Cole Hamels

[clone52]

I know there have been rumblings with the Phillies trading Cole Hamels.  I was curious what people thought of the Twins going after him.  Its a given that the Twins aren't going to go after Lester or Scherzer.  The front office won't want to commit to 6 or 7 years of them, and the price tag is probably going to be around $25 million.

 

However, Hamels is the same age as Scherzer and Lester.  He's a left hander.  His stats are nearly as good as Lester and Scherzer.

 

From the Twins perspective, he would only be a 4 year commitment at $22.5 million/year.  He has a 5th year option that vests for $24 million if he pitches 400 innings in year 3 and 4.  The cost is high, but not as high as Lester and Scherzer.  The time commitment is 2 years less (maybe 3).  That right there is a difference of $50 million committed to one player.

 

So lets say the Twins decide the deal is right.  What would people be willing to give up for a deal?  The Phillies want 2 premier young players, plus another piece or 2.  Would the Twins be willing to deal Buxton or Sano?  Probably not, but there really isn't much else that I wouldn't throw into a trade?  For the 2 premier young players, I consider 2 of the following:  Dozier, Arcia, Vargas, May, Meyer, Santana, Gibson.  They have enough depth in the minors that they could throw in enough pieces to make it work.

 

Who would make this deal:  Dozier, Vargas, May, Thorpe?  I think I would.  To get the deal done, i'd probably swap Stewart for Thorpe if they wanted it.

 

That trade doesn't even hurt the Twins much.  Short term, you put Escobar at 2B until Polanco is ready or maybe Rosario can go back there.  Vargas looks like he's going to be a great player, but getting rid of him free's up the DH spot for Arcia or Josmil Pinto.  That would create more holes in the OF, but they could work with that.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

All of the rumors I've read regarding Phillies players is that the GM over there has been asking for a ton in return - I think the Twins could really use Cole Hamels in the rotation - my guess is that they can't afford the prospects it would take for Amaro to agree to the trade. I say that only because I get the sense from the Red Sox pursuit of Hamels that the Phillies want more than the Red Sox are willing to deal. I don't know that the Phillies really want to trade Hamels away, it would probably take a serious overpay to get him. I'm not sure that any team would mortgage their farm system enough to shake him loose.

[clone52]

All of the rumors I've read regarding Phillies players is that the GM over there has been asking for a ton in return - I think the Twins could really use Cole Hamels in the rotation - my guess is that they can't afford the prospects it would take for Amaro to agree to the trade. I say that only because I get the sense from the Red Sox pursuit of Hamels that the Phillies want more than the Red Sox are willing to deal. I don't know that the Phillies really want to trade Hamels away, it would probably take a serious overpay to get him. I'm not sure that any team would mortgage their farm system enough to shake him loose.

 

What I'm kind of saying is that the Twins can probably afford to overpay, prospect wise, without mortgaging their farm system.

 

Vargas probably isn't a good fit for them, though.  Also, I think Hamels has a big no trade clause and doesn't want to pitch in the American League, so it probably can't happen.

 

For sake of argument, lets say the Phillies are able to unload Ryan Howard and move Chase Utley to first base.  Could they turn down a deal of Dozier, May, Berrios and Kepler?  Would that be devastating to the Twins?

[Brock Beauchamp]

For sake of argument, lets say the Phillies are able to unload Ryan Howard and move Chase Utley to first base.  Could they turn down a deal of Dozier, May, Berrios and Kepler?  Would that be devastating to the Twins?

For Cliff Lee? I wouldn't trade Brian Dozier straight up for Cliff Lee at this point. 

[clone52]

For Cliff Lee? I wouldn't trade Brian Dozier straight up for Cliff Lee at this point. 

 

Cole Hamels, not Cliff Lee.

[Major League Ready]

Horrible idea.  The Twins would be mortgaging their future to become a 500 team (maybe).  Even the contenders are very reluctant to give up the required cost in prospects.  Why on earth would any rebuilding team make such a move.  The answer is ... They would not and there is absolutely no way the Twins FO is giving this 2 seconds of consideration. 

[Halsey Hall]

I agree with MLR, no way.  We keep these prospects and let 2015 fall where it may.  There's better days ahead after this season. 

[Willihammer]

I like the idea as a realistic alternative to signing a 7/200 contract for a pitcher of Jon Lester's caliber, or for giving up way to much talent to acquire a ~24 year old cost controlled potential stud like Shelby Miller. Bear with me...

 

On the one hand, Hamels is owed a lot of money, but that should lower the Phillies' asking price in terms of tradeable talent. But he isn't owed so much money that it should put him out of the Twins' price range (OK maybe its not that realistic). He's the ace that splits the difference between a high FA price and a high talent price.

 

He does have a history with his left shoulder that's worrisome. But, Hamels has still started 30+ games for 6 straight seasons, and his velo is actually trending upwards.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

One sticking point is that the Twins would want to be in playoff contention to make a big hit on the farm for just one guy coming back. The Phillies would be looking for a lot of young cost controlled talent.  

 

The Twins have a fairly deep system, this is true. It's hard to say what the Phillies would covet from the Twins org - I think they'd want guys that could thrive in Philly, so a guy like Vargas (or even Sano) might not be their first choice because the NL has a greater need for positional flexibility.

 

I think the Twins would want more than one player to come back to trade away that much talent at once. I could see them going for Hamels in exchange for that list if the Phils also included another ML player. I'm not sure there's a match there, and Hamels would have to agree to the trade.

 

It's worth a discussion just because the Twins could really use an ace like Hamels.

[ashbury]

There are very few trades I'd be interested in, at this stage of the rebuild.  And this is not one of them.  Talent acquisition, not talent reallocation, is where the focus should remain IMO.

[clone52]

Horrible idea.  The Twins would be mortgaging their future to become a 500 team (maybe).  Even the contenders are very reluctant to give up the required cost in prospects.  Why on earth would any rebuilding team make such a move.  The answer is ... They would not and there is absolutely no way the Twins FO is giving this 2 seconds of consideration. 

 

You're probably right.  The reason the Twins might make that move is that it would give them a bonafide Ace for 4 or 5 years.  Maybe Meyer or Berrios becomes that Ace, but if not, the Twins aren't going to have one.

[Willihammer]

There are very few trades I'd be interested in, at this stage of the rebuild.  And this is not one of them.  Talent acquisition, not talent reallocation, is where the focus should remain IMO.

What if there were a prospect - Alex Meyer, maybe, who the Phillies were very high on and the Twins were not?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Cole Hamels, not Cliff Lee.

Derp. I was thinking Hamels and typed Lee for some reason.

 

Still, the point stands. Hamels is a very good pitcher but he's over 30 years old and is owed a boatload of money. Trading one very good MLB player, one excellent prospect, and two middling prospects sounds like a terrible idea to me.

 

Hamels is still owed over $100m. At that point, why not buy James Shields and keep all those prospects?

[TheLeviathan]

They should ask.  As Willihammer pointed out, sometimes other teams don't share your qualms about a player's warts and they value them more than you do.  

 

Hamels is young enough and under enough control to make the idea interesting.

[clone52]

Derp. I was thinking Hamels and typed Lee for some reason.

 

Still, the point stands. Hamels is a very good pitcher but he's over 30 years old and is owed a boatload of money. Trading one very good MLB player, one excellent prospect, and two middling prospects sounds like a terrible idea to me.

 

Hamels is still owed over $100m. At that point, why not buy James Shields and keep all those prospects?

 

Its an interesting debate.  I can't blame anyone for wanting to keep prospects.

 

However, Hamels is only guarenteed $90 million over 4 years.  If he pitches 400 innings in the last 2 years, he gets $24 million in a 5 year.  If he's pitching that much in years 3 and 4, he probably is doing pretty darn good.

 

Shields is 2 years older than Hamels.  If you sign him, you will be paying him until he is 36 years old.  If you have Hamels, you are only paying him until he is 33 or 34 years old.  Hamels is the better pitcher and less risky because of age.

 

Hamels does cost the Twins prospects, but the Twins just can't hoard all these prospects.  Eventually they have to use them.  They can't use them all in the majors either.  At some point they will probably trade some prospects for major league upgrades.  This is one of those times I think it would be worth looking into.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It really depends on prospects included... For pretty obvious reasons, I'd be unwilling to give up one of Berrios, Meyer, Sano, or Buxton.

 

If you can get it done without one of those guys - which is extremely unlikely - then hell yeah, I'd explore that deal.

[clone52]

It really depends on prospects included... For pretty obvious reasons, I'd be unwilling to give up one of Berrios, Meyer, Sano, or Buxton.

 

If you can get it done without one of those guys - which is extremely unlikely - then hell yeah, I'd explore that deal.

 

My original proposals were on the high end, but why would you be unwilling to make Berrios or Meyer the centerpiece of a trade for a Ace pitcher.  The Twins are hoping one of them becomes an Ace, so why not use one of them to go out and get an Ace?

[markos]

The Twins have numerous holes in their roster, so if they are willing to commit $90MM over the next 4 years, they could find lots ways to spend that money in the free agent market that would have roughly the equivalent impact as adding Hamels. Just take the money, spend it in the free agent market, and keep the prospects. For example, I can't imagine that over the next 4 years Cole Hamels - (Dozier, Vargas, May, Thorpe) > James Shields. 

 

The Twins are not in a position to be sacrificing future talent for present wins, because the present doesn't look great, and the future is much brighter. I would rather have them hold on to the prospects and make a trade for next year's version of Hamels. Unless a team is in a position where they have a very specific need that can only be met in the trade market, it doesn't make a lot of sense to trade a lot of talent for a player that is being paid at or near the market rate (though on the other hand, trades allow a team to get around the pesky problem of actually convincing the player to sign with them).

[Brock Beauchamp]

My original proposals were on the high end, but why would you be unwilling to make Berrios or Meyer the centerpiece of a trade for a Ace pitcher.  The Twins are hoping one of them becomes an Ace, so why not use one of them to go out and get an Ace?

Because there's a good chance that Hamels won't continue pitching like an ace and will settle into being a "pretty good #2", being that he's going into his age 31 season. Or maybe he'll flame out entirely (which is also possible for Meyer/Berrios, though having two prospects of that calibre reduces the overall risk and reliance on one pitcher breaking into stardom).

 

Teams don't build long term contenders by trading away potential aces for shorter-term aging aces. Build the core, then go get the pieces you need to push the team to elite status.

 

If the Twins are going to top the AL Central for 3-4 years, they'll do it based on success stories from the farm. Hamels is great if you want to round out a staff but the core of the team will come from the farm, not trades.

[ashbury]

What if there were a prospect - Alex Meyer, maybe, who the Phillies were very high on and the Twins were not?

Right now, with the changing of the guard on the coaching side, is not when I'd make a trade of an advanced prospect, since you mention Meyer specifically.  Let Allen and Guardado form their opinions which probably will take all spring.

 

Of course no one is off the table if the offer is good enough, and it comes down to the Twins' talent evaluators to decide that for me.  That the Twins have "invested" a lot in Meyer isn't by itself a reason to not trade. 

 

But I'm more of the opinion that we should be acquiring talent via free agency - if we are willing to take on a contract of the size of Hamels', we should stretch farther for one of the top guys that cost no players in return. I'd feel differently if the payroll were closer to the assumed maximum.

 

One thing I do like about a proposal like this is that it reverses the direction of recent trades where we receive multiple suspects instead of one good prospect (though Eduardo Escobar has panned out).  The Meyer trade being an exception to that pattern.

[USAFChief]

I think you trade minor leaguers for major leaguers just about any time it makes you better for the next couple years.

 

Beyond that, you are completely guessing about both the minor leaguers and the major leaguers, so why not take the relatively sure thing for the short term?

 

If Sano and a couple C prospects would get it done, do it.

 

If Berios and a couple C prospects get it done, do it.

[ashbury]

Beyond that, you are completely guessing about both the minor leaguers and the major leaguers,

One of us will have to infract the other if this turns into a lengthy tangent.   But I think forecasting has improved a lot in the past couple of decades, at least for teams who give it a serious go, and while you can't predict individually which player will suffer an injury or will simply flame out, the smart money can decide which side to come down on a lot better than before, on where players will be in a couple of years.  Apologies in advance if I'm overstating what you mean by "completely guessing"

[USAFChief]

If you can't predict which players will flame out, then I'm not sure forecasting has gotten all that much better.

 

And I agree...you can't predict which players will flame out, with any reasonable level of certainty.

 

So in general, I prefer the more sure thing. To me it's about winning major league games, this season. If you trade Berrios for Hamels, and need another pitcher in 4 years because Hamels fell off a cliff, well you've had four years for your minor leagues to produce another pitcher roughly equivelant to Berrios, which should be doable.

[Thrylos]

I'd rather see the Twins go after Jordan Zimmermann (and sign him to an extension,) than Hamels.   I have seen a bit too much of Hamels over here to know that he is really inconsistent.

[USAFChief]

I'd rather see the Twins go after Jordan Zimmermann (and sign him to an extension,) than Hamels.   I have seen a bit too much of Hamels over here to know that he is really inconsistent.

Last five years:

 

ERA: 3.06, 2.79, 3.05, 3.60, 2.46

 

IP: 208, 216, 215, 220, 204

 

FIP: 3.67, 3.05, 3.30, 3.26, 3.07

 

What sort of inconsistency were you observing?

[Major League Ready]

I would like to see some examples of other rebuilding teams trading top prospects for a player that profiles like Hamels, especially a player amongst the league's highest paid players.  No way this move puts them in contention which means it has little revenue impact and you just flushed $80+ million.  This is not a move that would be seriously contemplated by anyone who has ever managed decisions involving this type of money.  

 

It is also not just the profit.  Lower revenue teams have to produce for lack of a better measure more WAR per dollar spent.  Therefore, productive low cost assets (players) are crucial.  Taking on more of these types of deals while trading away assets that are our highest probability in terms of WAR is fundamentally unproductive, even counterproductive in terms of constructing a contender.  Various sources produced metrics showing the salary structure by percentage of contending teams.  As I recall, none of them had a player that represented 18% of payroll.  To suggest that it is a good idea to have two players around that percentage is really sticking your head in the sand.     

[USAFChief]

Well, I'm not interested in winning the "WAR per dollar" pennant.

 

I prefer the AL pennant.

[old nurse]

Well, I'm not interested in winning the "WAR per dollar" pennant.

 

I prefer the AL pennant.

Which you will not get with 2 players taking 36% of your payroll

[USAFChief]

Which you will not get with 2 players taking 36% of your payroll

Then double your payroll, problem solved.

[ashbury]

This is not a move that would be seriously contemplated by anyone who has ever managed decisions involving this type of money.  ...  To suggest that it is a good idea to have two players around that percentage is really sticking your head in the sand.     

Moderator's note: Please make your points without blatant disrespect for others who do not share your view.  The fact that a Hamels trade is being discussed on MLBTR suggests there is room for varying opinion.