through with a second trade for pitching. I thought they would put a package together for David Price to be honest but they didn't. 4 1/4 years of Hamels at $90 million is a lot more attractive than 6 years $160 million for Lester or Scherzer.

  • In reply to TC421:

    I disagree. First, there is no positive value in that 1/2 year for the Cubs. Quite possibly the first 1 1/2 yrs. but if the latter, would be same for Lester et al so moot point on my part.

    As for 4 vs 6, there could be an advantage in that the Cubs could front load a FA's contract to minimize lack of value in years 5 &6.

    Lastly, giving up $22.5-$25M per yr in just cash is always better than that cash plus top prospects!

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    You are exactly right. We are the cubs. We will nearly have unlimited funds for the next couple years (not literally) but our payroll will be so low next year we can easily sign Lester. Then whenever Otani gets posted from Japan we should sign him, then use our prospects before or during the 2016 to get a true ace leaving Lester to be our #2.

  • In reply to TC421:

    Because Hamels will be 31 in December and the Cubs aren't contenders. Russell isn't Shark and Hammel, he is one of the top prospects in the game.

    Edwards and Almora can be the center of the package, but nobody better should be with them (including no Soler, no Vizcaino, no Rivero and no high risk/high upside low level guys). And that is still two guys who are top prospects.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to springs:

    If you add Hamels don't you agree that it makes them instant contenders in 2015? That's my assumption, if it's not yours than I agree with you and you don't make the trade. I'm looking at this as a way to get an ace pitcher for a lot less money than Jon Lester who seemingly everyone assumed was the target. Either one gets them into contention but Lester costs close to $6 mil more per year for two more years and the ages are a wash pretty much. If you're still aiming for 2016 instead of next year I wouldn't target either one of these guys as there will be other options. Just depends on time frame.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TC421:

    NO.

    Just adding Hamela absolutely does NOT make us an instant contender.

    Do we need pitching? Sure.

    But we are one of the worst 2 or 3 offenses in the league.

    Our pitching THIS year was actually very good up until we traded big.
    But we traded big because the return was a guy that could be one if the most valuable guys in the league for the next decade.

    Hamels is the kind if guy to headline a World Series rotation but there's no way we get to the WS without MUCH better play in the lineup. And Russell could be a big part of that.

  • In reply to TC421:

    Would I trade Samardzija, Jason Hammel, CJ Edwards and Dan Vogelbach for Cole Hamels?"

    Absolutely not.

  • In reply to TC421:

    I probably wouldn't have made that trade for Hammels. If we were talking about a 28 year-old Hammels and not a 30-year-old Hammels, maybe. Addison is such a key championship building block with his combination of offense and defense at SS, I'd be very reluctant to part with him. I'd far prefer to give up Castro in a Hammels deal, but I would require at least one high quality Phillies prospect tossed given the discrepancy in ages and contract commitments between Castro and Hammels. All-Star for All-Star.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    I think trading Russell,Tseng & Wada would put you in the ballpark for Hamels if you are willing to assume a big chunk of his payroll

  • In reply to bleachercreature:

    or you could pull Tseng from that trade and add a Rule 5 guy and someone like Olt or a AAA starter or a Cubs pitcher like Fujikawa Jackson or Villanueva (yes we would have to pay their salary as well)

    If they can go get Lester this off season as well.

    A rotation of: Lester,Hamels,Arrieta then Wood,Hendricks,Turner Doubrant,Straily Beeler or Jokisch to finish out the rotation. With Edwards,Johnson & Black knocking on the door next year this will make us good for years.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    I think a deal headlined by Almora and 2-3 out of the second tier and maybe some low level fliers like Candelario just makes too much sense. We just aquired a lh Almora in McKinney and I am not a scout but really don't see a star but rather a productive mlb of in Almora.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to MashBrotherMania:

    McKinney is a fine hitter. However, from what I have heard no one is putting him in the same "ballpark" (pun intended) as Almora on defense.

    I think trading the kind of prospects we are talking about for Hamels is going to be a step back. He would change us from a 4th to a 2-3 place team and probably not a wildcard and we would lose all the future years of the guys we trade. Let's get our prospects up and find out what we have before we start trading them. I know we might lose some value, but I don't want a 30+ YO pitcher for $22-30M ruining our financial flexibility. As has been pointed out, our pitching was fine this year before we traded our Top-2 (a deal I very much support). Our offense was the problem and that is being addressed from within.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    Rather stay in the Michael Matuella, Justin Hooper, sweepstakes . then get Lester foe a Cash deal with front end loaded contract and keep our top prospects. I'm ok with trading a CJ Edwards, Dan Vogelbach , Christian Villanueva, Jacob Hannemann, but that won't fly if needed I hesitantly add Billy McKinney and take back Hannemann.. But why do that if you can get Lester who is a week within Hamels age for only CASH. Leaving you those guys as trade bait for other deals

  • fb_avatar

    Whoa. I want him, but it needs to be players outside of the players you mentioned.

  • Is there any chance that a package of olt vitters bjax volglebomb and pierce could get it done? I'd take that trade in a heartbeat heck through cj and tseng in there too sign lester and we'd have one of the best rotations in baseball with 3 lefties in it that would be crazy ...

  • In reply to nukee:

    No. They will want more than that. Guess is Cubs will try to trade without using Bryant or Russell but not sure how it can be done.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Wouldn't it make sense that the phillies would be offered less now for hamels than what they heard prior to the deadline?

    Think it makes less sense for the cubs to pay mkt value (per hamels' contract) for the next four years AND give up prospects when the period you'd really WANT to pay for (end of 2014 season) is "lost" on the cubs.

    Don't see a deal that's possible...cubs and phillies coming at this from two totally different positions. Either way, if I'm in the FO, the only players I'd consider giving up are far far away and with risk profiles to match. Phillies would be crazy to accept, given they'd have a much larger pool of teams to market hamels to in just a couple short months.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Look what they asked the LAD for. Pederson Seager and Urias. There big 3.

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    Yep! I just don't see how they do this without Russell and/or Bryant in the deal.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    So don't do it . I like Hamels and the $$ but Lester costs you nothing but $$$$

  • In reply to nukee:

    Vitters and BJax have negative value because of their roster status. They won't ever be traded. They'll be released.

  • In reply to nukee:

    Vitters and Brett Jackson?

    Baseball fans of all teams seem to feel that if a team won't trade their star for our pile of crap, that we can entice them by piling the crap higher.

    Vogelbach could have value as the third and fourth piece in a Hamels trade, but there is no way they could headline it. I don't consider either of them crap. However, as headliners in a trade for Hamels, they pretty much are.

  • In reply to DaveP:

    "Baseball fans of all teams seem to feel that if a team won't trade their star for our pile of crap, that we can entice them by piling the crap higher."

    Bravo!

  • In reply to nukee:

    Vitters and BJax will likely never play meaningful games in the majors.

  • I really doubt it happens now but it should be revisited in the off-season.

    Lester
    Hamels
    Arrieta

    Wood/Turner/Hendricks/Doubront/Straily in a battle for the 4/5 spots.

    I'd package a deal around Addison Russell.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    I'd be willing to do this as well. Make Russell the center of the trade and then other pieces outside of Soler, Bryant, Baez and Almora. Maybe can put Travis Wood in the package as well, but he'd have to clear waivers.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Absolutely you make Russell the key player. He's like the free piece to the puzzle and you got him for 1 1/2 years of Samrdzija. If they acquire Hamels though I'd pass on Lester and maybe go after a cheaper option. The Yankees are going to drive his price up to about $27 million per for 6 years and that's too much. Hamels, Arietta and some combination of that other group for 3-5 works and it also makes Edwin Jackson not nearly as bad in the 5 hole if you go that route. they'll make a run at Price after 2015 if Detroit can't sign him and you can't allocate $70 plus million for your top three starters. You have to get a bargain in their somewhere. I assume that the Cubs payroll will eventually level off in the $120-$130 million annual range.

  • Dang it, John! I work from home (journalist) and, every time I get in the groove and start cranking out some sentences, I get the audio signal that I have email and the little popup that says, "John Arguello has just posted - blah, blah, blah - Cubs Den. Of course, I MUST stop what I'm doing and immediately follow the link and...

    How's a guy supposed to get any work done??

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    Haha! Thanks, I almost published this last night but had to give the recaps some breathing room.

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    I have the same trouble

  • If the Cubs were in the playoff race, you put Russell on the table. They aren't, so you don't.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    Exactly! That is the only reason the A's gave him up to begin with.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    It's not a rental and you're not bidding against other teams trying to trade for him. His price would increase if you tried to trade for him at any other time.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    Agreed.

    And that is why I think the Cubs will try to make this deal without him -- and why it ultimately dies on the table.

    But I like that they are giving it an effort.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Ike03:

    Yes, but this makes them a contender in 2015 almost for certain ahead of the expected timeline plus you get Hamels for 4 years with an club option for a 5th at probably $5 million per less than Lester would cost IF you could beat the Yankees out for his services this winter and that's a big if.

  • In reply to TC421:

    Philly is in the poor shape they are in precisely because they mortgaged their future for a couple of years of contention by committing future payroll to big contracts while trading away prospects. I like Hamels, but I'm not in favor of losing the best from the farm system for a short-term chance at contending. Long term contenders manage their payroll AND their minor league pipeline.

  • In reply to TC421:

    Regardless of our starting rotation, placing expectations like "contender in 2015 almost for certain" is only setting yourself up for disappointment. They'll be fun to watch and very competitive. But you do realize that we'll be trotting out 4 rookies/near rookies every day, right? Even though their futures are very bright, and they should be impact type players; you can't lean on Rookies that heavily.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    You might misunderstand me, I expect them to contend but I don't expect them to win necessarily. I think the presence of a genuine ace will actually aid in the development the kids and keep them within shouting distance of the playoff teams at least into July/August and, I agree with you here, take some of the pressure off of young players who need to focus. I think that's huge for a young club. I still think 2016-2017 is the beginning of the true contention years but if they can learn how to compete in 2015, without having to worry about losing games from bad pitching, this will be invaluable.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    True, but next year with Hamels and one or two other additions they've said they'll make will bring them contender status. This will continue for years to come. You make the trade with Russell, in my opinion.

  • In reply to David23:

    The Cubs had excellent pitching this year and were terrible. Its going to take these prospects to get their feet under them. I don't trade an elite prospect when the Cubs likely aren't contenders for another 1 or 2 years.

  • In reply to Ike03:

    I see your point, but I think having Soler, Bryant, and Baez added to the mix as well as continued growth of Castro and Rizzo and also one or two other additions they said they'll make will put them at contender status, especially with the starting pitching and bullpen they'll have.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to David23:

    First of all, additions they will TRY to make. We can't even talk to these guys right now (tampering).

    Second of all, these are young guys. To just say, "Soler, Bryant and Baez added to the mix as well as continued grown of Castro and Rizzo...will put them at contender status." That is making a HUGE assumption. "Potential means you haven't done it yet." Now, I agree that they are likely to do well, but there will likely be some growing pains. Remember Rizzo and Castro last year? Let's find out what we have. I am not convinced adding Hamels (or Lester or Scherzer) is even the best strategy right now. Too much money invested in players that are already on the wrong side of 30. I don't think the timeline has changed that much.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Your caution makes sense but TOR SP don't hit the market every year. In order to compete in 2016 I think we should make sure we are more competitive in 2015.

  • In reply to rsanchez11:

    This. The Cubs are going to have to pick their spots to acquire top of rotation pitchers and they'll need to be aggressive when doing so. There are only about 20-25 of them in the majors and they don't become available very often. It's true that we can chase a few in free agency but that's a crap shoot, at best. We'll have to overpay in free agency since we'll be bidding against so many teams and have to commit more dollars/years than desired. We'll also lose a high draft pick unless it's someone like Lester who was traded this year. Let's also not forget that trading for Hamels lets potential free agents, like Lester, know the Cubs are serious about winning, making Chicago a more desired location to sign. It's true competing in 2015 might be a tad premature but targeting a 2016-2019+ window is accurate. There will only be so many chances (<5?) to acquire a TOR between now and 2016 so it behooves the Cubs to strike while the iron is hot.

    Amaro is under immense pressure in Philly for many reasons with his failure at the trade deadline last week looming large. Ownership may want him to make shedding payroll a priority if they're astute enough to realize they're throwing money down a toilet with the current roster and no help on the way from a depleted farm. If the Cubs eat all of Hamel's salary Amaro won't be able to ask for too much in return. If he keeps Hamels and doesn't cash in now he runs the risks of Hamels becoming ineffective or injured, so he just might be inclined to take a good package of prospects from the Cubs as a bird in the hand.

    At the very least the Cubs will have two days to deal directly with Amaro and get a sense of what he wants for Hamels. If the price is compelling but includes players we can't deal/get through waivers until after the season, the framework of the deal can be built now and executed later.

    Have I mentioned how much I love our front office? The Hamels waiver claim was brilliant.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to jmoultz:

    Yes, absolutely brilliant. If it doesn't work, no harm no foul. If it does they probably saved themselves $60 million and 2 years from what they would have had to pay for Jon Lester. As I've thought about this today I realize what we really don't know is what Philly is thinking, are they going to dump salary for a rebuild or are they going to try on the fly? That would certainly make a huge impact on what the Cubs would have to pay.

  • As I read the comments on this deal - I get the impression that the value of taking on the remaining 90mil+ of this contract and the risk associated with it is being taken lightly. Yes, the contract is favorable in the today's market...but only half (maybe less) of the MLB teams have the payroll to take this contract on. To give up significant prospects PLUS assume the risk/$$$ associated is foolish. I agree with John and a couple others...second tier prospects only - NOT Bryant, Russell, or Soler yet.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Hoosier Gus:

    I agree Gus. You take on the salary and trade them a package of second tier guys, like Candelario, Vogelbach, Blackburn, Underwood, or other guys like that. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT give up one of the big big ones AND assume that huge contract!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Hoosier Gus:

    AMEN!!!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Hoosier Gus:

    Vogelbach, or McKinney or Johnson is about as high as I will go. After that we can just talk volume of middling guys (Candelario, maybe Jokisch, Johnson, guys like that. Then say we will take on the contract. If they want more than that they have to take on a FAR greater share of his contract. We are in the Cat-bird seat here. As I understand it if they don't trade with us they can't trade with anyone until the off-season. We don't "have to" do anything.

  • I'd prefer to pursue pitching via free agency. Why take on the salary AND trade prospects when you're not competing?

  • In reply to crookedranger:

    The pitchers going into free agency this offseason will cost way more than hamels contract

  • In reply to JLynch2247:

    Plus after this year we would usually lose an unprotected pick for smaller pool of free agent SP.

  • In reply to rsanchez11:

    Even if the Cubs didn't have a protected pick, Masterson or Lester wouldn't cost them a pick though.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to crookedranger:

    Yes, but with all the kids this makes the Cubs a competitor in 2015, not 2016 like most of expected. I think from the language coming out of the front office and the moves being made everyone thinks that they're at least a year ahead of schedule. Strike while the iron is hot.

  • In reply to TC421:

    I doubt it makes the Cubs a contender, unless against all odds Bryant, Baez, Alcantara and Soler all produce well in their first full season.

    We were far from contenders with Shark and Hammel both pitching exceptionally well. Why does Hamels make us a contender?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to springs:

    Well I'm not sure I agree with that. I think that if you had extrapolated the performances from Samardzija and Hammel over the whole season, and combine that with how well the team had played in the month before they were traded I don't think getting to .500, after adding a piece or two, was impossible and like it or not .500 makes you a contender in todays MLB where seemingly 2/3 of the teams are in contention through August. Adding Cole Hamels for 2015, along with maybe one more pitcher (could be a resurgent Jacob Turner) makes you a contender even if only 2 of the kids really start to hit their stride. I think Kris Bryant is an All Star from day one, I just get that sense and with Castro and Rizzo already there that means only one of the bunch including Soler, Baez & Alcantara need to pan out in 2015 to put the Cubs right in the mix.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TC421:

    Yes, the Cubs actually had a positive run differential for a day or two there. That was with 2 pitchers doing extremely well. Even if they continued to do that well I don't know that we make it to .500. And if we did, we would be in contention...to be cannon fodder in the first round of the playoffs. While I know that once we get to the playoffs anything can happen, in all likelihood, we would fall short. I am not interested in getting to "contender" status sooner. Maybe that is the difference between us. I want to take the time required and really build a great team that can sustain success.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Well, I think "cannon fodder" is a necessary first step. The ultimate goal is always a WS win but I think losing in the playoffs can be valuable. Not always necessary, but valuable.

  • In reply to springs:

    We were far from contenders while Samardzija and Hammel were here because we had one of the league's worst offenses. The Cubs won't hit on every one of the prospects coming up over the next two years but they have enough of them to survive the inevitable attrition. Adding just two plus bats to the core of Rizzo, Castro, Alcantara and Castillo gets us out of the Runs cellar in a hurry. Let's also not forget that the front office has done a masterful job building a stable of complimentary players on the 25 man roster and in the high minors. There will likely be a learning curve for the prospects but we're not as far away as people think.

  • In reply to TC421:

    I do think there is an outside chance they are competitive next year. If you can acquire Hamels for some prospects who may be positionally blocked in the organization, then I am all for it. I see probable long term assets like Almora and Russell being more valuable in 2017-18 and I'd find it unwise to move pieces like those for a sooner and more unlikely opportunity to win.

  • John, I was ahead of the curve on this one. The Hamels idea popped into my head late last week and I pinged all the usual suspects(you, Harry, Sahadev,Mike). I'll say Sahadev seemed the most constructive on the idea. Depending on the prospect cost, I love the idea.

  • In reply to Carl9730:

    I don't have anything against it. I just don't see how it gets done.

    My guess is it has to be a package revolved around Almora and featuring a couple of pitching prospects among Tseng, Johnson, Edwards, and Blackburn. Vogelbach may interest them with the Ryan Howard situation.

  • "You almost have to think the Phillies, who are said to be asking for "the world", will ask for both Kris Bryant and Adam Russell."

    I say let them have Adam Russell, Kurt Russell, Jane Russell, and even Bertrand Russell, but not Bryant nor Addison Russell.

  • In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    Haha! Serves me right for not getting enough sleep and writing before I've had my coffee.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to StillMissKennyHubbs:

    I noticed you didn't include Kerri Russell.
    I'd trade Russell (Addison not Kerri) and 1 of any below the top 8 and 1 of any below the top 20.

  • I think Hamels could be persuaded to waive his no-trade clause for a chance to play on a team that's soon to be competitive. But,I
    don't see why the Cubs would give up Russell or any other valuable prospects for Hamels when they can sign Lester, Scherzer, or another great arm in the off season without giving up anyone (except, depending on who they sign, a draft pick).

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cliff1969:

    Hamels is going to cost a lot less and have fewer years guaranteed (singed through 2018 with a club option for 2019). Lester is going cost $27 mil per for 6 years. You got Russell for 1 1/2 years of Jeff Samardzija. To me you trade make that deal all day.

  • In reply to TC421:

    I'm really not concerned about Ricketts having to part with a few more dollars for Lester. I don't agree that we should base Russell's value on how cheaply we picked him up. The Cubs have him now, and he's an important part of the future. Trade away the best prospects for big names, and in a few years the Cubs will be right where the Phillies are now.

  • In reply to TC421:

    We got Arrieta for a half year of Scott Feldman, should we include him as well?

  • In reply to springs:

    Exactly!!! Our "cost" doesn't matter.... by that rationale, Hayden Simpson is worth more than Eric Jokisch since Simpson was a 1st round pick in 2010 and Jokisch was our 16th round pick in 2010....

    The fact that OAK was willing to put one of the premier prospects in the game on the table, so that they could capitalize on their window of opportunity doesn't mean we should sell him off because we got a good deal.

    The only way I include Russell is if we get excess "value" in return, or we are in our window of opportunity for a WS run. Neither of which is happening in this instance.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cliff1969:

    I agree with this whole heartedly. For the right price we'd do the deal. But I doubt Amaro is willing to do it for the right price.

  • Why would the Cubs trade Samardzija for Russell, and then turn around and trade Russell for Hamels? I guess it could happen, but I don't see it.

    I would think 4-5 lower prospect is more likely. Vogelbach level guys.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    This was my thought. I agree Hamels > Samardzija. However, if they're going to trade Russell, I'd prefer it be for a guy who isn't 30,.personally

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    That wouldn't get a deal done.

    You don't look at a farm system like the Cubs and come out with Vogelbach and co.

    If we're seriously going to discuss a trade we can't keep putting together these 5 player deals who aren't top 100 prospects and haven't lived up to expectations this year.

    Soler used to be the red-headed stepchild in deals this like. But once he started to do well he's completely off the table. You don't get an ace like Hamel for scraps.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    You're speculating. You don't actually know what will get a deal done.

    I know the front office spend 4 years assembling this talent. I don't see them busting it up now.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    Everyone is speculating.

    Just some people are more realistic than others.

    And trading away a top prospect + for an ace who is controlled isn't "busting up" anything. The minor leagues wouldn't be in ruins.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    The David Price deal looks like scraps and he is probably better than Hamels.

  • In reply to Hoosier Gus:

    Hamels is signed for much longer, it's not an equal comparison.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    No but John mentioned the Shark trade for justification for the Phillies asking for Russell. shark and Price are signed equally, so it is more than a fair point to counter that argument.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Exactly.

    To counter "that" argument. My post had nothing to do about that argument.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    And that might not even be HG's argument. I'm just saying. Bringing up Price is relevant. Also Price will bring in a comp pick if not re-signed. He was traded to a team in contention. And his 1 1/2 yrs of salary is much cheaper than Hamels. Quite honestly, I don't see Hamel's contract as a plus. Great chance that by 2017 his contract is dead weight

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Soler won't get through waivers. Not a factor in this deal.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    The point was Soler was always included in a deal for a top guy in these comment boards... Like Carlos Gonzalez.

    Once he started to do well, he's touchable.

    People seem to be willing to give up guys who are treading water or doing worse than expected.

    If Vogelbach was doing well people would be saying "No way!!! Untouchable!!!!"

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Vogelbach is depth so I would trade him if he had 40 HRs right now. I'm pretty sure the Phillies will want Bryant or Russell -- if not both. And I am pretty sure the Cubs will try to construct a package that includes neither. A deal hinges on whether they can compromise and I find that unlikely.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Fully agree of all accounts.

    There would be people begging to keep him though if he did have 40 HR.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    AND screaming for the NL to adopt the DH, too!

  • In reply to Cliff1969:

    You read my mind.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Maybe, maybe not. Rizzo has firmly established himself as one of the best young first basemen in the game. Just no place for Vogelbach to play. I don't think many people want prospects just because, hell, it's fun to have prospects.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Good point. Russell, on the other hand, can play anywhere in the infield (he can probably catch, too!), so he isn't blocked by one particular player.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Mike Moody:

    It's the beauty of shortstops. And that bat plays pretty much anywhere.

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    I've seen comments on here asking if he could play catcher.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    Vogelbomb has no future here unless the NL adopts the DH, and I like the kid a lot. Id trade him in a pac kage for a quality pitcher like Hamels, but hes as far as Id go. If Amaro wants one of the Fab 5 I hang up on him.

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    i forgot about the waiver issue for the cubs players. i do think that edwin jackson (we would have to cover most of his salary} would get through waivers then add almora, vogelbach a rule 5 guy like hernandez and a young starting pitcher (underwood,blackburn, pagania, black etc) i think that could possibly do it. We could also give them schierholtz especially if they end up trading Byrd.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to bleachercreature:

    I don't think Jackson gets claimed. I would dare another team to claim him. If they do we don't have to pay ANY of his contract. They simply take it on. No acquisition, but I doubt we would get anything very worthwhile for him. He would clear waivers no problem--though I wish he wouldn't.

  • In reply to bleachercreature:

    Id like to keep Almora. Vogelbomb, Hernandez, Blackburn maybe one more minor piece. the Filthies are in bad shape right now. Too old, too many bloated contracts, Ryan Howard is dead weight. Utley and Rollins are 10/5 guys, Lee is hurt. We might be there best chance. Destroyed gave up next to nothing for Price. We need to hold firm on saying no on our big 5.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    Hammels is under contract till 2018 is one reason. He is better than Shark is another. However, I still would like to keep Russell.

  • In reply to Oneear:

    Hamels is not better than Shark this year. Plus Samardzija is younger and cheaper. Thus the better return. No way Oakland takes Hamels in the same scenario. They paid in prospects for Samardzija because he is good and the salary fit their payroll.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubmadness:

    Actually their numbers are pretty similar this year although Samardzija does have a slight edge in FIP and WHIP (his WHIP with Oakland is unreal though) but Hamels is a lefty so I'd still say he's the better pitcher.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to TC421:

    Lefties aren't as common, but I don't think that makes them a "better" pitcher.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joel Mayer:

    No, I think lefties are more valuable though. Better was the wrong word but I think it tips Hamels over Samardzija.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    If the Cubs could have signed Samardjiza to a 4 year extension at 22.5mm, they would have. And they wouldn't even have Russell. They'd have Samardjiza.

    So would you trade Samardjiza for Hamels at the same dollars and years? It's a no brainer.

    So I'm failing to understand why Russell would be untouchable for this deal.

    It's all fun speculation but at the end of the day Hamels isn't going anywhere.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubswin4harry:

    Your premise of "we would trade definitely Samardzija for Hamels" is flawed in my opinion. First of all, I don't know that we would have offered Samardzija 4/22.5. Maybe I missed that--I know we did give him an offer but don't remember the terms.

    Second, just because we got a good deal on Russell doesn't, somehow, make him "touchable." He has value to us greater than Samardzija (which is why we completed the trade) so simply substituting Russell for Samardzija isn't realistic. As someone else pointed out earlier, we got Arietta and Strop for 3 months of Scott Feldmann. By that rationale we should definitely trade them for no more than Feldmann is worth now (or better yet, then). Vizcaino has the same situation. We didn't go about assembling all these young guys to just ship them out for a big name or for no more than it cost to acquire them.

    The only reason we got Russell was because the A's saw this as one of their best opportunities and Samardzija offered them a Cost Controlled option (not a FA until after 2015) plus they got Hammel who was pitching really well for us until the trade.

    I also don't think that Epstein or Hoyer will likely give up that much for a start starting pitcher. Not all great starting pitchers are Maddux, Schilling or Johnson and successful well into their 30's. The list is FAR too long of guys that just, suddenly, aren't effective. Four or five years we would have jumped at Tim Lincecum (with far better reasons for optimism than with Hamels--still owed $18M next year) but he fell off a table a couple years ago and never came back. Justin Verlander was a Cy Young winner in 2011, 2012 he was runner up. This year he is not a particularly good pitcher (and his salary goes up to $28M from 2015-2019). I intentionally didn't pick guys who got demoted to the bullpen, or got seriously injured (both are getting 30+ starts through this bad time), or are on bad teams. This is why I am wary of all this talk of acquiring Hamels (or Lester or Scherzer). I think the market for starting pitchers is out of whack with their actual contribution to the team. Paying someone on the wrong side of 30 (and signed for 4-6 more years) is not as good of a use of resources (cash and personnel) than, say, signing a hitter to fill a gap that prospects fail to fill, or getting a REALLY good bullpen. In fact, a good bullpen arm(s) that can do well in high leverage situations (tieing/winning run on base or in scoring position) 40-60 times per year might be more "Bang-for-the-buck" than a starter.

    It is far too likely that Hamels could end up in the same boat as Lincecum and Verlander which is why I propose lowballing Philly and agreeing to pay all of his contract or giving them more (though not our top 6-8) and demanding that they pay a sizable chunk of his contract. I see no real value in giving up a prospect that is as likely to make us dominant in 2-3 years to maybe be a "contender" next year. Trade from our depth.

    Now, if I were Amaro would I accept some of these lowball offers? No. I would not. But that is not our problem. He is in a very bad position right now, mostly due to his incompetence. I am interested in a bargain. I am not interested in a "get Hamels if possible" strategy. Is it possible? Yes, it is. We have the payroll flexibility and the prospects to pull it off. Would it be a good option? I don't believe so.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Joel Mayer:

    My reasoning for wanting this trade tends to be because the focus from Theo and Jed seems to have shifted from breaking down to building up in the last couple of weeks. They have always been very careful not to put artificial timelines on this process simply saying they would know when it was time. Their own actions seem to indicate they think it's time and an awful lot of voices out there seem to think they had targeted Jon Lester in the off season, by going for Hamels instead in a waiver wire move they would save themselves money and years over what Lester is going to cost. I think these are smart guys and I think they know that. I think they have some prospects to trade and I think they are going into this negotiation from a position of strength. Do I want them to give up the farm? I do not, but I'd like to see them make a serious offer because this could really buy them time and give these kids a chance to develop without losing games 11-10. What we don't know is what Philly is thinking here. Are they going to break it down and rebuild or do they plan to rebuild on the fly? If it's the former the cost for Hamels should be reasonable, if it's the latter it won't be and they shouldn't overpay. Still this was a smart play on their part.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Great thoughts.

  • fb_avatar

    I think the Phil's would want both salary relief and to fill a number of holes. Almora, Vogelbach, Bruno, Villanueva/Olt, P. Johnson

  • A package around Russell is a no brainer. You would have basicly traded JS for Hamels and Martinez. One month ago everyone would have gone for that. Of course you will have to add CJ and maybe Volgelbach, but that is adding a question mark and a DH.

  • In reply to Cubfin:

    I don't agree. Including Russell means less flexibility, in case any of Baez, Bryant, Soler, Almora don't work out. Its about redundancy. You make this trade and you may also have to spend 15 million to fill a position player spot.

  • In reply to Cubfin:

    Let's not consider names, but rather concepts. Do you want a pitcher that will be 31 next year who is really good or a SS who will be 21 next year and is one of the top 5 prospects in baseball.

    If you are a starter away from contending, I'd say the former. If you are in the middle of rebuilding with all your top players still 2-3 years (at least) from their prime, I'd say the latter.

  • In reply to springs:

    The whole argument in a nutshell - well done!

  • Loxas is saying that it is a serious claim made by the Cubs and that they are going to try hard to acquire him. No way do I give up any of the top guys for him though. If he was 28 maybe but he's 31.

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    Yeah, Im just saying it is with intent to acquire. No team blocking stuff, etc. Like John said, it is very complicated.

  • In reply to Holy Cattle:

    Oh, they'll try hard, I think they will be willing to offer any non-roster player they have outside of Bryant and Russell without hesitation.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to John Arguello:

    Almora?

  • In reply to Mike Moody:

    Albert strikes me as one of Epstoyer's personal favorites. He would still be a borderline "untouchable" for me. He's going to be a top 25'ish prospect this winter and with success at AA will find himself top 5-10 very soon.

    It's not like we're going to be legit contenders in 2015. So Almora alone could command a top rated AAA/MLB ready arm by himself after 2015 season, that would be in his prime and cost controlled, etc...

    So while Philly will ask for him, I don't include him. Amaro is under fire for being inactive. So he's not likely to settle for less...

  • In reply to HoosierDaddy:

    The Red Sox traded Hanley Ramirez for Josh Beckett, and Ramirez was seen as a much better, much more sure-thing than Almora has this year.

    Obviously, there are differences, but you acquire talent when it is available. But given the cost of Hamels going forward, I have a very hard time seeing any team matching Philly's asking price. They are nutty in their unreasonableness.

  • I think that the Cubs could put together a pretty tempting package without any of the big three. The Cubs 4-30 prospects are not chopped liver. Look for a deal.

  • In reply to 44slug:

    Right. The Cubs 4 - 30 prospects would be much higher than prospects on many clubs. I suspect several of our 10 - 20 guys would be top 10 guys on most clubs.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    Hamel is a TOR so we'd have to pay for that. If it's Russell plus other lower pieces I would still pull the trigger. I would red line Bryant and that's it.

  • In reply to 44slug:

    That is what I imagine the Cubs are banking on. Though I am not sure what you mean by big 3. Since they can only deal non-roster guys, the top three to me are Bryant, Russell, and Almora. My guess is they are willing to part with Almora if need be.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    That was my thinking.

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I would not want to include any of Bryant, Russell and Soler. I think Almora is expendable now that we picked up McKinney. It is possible, I think? Philly overplayed their hand at the trade deadline. Maybe they freak out a little and be more reasonable. I like having Theo doing our dealing. Go CUBS!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 44slug:

    Probably not when dealing with Amaro. He wanted Aaron Judge from the Yankees for Marlon Byrd. He's going to ask for the world, the Cubs are actually in a position to give it to him without crippling themselves.

  • This move also send a signal to free agents that the Cubs are moving beyond the rebuild stage and on to the next level. Makes Chicago a more preferred location.

  • In reply to Cubfin:

    Agreed,

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    John, doesnt Hamels have 5/10 rights? Hes spent his entire c areer in Philly, Im just not sure if hes hit the 10yr career point. I remember him in the series in 2008, but he was in like his 3rd season then. If hes not 5/10. he should be getting close. Sonmething to consider.

  • In reply to mutant beast:

    No, he doesn't have 10yrs service time. He made his MLB debut in 2006.

    The Cubs are however on his list of teams that he can block a trade to per his NTC.

  • I don't think this is likely - even if the Cubs were serious about acquiring him, the Phils GM has a tendency to dramatically overvalue his veteran players, to the extent of not making any moves at the deadline when they clearly needed to make some moves for the future.

    But, I like the fact that they're looking at acquiring this type of player - proves yet again that we're almost ready for the Cubs' assault of the NL to begin!

  • fb_avatar

    A deal built around CJ Edwards, Olt, Almora, and Schwarber doesn't strike me as completely crazy/unrealistic (just a little). That's assuming that salary relief is a high priority for the Phillies. That would potentially be two starting OFs, SP, and a flyer on Olt. The start of their re-build. But like john said - it strikes me as a long shot.

  • In reply to Cubs Win 009:

    Can't trade Schwarber for a year. Wouldn't do it anyway. They just drafted him.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubmadness:

    Good to know. Maybe McKinney instead.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    Yeah, but you can trade a PTBNL, and add Schwarber to that list. When he becomes available, Phillies check his name. I really hope they don't trade Russell / Bryant. I'm good with Almora since the emergence of Alcantara. Possibly Almora, Vogel, Cates. Include Schwarber if they want to pay a chunk or include EJax in the deal

  • In reply to Cubs Win 009:

    A package of Vogelbach (replaces Howard), one of Edwards or Johnson(not both), one of Olt/Villanueva/Candelario, one of Gioskar Amaya or Marco Hernandez, and maybe one other prospect, maybe an upside bullpen arm like Marcus Hatley.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubmadness:

    That doesn't strike me as a deal I would take, if I were the Phillies. If I don't get Addison, I would want Almora and McKinney, and some of those other players.

  • Just my two cents, but...

    The Phillies have the 25th ranked farm system in baseball according to Baseball Prospectus. Right now, instead of looking for 1 or 2 headliners, it might be better for them to ask for a lot of the talented mid tier prospects that the Cubs have and attack through volume.

    It would likely take longer for those players to reach the majors, but the chances of having a few reach the majors and having a positive impact on their team go up. I wonder if Theo and Jed can sell a similar idea to Amaro.

    I hope we don't give up any of the top 4-5 guys in our system, if a trade even happens due to the reasons John mentioned above. Even if a trade doesn't happen, this does indicate that Theo and Jed are done with losing. They don't seem to care about getting a top 10 protected pick this year. At this point, it seems like the main goal is to get the current MLB team ready to compete next year, even if that means they "fall" out of the "top ten".

  • Why do they have to trade anyone? Offer to pick up the contract and see if Amaro Jr goes for it. If he doesnt there is nothing lost.

  • In reply to ChiTownD:

    Cole is a good player with a reasonable contract. No one is just going to walk away from that without getting more in return.

  • In reply to ChiTownD:

    They already did that simply by claiming him. The Phillies could've just let him go. They obviously didn't, so on to a trade attempt

  • I think we need to remember that Theo and company were willing to trade Hanley Ramirez for Beckett. I know other pieces were involved, but the point is they weren't afraid to unload a top ss prospect in order to receive a top notch starter (at the time).

  • In reply to David23:

    I'm wondering if they don't also revisit history and grow from their mistakes...

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Not sure what you mean by this since it wasn't a mistake to make that trade. Beckett did bring them a World Series title, correct? He was a star on the team as well.

  • In reply to David23:

    Look at the career value of the two players. I could be wrong but using hindsight bias, I find it hard to believe that value wise they'd make that trade again. I know I wouldn't

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Yes they would.. the positives from winning a world series financially is astronomically HUGE. They would do it every day of the week

  • In reply to David23:

    They also recieved Mike Lowell, a pretty good 3b at the time, who ended up being a valuable player in there WS run.

  • fb_avatar

    I'm taking this with an ocean of salt.

  • Beckett didn't cost them 90 million over 4 years.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    Times have changed in regards to pitching contracts. Also, the Cubs can afford that and still spend more.

  • In reply to David23:

    Beckett also wasn't turning 31 that year.

  • In reply to springs:

    Years 31-35 aren't bad years for an established #1. If so, don't go after Lester or Price in a year.

  • In reply to David23:

    Nothing wrong with going after a 31Yo TOR. Just dont give him a contract beyond 4 yrs. Less yrs/higher AAV.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to David23:

    Times have changed even more so in regards to high end prospects. Some people are treating them like they are not going to help the team if we keep them.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    It's more like $105 million over 4.25 years for Hamels including his club option buyout.

  • The interest in Castillo might make Almora somewhat expendable. Also, if the Phils acquire their CF of the future, they would possibly back off as a competitor for Castillo's services.

  • In reply to Ratmoss:

    Good point. I again like to see them buying assets with money vs players or picks.

  • What if a deal was expanded to include another dead weight salary, like Utley (anyone not named Howard)? Could taking on that burden along with all of Hamel's salary plus second tier prospects be enticing? I just don't see trading Russell or Bryant for a pitcher on the wrong side of the hill (isn't he 30 this year) AND a huge contract. The Price trade was underwhelming IMO, and I don't think we can just ignore that trade while talking about the Shark trade in cost. Better pitcher, same amount of control, different salary values...not to mention Hammels was more than just thrown in to get Russell. Yes, Hamels has a contract with 3-4 more years so that may make him more valuable. But when considering age & risk AND annual ave salary compared to Shark and Price...things change. And where Shark and Price didn't come with more years, they come with a comp pick.

    Most likely Philly waits until all the big names are off the board in FA. Of course by then, they may become delusional about their aging, expensive roster competing.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Utley has a no trade clause, yet another obstacle to jump through.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    Yeah but if you're Utley which losing team would you rather endure? And perhaps the cubs could pick up his whole salary and flip him to a contender.

    I just think they might have to be creative like that in order to make it hard on Amaro to say no. That could entice ownership to pressure him.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    I can't answer for Chase but there's some real pride in spending your whole career with one team. He has the money, he has the title, it adds to his legacy to be on one team.

    And it's not like he's going to get much playing time if he came to the Cubs.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    It's not up to Utley.. and we couldn't flip him.. his contract is too big for his production and age.. there is a reason couldn't trade him.. they tried desperately to.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to CubfanInUT:

    From what I understand they "shopped" him but asked for compensation commensurate with Chase Utley ca. 2007.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    Yes.. but the value they got offered was pretty much slim to none.. so they lose pretty much any trade.. his contract kills any chance of getting value back.. hence why we wouldn't even trade for him or want to trade for. Him

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    Which is why I said this in the post you responded to: "And perhaps the cubs could pick up his whole salary and flip him to a contender."

    See the "cubs could pick up his whole salary" part??

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    10/5 guy also. Can veto any trade. Same with Rollins. Amaro should have put these guys on the market last year.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    Interesting to think of adding the Cuban OF, Utley, Hamel and Lester. With Soler starting and later on Bryant.. That is a good roster even if it can't escape the first round of playoffs.

  • fb_avatar

    If we did I'm sure we're not going to part with any one of KB, Javy, JS, Russell or probably even AA and Amaro won't do a deal if anyone of those aren't involved so thus the deal won't happen.

  • In reply to James Knott:

    Well guess what for Ruben. He even breathes the names like Bryant, Baez, Russell, Soler and Almora then hang up the phone. Hope your ownership continues to enjoy losing and paying Hamels for being on a last place team.

  • fb_avatar

    The key question is what will Lester cost vs what you save in the Hammels contract. Then compare value of the prospects. For me it would not be worth any of our top four prospects-I consider them necessities. Can they cut a deal and make Castro a ptbnl?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Dale Miller:

    I'm greedy. I want them to acquire Hamels and Lester.

  • In reply to Mike Partipilo:

    +1

  • Wonder if they'd bite on Almora, CJ Edwards, McKinney. Thats a pretty juicey package.

  • I think this is more of a PR move. I like it, but nothing will happen.

  • In reply to less disappointed:

    The new name cracked me up. What does it change to if they acquire Hamels?

  • In reply to John Arguello:

    I have thought about that, and have decided at some point in the near future I will become "No longer Dissapointed".

  • In reply to less disappointed:

    John Maybe I should explain, my dissapointment is in the major league team. Not in the overall plan or the rebuild. I understand it and agree, but I am a fan. Not a fan that can root for my team to do bad, to tank. Even if that is in the best interest, it is just not in my heart. So I am dissapointed that Olt did not do better this year. I am dissapointed that Nate did not contribute, I thought he would. I am dissapointed that Lake did not continue to contribute at last years rate or somewhere close. I was dissapointed at the slow start by most of the team not named Castro and Rizzo. I was dissapointed that the cubs situation and Javy's slow start did not warrent an earlier call. I was hoping that the cubs would surprise to the upside in 14. In the last month it is fun again to root for Couglin and Valbuena and Alcantra and Hendricks and Wada and now Baez. So I am less dissapointed, and honestly if they win a few more games down the stretch and ruin their draft position in the process I will be no longer dissapointed. Even though I know logically that is not in the overall best interest. A constant battle between matters of the head and heart.

  • It seems lately that major league talent is at a premium in trades. Although the cubs don't have much on that level how about a package of Travis wood, almora, Christian Villanueva, mike olt, Szczer, and maybe another mid level prospect like vogelbach. This gives the phillies mlb talent with wood and talent close to mlb like Villanueva, olt, and Szczer. It would also gives the Phillies depth in a weak system with one potential star in almora. Is this to much, to little, or just right for hamels?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubsfan2783:

    Most, if not all of those guys wouldn't clear waivers. Of akll the names you mentioned, only Vocalburp and Villanueva are not on the 40 man roster. The rest would have to clear waivers in order to be traded.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cubsfan2783:

    "It seems to me lately that major league talent is at a premium in trades."

    It does? I don't consider what the Rays got for Price to be "premium." I think it sounded like they played brinksmanship and lost...big time. The Lester trade included almost exclusively majore leaguers. Looking at the significant trades this year only the the big names that went expressly did NOT take high end minor league talent (top-100 players). The only exceptios were the Shark-Hammel deal did, and I would guess that if Hammel had not been included Russell would have remained off the table and the Stro's acquiring Moran (top-50-75 prospect). It seems to me that lately that PROSPECTS are at a premium in trades. Many more big name major leaguers were dealt than high end prospects.

  • Suddenly I wish Baez was not rostered and taken off the table. I would rather lose him than Bryant, Russell or Soler.

    This is a pipe dream if we don't include one of them. Otherwise, dream on this starting package: Almora, Edwards, Vogelbach. That might not even do it. Might need 4 or 5 guys. Add PJohnson and McKinney? Okay, that feels like an overpay of five prospects in the 5-15 range, but...

    If we can dream up an overpay, then the deal is possible, right?

  • Hamels also has a no trade clause to the Cubs. I bet he would require the Cubs to pick up his 24 million option for 2019 to accept the trade. Just another factor. Its really not 90 million, but more like 114 million.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    If the deal hinges on that the Cubs can always say no and let him rot away in Philly if he wants to.

  • In reply to Cubmadness:

    I'd do that, if Hamels will agree to eliminate (or delay) the NTC - or at least reduce the number of teams listed.

  • It seems like the idea here is to send back guys who would not be subject to waivers.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to rsanchez11:

    Mostly because we are unlikely to be able to send back guys who are subject to waivers--or the Phillies won't take them.

  • What happened with hammels elbow? Didn't he come or of a game last week holding his elbow? As long as everything is ok with his arm I say give them Almora and Tseng or CJ. If the won't take it, deal is not going to work. No Russell and absolutely no Bryant.

  • In reply to IowaCubbie:

    That was not Hamel. It was Cliff Lee.

  • In reply to John57:

    Oh yeah, thanks!

  • fb_avatar

    A volume deal like we got for Garza-and I'm not saying Garza is the same level as Hammels-might work for both clubs.

  • fb_avatar

    How much more enticing would it be for Lester to sign if they already had Hamels? What TOR pitcher would sign here without another established veteran? I want both.

  • Wouldn't offer anything but secondary prospects.. no one in the top ten of the Cubs list. We can get a pitcher in free agency without giving up a prospect..

  • Russell and Bryant would be off limits to me. No one else though. But if they insist on one of those two I would rather just throw money as much money as it takes to get a Lester or Scherzer.

    I would offer one of Almora/Schwarber (I realize Schwarber would need to be a PTBNL but the Phillies could wait to choose between the two until next July if they wanted).

    And I would also give them the choice of 2 from the following group: Edwards/McKinney/Tseng/Vizcaino/Johnson

    And one from this group:
    Vogelbach/Black/Amaya/Hernandez/Villanueva/any other Rule 5 eligible player

    In other words a package of say Almora, Edwards, McKinney and Vogelbach seems reasonable.

  • Not sure why so many people want to include Addison Russell? Yes, Hamels is a better pitcher than Samardzija. However, he is on a more expensive contract with very little surplus value, he has no value to the Cubs this year, and his contract is longer (e.g. more risk), which is a big deal for the Cubs who are are buying value in future years and not for this year. Not saying the Phillies wouldn't expect that return, but if I'm the Cubs, I just not offering anything near that, which is why a deal probably won't happen.

  • fb_avatar

    I'm amazed by people thinking Cole Hamels is panacea. He's a good pitcher but even if we were to get him and Lester along with Arrietta, we need to improve our hitting even with the influx of prospects. As we've seen with Alcantara and now with Javy there is going to be an adjustment period.

    I'd prefer that we target an established hitter in his prime (nye impossible I know without overpaying).

  • In reply to James Knott:

    The problem here is that an established hitter in his prime will want a long-term contract. The Cubs don't want to sign someone who will block their own prospects, especially if it takes money from the payroll that could be used for pitching.

    If they could get an established hitter on a 2-3 year deal, I'd go for it - but that's highly unlikely.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Cliff1969:

    I know the best course of action is to just be patient with the youth and let them develop but people aren't going to want that now entering year 4 of the regime. I fear how people are going to react when they initially struggle however.

  • In reply to James Knott:

    Yeah, but I don't have a problem with a veteran outfielder to shore up the lineup and help chaperone the kiddies. I just wouldn't want a long-term contract that blocks one of the prospects.

  • In reply to James Knott:

    The Cubs have so many hitting prospects on the verge of coming up that they pretty much need to take a leap of faith that those guys will help form a competent offense. It may not work out, but at this point they are committed.

    It is starting pitching where we are weakest moving forward. That is the area that needs the focus.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mjvz:

    I know, it's just going to take a while.

  • I wouldn't pass Amaro making the trade for prospects -- even ones outside the top four. I was speaking to a friend of mine yesterday from the Philly area and he told me Amaro is getting slammed in the sports talk world. Everyone thinks he blew the trade deadline because he didn't make a deal.

  • NO, NO NO trading any of the big 3 for Hamels. We've come to far in the process to do that right now!

    We would be taking on $90 million in contract. Not much need to throw away our best prospects (AND take on a huge salary), when maybe a couple of lower level minor leaguers might get it done.

    Moving that huge salary, I would think, should be a big incentive for the Phillies right now. Getting a couple of Cub lower-level prospects should make it even sweeter.

  • In reply to DetroitCubFan:

    Agree. Why do this when you can avoid giving up top prospects and sign top pitching through FA? I don't like this talk at all.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Wild Bill:

    The price for free agent pitching is scaring the bejeezuz out of me. The talk is Lester is going to command $160 million/6 years and David Price $180/6 years the following year. At those prices Hamels seem like a bargain and you're so loaded with prospects that it doesn't hurt your development significantly. I know we're all speculating but I''m guessing the Cubs are eyeing a $120 million payroll while they contend. If you have to spend 2/3 of that on starting pitching you could be in a world of hurt.

  • fb_avatar

    I would only be willing to let go of Almora, CJ, and McKinney among the top 10. Add Amaya, Blackburn and Underwood. Maybe a couple IFA's.

    (Although if we take his whole contract they should HAVE TO take EJax for us)

    If they don't want that, kick rocks.

    I'm even tentative to move guys like Vogel & Hernandez.

    The people who think sending Russell away are INSANE. It isn't like trading Shark for Hamel's at all. Russell has the potential to be a 5+ WAR player for the next 10 years and Hamel's will be 31 before next season.

    I think this is a ridiculously huge long shot. Almost impossible.
    They wanted the Dodgers top 3 so I don't think salary relief is their priority.

    But a BIG NO to moving Russell or Bryant. Nonononono. NO.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Giffmo:

    I initially added Olt and Villanueva but remembered they're rostered guys.

    This us a TOUGH trade. I'm not going to hold my breath.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Are you SURE?

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    The Dodgers top 3 is not equivalent to the Cubs top 3. They also don't have the same depth. Seager, Pederson and Urias are on a plane with Soler, Almora and Schwarber not Bryant, Baez and Russell.

    Opening up conversations with that asking price is nowhere near as ridiculous as people make it out to be. I think the Phillies would have been willing to settle for one or two of those guys in the end, depending on what they felt about the secondary pieces the Dodgers could offer. It just seemed like LA made the decision that they are going to need some cheap entry level guys on their roster at some point in the future and chose to stand pat with the rotation they have since they are going to make the playoffs anyway. Kershaw/Grienke/Ryu is more than enough for a playoff rotation.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to mjvz:

    They don't have the depth but the Dodgers top guys are very good.

    Obviously not as good as the cubs top three but I don't think they are that far off. Seager will be elite at 3B. Plus defense with very good power. Probably the 2nd best 3B prospect behind Bryant.

    Urias is 17 freakin years old and in high-A. It's very tough to compare the kid, but he's extremely advanced. He might be in triple-A by the time his US peers are being drafted.

    Pederson is pretty good too. IMO somewhere between Soler and Schwarber... But closer to Soler on that scale.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    Agree on Russell. The Cubs will probable trade one of Russell, Baez, or Castro for pitching at some point in the future, because there is only so many positions to put players regardless of talent. I think Bryant has a claim on 3rd at this point.

  • In reply to Giffmo:

    If they don't want that, kick rocks......

    I don't know why, but that makes me chuckle...

  • I think they should offer Edwards ,Chrisrian Villanueva and mike olt and watkins.

  • In reply to cubs82:

    Olt would have to make it through waivers first.

  • I agree with John. Any deal that would include Bryant or Russell is a non-starter.

    But I would like to see the Cubs make a concerted effort here. For me, the Cubs offer a deal around Albert Almora, Billy McKinney, and Pierce Johnson. I know it doesn't offer one of the Core 5 players but for the Phillies but they get one Top 30 prospect in Almora, 3 Top 12 Cubs prospects overall. I'd be willing to add Candelario, Villanueva, Caratini, Vogelbach if needed for sweetner. They already have a strong 3B prospect in Franco and SS prospect in Crawford. So the OF/SP package by the Cubs would give them more depth in areas they are lacking. In short, Phillies get a better return than the Rays got for Price and get out of a long-term contract who will be 31 by the end of the year and who has had recent injury problems and allows them to rebuild quickly.

    For the Cubs, its a considerable financial risk and it dips into their prospect wealth but this is the reason why you accumulate such prospects. It will be tough to watch Almora become an All-star in another uniform but its the price of getting a TOR pitcher. As for Hamels, he's what the Cubs need atop a rotation. The contract is big, the age is not ideal and there is an injury history but getting a Hamels thrusts the Cubs in division and maybe even playoff contention next year.

  • In reply to ripiceman:

    That seems like too high a price for Hamels (from the Cubs perspective).

    Nobody is trading 4-5 top 15 prospects AND taking on a 90 million salary for one TOR pitcher. As you said, the age factor and injury history are things to consider when giving up so much for one pitcher. I like Hamels for the Cubs...but not at that price.

    David Price came a lot cheaper than that.

  • I'm not sure why people don't think that a former world series mvp and Jon Lester wouldn't immediately make our team a contender. This year, with Hammel and Shark pitching well we were a good team on a roll. You add these two to the mix and Baez, Bryant, Alcantra to the lineup? Even if only two of these guys hit with Castro and Rizzo, the team is competing. The central is prime for the taking. The Cardinals lineup is getting old and no proven RBI bats. The Pirates have the pitching, but where's the offense coming from? The Brewers will crash and burn this year and they have Gallardo, Garza, and Lohse going forward? The Reds are good, but very beatable. With Straily, Arrieta, possibly Turner and all the young pen arms there's no reason this team can't compete next year.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubsfan77:

    things aren't that easy. Marte and Polanco might develop into stars. The Cardinals are sure to pull out a highly productive hitter out of nowhere. In your scenario no one on the Cubs gets hurt, Rizzo and Castro perform at the same high level and two of the top prospects perform, what if only one does or none does.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to James Knott:

    Oscar Taveras scares me long term and the Cardinals just know how to do things right. I do think with some pitching that the Cubs can compete starting in 2015 but dismissing St. Louis never makes sense.

  • In reply to TC421:

    True, but one thing about the yardbirds is that Molina has been the glue on that club for the last decade. Once hes gone hed be tough to replace and most of there topend prospects are OFs. And they dont have Luhnow there anymore, the guy who drafted most of the talent when they had there run.

  • In reply to cubsfan77:

    Agreed that we could be competitive next year and we need to push hard when TOR become available. I do expect some inconsistency given the youth movement, but there is no reason to exclude a run at NL Central if we have the pitching.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to cubsfan77:

    On a roll? We have been in last place all year. All the pitching in the world doesn't change the fact that our offense us terrible, which is why trading potential offensive superstars is insanity for us.

  • Honestly saving around $25 million over 5 years, by getting Hamels over Lester isn't really that enticing if you have to give up a top prospect. We have payroll flexibility, $5 million a year will be a drop in the bucket, if they actually start winning again (not to mention I feel like Russell is worth more than $25 million even with the risk involved). You have to remember, the Cubs payroll was between $120-140 million from 2008-2011. Even with the debt structure of Ricketts buying the team, the Cubs will have enough money. They have less than $50 million total committed for next year ($31 million + arbitration and minimum salary players). They should be able to push the payroll to $100 million if needed and by the time the new tv deal kicks in and the stadium renovations are done by 2019, I wouldn't be surprised for the Cubs to increase spending back to 2008-2011 levels.

  • I offer Amora, CJ, Vogelbach and a sweetener of Olt/Villenueva. Give the Pillies 5minutes to take or leave it.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to 44slug:

    I'm certainly no GM, but the 5 minute window doesn't sound like operating within the bounds of good faith to me.

  • In reply to Daniel Svendsen:

    Rhetorical

  • fb_avatar

    Just a technical note guys: PTBNLs have to be agreed upon within 6 months of the deal. That means Schwarber can't be included in any trades.

  • If the question is do you want Cole to be a Cub? My answer is yes. However, I would not include any of the core asserts. Almora, Bryant, Russell etc...those would be non starters for me. Especially with what David Price went for. I understand that cole has a long term contract but he is also older. Plus the fact that we can sign Lester or scherzer for money and a second rounder. Let's see how motivated amaro is to make a deal. To me the Cubs are in the cat birds seat. They don't need to make this deal. Maybe amaro does. I have full confidence in this FO. Let's have some faith that if there is a deal to be made Theo and Jed will make it without giving up our core assets. Theo and Jed play chess, amaro plays checkers. I'm all in..

  • In reply to Naf023:

    If Amaro's job is on the line that's more reason not to trade his ace for prospects that will maybe help out in a couple years.

  • Asked Dave Cameron @ fangraphs what he would give up for hamels if he was the Cubs GM.. He replied "not much".

  • No to trading Russell. Just because we (probably) robbed somebody doesn't mean we should turn around and allow someone to rob us.

    Hamels makes a lot of money and he's over 30.
    All they get is 2nd tier for him.

  • fb_avatar

    Getting a late start today but I really thought it was the Cubs that put in a claim on Hamels.

    But with this claim most fans immediately get all flustered about which players the Cubs would have to give up. And not so much at that contract of Hamels. In my opinion Ruben Amaro, Jr. has created a total nightmare for that organization. They are handcuffed with too many high salaries with a need to infuse some young cheaper talent. They might even need to rebuild no matter what they say in the media.

    I love when Ruben Amaro told everyone that the money wasn't an issue. Really? Money is ALWAYS an issue. Then there are issues about other guys that they are hooked into for big money and just stink up the place, like Ryan Howard. And how much longer is Jimmy Rollins just gonna get a pass? The gut is way past his prime and will be about 64 years old next season (ok may he'll be 36).

    The Cubs are in a position to take advantage here or simply walk away. We have loads of cash and could be a very big point in negotiations. They need relief and we can offer that relief.

    Next, we know they will need players as well. But I don't see any reason the Cubs need to put Bryant, Baez, Russell or Soler on the table. Remember the Cubs don't need to make this trade as much as Philly needs a change. We are on the upswing and Philly is losing more ground each year they hold on for dear life.

    So I simply give them a list that includes guys like Almora and Vogelbach. We know a guy like Almora would have to be a center piece. Vogelbach is blocked here but very well may find a spot in Philly so that makes him more attractive to Philly. But I might throw in a guy like Pierce Johnson or Corey Black. And if a 4th guy is needed maybe a Marco Hernandez simply because he would probably be lost anyway.

    I give them a taste of that offer and if they take it AND Cole Hamels agrees then we get it done. After that Price trade took place I think this is more than fair. But if any of these variables fall thru, no biggie, we move on to the winter meetings where more deals can get done.

    No need to freak out. And for the record, I am in the boat that believe the Cubs will make the playoffs in 2015 with or without Cole Hamels. I don't think we win it all but it will be a giant step forward next year!

  • I like Rosenthals point.

    "If #Phillies want to move Hamels, they probably would be better off waiting until off-season, when they could engage 29 teams, not just one."

    They're not going to blink with any offer where they don't get exactly what they want.

    Even if they like an offer, chances are it will be on the table during the off-season, and then you have 28 other teams who you can talk to that can potentially drive the price up and get a better deal.

    There's going to be at least 4 heavy bidders for starters in free agency (Red Sox, Cubs, Yankees, Mariners). With only two elite starters, teams are going to lose out. It's in the Phillies best interest to use that panic that ensues to get what they want.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    The leverage the Cubs have is any pressure the Phils GM feels to make a splash, even if it's just a salary dump /prospect raid.

    If Amaya feels like standing pat could cost his job we might have a chance

  • In reply to rsanchez11:

    Giving away his ace for A subpar return isn't going to exactly rally the city around him.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    "when they could engage 29 teams"

    Except there won't be 29 teams, #1. Not many teams can afford his salary. I'd say at most 10 teams. #2 from everything I've read, no other team even claimed him. Maybe it was solely because they thought a chance of trade was zero %, I don't know. But nonetheless interesting.

    But yeah. Expanding the market is always a good idea.

  • In reply to cubbie steve:

    I think we all know that every team couldn't afford him. That really didn't need to be pointed out.

  • fb_avatar

    I would not give up much talent with Scherzer, Lester and Masterson free agents this offseason (with only Scherzer costing a draft pick). Hamels contract may be slightly less $ and less years, but he is older and has a limited no-trade. So it's kind of a push, but a bird in the hand...

    So I see a second round pick as the ceiling as far as talent. I could see that increasing if the Phillies are willing to take back Edwin Jackson and/or Schierholtz.

  • How does the PTBNL work? Can the cubs say we trade you a PTBNL, set a date of like Nov 1, then put a bunch of names on that list without sending them through waivers? For instance, can the cubs put castro on the list, and simply trade castro to them in Nov (not saying they would, just as an example)?

  • I don't think Hammels is going to work out unless the Phillies are more interested in a salary dump than prospects. Is Hammels better than the available free agents? Let me rephrase that.....Will Hammels be better than the available free agents this and next off-season? If the answer is no, then we do not want to give up anything significant to sign him when we can do the same thing without the loss of prospects. We are not a contender one TOR pitcher away from the WS. There is no way this front office gives a deadline type deal to these guys. Just keep repeating after me. We are not desperate, we are not desperate, we ARE NOT DESPERATE! Maybe we will be desperate at the deadline next year. We can only hope! But right now I don't give up any of our top 6 or 7 prospects.

  • In reply to Bilbo161:

    I toally agree . I would not mortgage the farm for Hamels . Best I go is Billy McKinney, Dan Vogelbach , C. J. Edwards, and Christian Villanueva or Jacob Hannemann

  • The Cubs have to signal to big FA's that they are ready to contend, so could this simply be a PR move to that effect? It's also worth a conversation since Hamels would be perfect for the Cubs right now, and the Phils have a horrible farm system.

  • fb_avatar

    Or it could just be a move to block other teams down the line.... A deal could happen but at this point there just seems to be too many variables that need to be met...

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Maybe not so much to block others but to force the Phillies to deal with us or wait till the offseason. The Phillies should be thrilled that a team full of prospects is the one that claimed him. I'm hoping the Cubs make a shrewd deal here and get him for secondary prospects but not holding my breath.

  • fb_avatar

    To me, the Phillies are either looking for prospects or salary relief. If they're looking for salary relief, they get middle of the road prospects. If they're looking for prospects, I trust the FO will offer a package that they feel is more valued to the Phillies than the Cubs. Realistically, though, I don't see a deal getting done.

  • In reply to Darren Bizarri:

    Just a week ago they were looking for both.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    That's true but if they couldn't find anyone desperate enough to bite then, they won't now. Their expectations have to come down for them to move him. Right now it's the Phillies that are he desperate ones in my mind.

  • In reply to Bilbo161:

    The Cubs asked for the moon starting last July and didn't budge on moving Shark and it worked in their favor.

    Just because teams don't meet their price doesn't mean they will panic or they are desperate.

  • In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    other teams don't have as good a FO as the Cubs though. Comparing apples and oranges when comparing Amaro JR to the Cubs brass...

  • In reply to Pappy:

    Amaro Jr has shown a reluctancy to make deals unless he gets what he wants. I don't think that changes in a week.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    And how's that worked out for him? It's a total cluster f#$k in Philly right now. And I gotta believe that Amaro will be gone soon no matter what he does..... Just another angle to think about....

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Panicking and trading away his ace to try to salvage a lost cause isn't going to get him a job in the future.

    He'll go down in flames, he's not going to pour more gasoline on himself.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmie Ward:

    It worked because the Cubs jumped the market. That's two years in a row they got ahead of others and got the best deal. I doubt the Cubs get the same deal if Lester was traded before the Cubs deal....

  • I like Hamels. A lot. But for what its worth, the thought of losing Almora makes my a little queasy. Yes, his numbers are off this year, but having seen him play enough, and believing strongly in his make up, I think he is the real deal. Six months ago, most here and in the national scouting community thought pretty highly of the guy, and aside from a slip in his numbers that seems explainable by an adjustment period and the personal issues (we hear) he has had to deal with, this is the same guy we all loved before. I realize that some think McKinney makes him expendable, but I haven't heard anyone credible state that McKinney can play CF like Albert. We are a fickle bunch.

  • In reply to JerryMartin28:

    I don't disagree that Almora could be invaluable. The question is whether a 30+ year old Hamels is more valuable.

  • Amaro doesn't believe in prospects.. lol

  • In reply to CubfanInUT:

    :)

  • Is there a book on how easy or dificult it is to deal with MLB front office teams? When I think of Amaro, I think of a guy who will say anything even if obviously untrue just to support whatever point he is trying to make. Fickle is a word that comes to mind.

  • What about Travis Wood? Wouldn't they be interested in him? Something like Wood, Alcantara, Vogelbach, and McKinney. That should be in the ball park right? A former all star, a top 35 prospect, a first round pick, and a second round pick. And we eat his entire contract.

  • In reply to DeuceBaseman:

    Lester, Hamels, Arrieta, Hendricks, and Turner/Jackson/Straily/Doubront would be a great rotation.

  • In reply to DeuceBaseman:

    No chance that Alcantara clears waivers. Wood not likely either.

  • Amaro is under heat. In the words of Judge Smails, "You'll get nothing and like it!" We take the salary and you get no one, or you can wait until the winter. I would say same for Turner. Personally I wouldn't from a advantageous position, unless it's truly from depth and low level that won't help within 2 years.

  • In reply to CWilli:

    What does trading away his ace for pieces that are years away from potentially contributing do for his job security?

    Nothing.

    Under that scenario he'll wait until winter. The Cubs are in no position to strong arm the Phillies into accepting a deal.

  • fb_avatar

    OT: A waiver question. What if the Cubs wanted to make a trade with the Rockies. Let's just pretend that they wanted to trade Tulo for Castro. They would, of course, put them on the waiver wire. Make the appropriate claims and then complete the trade? Or could other teams "block" the trade?

    Not saying it is a good idea but just wondering how the rules would apply in this instance.

  • In reply to Joel Mayer:

    They could make the trade.

  • fb_avatar

    Jayson Stark ‏@jaysonst 3m

    More fodder for the Hamels-to-Cubs rumors: Sources say Cubs ARE on his approved trade list. Turns out Red Sox are NOT on that list

  • In reply to bocabobby:

    Well, that is interesting. One less hurdle to worry about.

  • fb_avatar

    Yeah I agree with the sentiments of most on here. Don't see a deal going down. Amaro's expectations are for multiple impact players for Hamels. He demanded impact talent for Marlon Byrd. So I think the Cubs will pass. On a side note the Phillies have to blow this team up. The longer they wait the worse the rebuild will be. They should of traded vets like 3 years ago. It's gonna be ugly when they finally do.

  • Wow. Ok, I'm with most everyone that I would NOT include the top 4, i.e Byant, Russell, Baez, Soler....but with the news thatthe Cubs are serious and that they are on Hamels approved list I could actually see this deal going through. Considering that Alcantara fits so nicely with his speed and dynamic play at the top of the order, as well as his ability to play a very good CF (he will get better and better), I would create a package around Almora. Add in our top 2 closest to MLB ready starting pitchers, CJ Edwards & Pierce Johnson, both in AA, and perhaps a 3rd in Black (AA). I would add in Villanueva a top 100 prospect not more than a year and a half ago who still plays quality MLB caliber defense, and is only 23 which actually age appropriate for AA.

    Cole Hamels for Albert Almora, CJ Edwards, Pierce Johnson, Christian Villanueva, and Cory Black

    I think that is a solid package for both sides. Almora was top 20 preseason. Edwards was top 30-50, Johnson top 100, Villanueva former top 100, and Black a solid double-A arm that can hit triple digits.

  • Wondering if eating Papelbon might be part of a trade. I know the Phillies aren't a small market team but getting out from under that contract must have some appeal. And although I'm not a fan of Papelbon, I wouldn't exactly hate having him.

  • John, could you free me from the spam filter, I have a comment caught it seems. Thanks in advance.

  • In reply to Ghost Dawg:

    Never mind, it doesn't matter anymore as Mooney just reported it's not going to happen

  • I need a little more info on Cole. How old is he? Still has 3-4 years left on contract. His stat line. Right now my gut doesn't want to dive up Russell or Almora in a deal. I don't want to take on 22.5 million a year. Where does Cole rank with the
    FA available this winter???

  • @CSNMooney reporting that Cubs will not complete deal for Hamels, per major league official.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to lblegacy:

    I saw that and had to chuckle. Not because I really want to see Hamels in a Cubs uniform but more because of how misguided the Phillies are. They will pull him back and wait til winter. This winter they will try to deal him again still thinking someone will pay the huge price.

    It's not how things work now. Organizations put a higher and higher premium on their prospects. No one wants to mortgage the future on a 31 year old pitcher that plays every 5th game. Hamels just isn't worth that price.

    So Philly's FO will try to sell the idea that they are still close to winning it all. That's just laughable, imo. They end up keeping Hamels to start the season and by the All-Star game next season they are once again in last place. Not to mention all their players just got a year older.

    The moves they need to make should have been made 3 years ago alongside of the Cubs. Amaro is slowly working himself into a seat next to Jim Bowden...... lol

Leave a comment