Cole Hamels

[ashbury]

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.   

Having asked for mutual respect, I'll now take off my moderator's cap and agree that (IMO) it's problematic to consider trading multiple top prospects for Hamels, as the original poster in this thread suggested and the discussion has evolved.  I took a look at the MLBTR thread about Hamels, and I see that even the Phillies FO has backed off from this demand (if indeed they ever expected so much):

 

A team source rejected the prevailing view that Philadelphia is asking potential trade partners for two or three of their best prospects. Instead, the team has been in a stance of asking for offers on their star lefty.

 

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2014/11/latest-on-cole-hamels-2.html

 

Does that change the terms of this present discussion sufficiently?  Would you trade a top prospect (read Buxton or Sano, probably) plus a couple of throw-ins, for Hamels?  I still would not; as I said before, if I found Hamels' contract palatable, I'd instead go after an even higher priced FA and keep my prospects.  But it's not preposterous to mull it.

[USAFChief]

I would also prefer to sign a FA equivalent. I just doubt it's a realistic possibility. Of course, the same might be said about a trade of this magnitude.

[ashbury]

I would also prefer to sign a FA equivalent. I just doubt it's a realistic possibility. Of course, the same might be said about a trade of this magnitude.

Agreed, and my actual preference is to go after mid-level talent, priced around $10M, up to the payroll budget that management says isn't even ... oh never mind, this isn't about Hamels now.

[Physics Guy]

I agree that we shouldn't be trading multiple top prospects when similar money (but more years) gets the job done in FA.

[minnesota transplant]

The future is the future, not now.  I dont think we have what the Phils want, OK maybe we do but do you want to throw them away to improve yourself to a 50-50 team when these guys could put you in contention in a year or two.

[kab21]

I would easily trade Meyer or Berrios with any 2 of our 10-20 prospects.  The money is trivial.  If it doesn't go to Hamels then it will go to more guys like Nolasco or simply not be spent.  The Twins are in a position to have a majority of the offense making the MLB minimum even if they add a FA.  When you have that you have a lot of payroll flexibility until you piss it away on average at best players. 

 

Hamels is awesome and would give the Twins a formidable rotation instead of the current mess.  Yes, one pitcher makes that big of a difference for the Twins.

[nicksaviking]

Cole Hammels would be a great addition to the 2005-2010 Twins.  A Twins team that is contending but short an ace to compete in the postseason would be a great acquistion.

 

As it stands, a team that plans on staying in the bottom tier of payroll and still trying to identify which players will help them in the future, it's a bad move.  The Twins need to do everything they can to make their own Cole Hammels, Jon Lester or Max Scherzer.  If this team wants to be a perenial contender while fielding a small payroll it has to grow it's own elite pitchers, win with them for a couple of years, and trade them for more young arms to repeat the cycle.

[TheLeviathan]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, the team can keep building their own Hamels while trading for the actual one.

 

As a host of teams have shown lately, moving prospects for stars isn't exactly crippling because the bust rate on prospects is high.  I'd explore this deal if it costs us Kohl Stewart and a couple other pieces for sure.

[Major League Ready]

I guess it depends on if the goal is to field a middle of the pack team for the next 10 years or build a contender.  This type of move at this point in our building process might (if others perform) get us to 500.  Come 2017 or 18, I would much rather have Meyer or Berrios and let's say the other two prospects are something like Burdi and Rosario and then add a FA the caliber of Hamels.  By then, this team is going to look a lot more attractive to FAs. 

 

We all know prospects often don't work out but let's try to measure the impact of the two strategies.  How many WAR would you project out of Berrios, Burdi, and Rosario and that's roughly the difference between these two strategies.  If I were to guess the WAR for these three players in 2018 I would put the over/under at about 7 WAR.  There is a pretty good chance that 7 wins is the difference between winning the division and going home in October.  

[TheLeviathan]

I guess it depends on if the goal is to field a middle of the pack team for the next 10 years or build a contender.  This type of move at this point in our building process might (if others perform) get us to 500.  Come 2017 or 18, I would much rather have Meyer or Berrios and let's say the other two prospects are something like Burdi and Rosario and then add a FA the caliber of Hamels.  By then, this team is going to look a lot more attractive to FAs. 

 

This assumes we're even willing to play in the neighborhood of Hamels-caliber FAs.  I am 100% unconvinced we will ever do that under Terry Ryan.

 

It's extremely hard to build a top-flight rotation merely by drafting and developing.  Cole Hamels is consistent, highly effective, and durable.  What he might do is launch this team to the next level and start to change that perception you're talking about.  

[USAFChief]

I guess it depends on if the goal is to field a middle of the pack team for the next 10 years or build a contender. This type of move at this point in our building process might (if others perform) get us to 500. Come 2017 or 18, I would much rather have Meyer or Berrios and let's say the other two prospects are something like Burdi and Rosario and then add a FA the caliber of Hamels. By then, this team is going to look a lot more attractive to FAs.

 

We all know prospects often don't work out but let's try to measure the impact of the two strategies. How many WAR would you project out of Berrios, Burdi, and Rosario and that's roughly the difference between these two strategies. If I were to guess the WAR for these three players in 2018 I would put the over/under at about 7 WAR. There is a pretty good chance that 7 wins is the difference between winning the division and going home in October.

 

You are then predicting, and are comfortable with, at least two more 90 loss seasons (2015 & 16)?

 

Not to mention, if they follow your advice, signing that "Hamels level FA" will mean they've tied up 40 percent of payroll in two players, which we've been told is a bad idea.

[Major League Ready]

If the team is still a 90 loss team without Hamels, I would not touch this trade.  Many of you absolutely completely ignore that this is a business.  As a business consultant, I cant.  It is not realistic and those responsible for financial performance are not going down this path.

 

Having said this ... I don't think the team will continue to lose 90 games and the organization does not need to mortgage the future to put a better team on the field.  For starters, rebuilding teams in the bottom half of the league in terms of revenue must improve via the farm system.  That need seems largely discounted by some here.  

 

Next year Berrios should be here.  Buxton, Sano, and Rosario will be here by 2016.  Our future lies squarely in the development of these players.  That's how we get better.  I am far more concerned about drafting and development than free agency.  Hughes type moves our great but we do not have the revenue level that supports building through free agency in general.  Even the Yankees with double our revenue are anchored by the rate at which their elite FA signings have failed.

 

BTW ... Most of the "top flight" staff are comprised primarily of team developed SPs and players that were acquired by sending established ML players for prospects with the exception of the richest clubs.

[TheLeviathan]

If the team is still a 90 loss team without Hamels, I would not touch this trade.  Many of you absolutely completely ignore that this is a business.  As a business consultant, I cant.  It is not realistic and those responsible for financial performance are not going down this path.

 

Having said this ... I don't think the team will continue to lose 90 games and the organization does not need to mortgage the future to put a better team on the field.  For starters, rebuilding teams in the bottom half of the league in terms of revenue must improve via the farm system.  That need seems largely discounted by some here.  

 

Next year Berrios should be here.  Buxton, Sano, and Rosario will be here by 2016.  Our future lies squarely in the development of these players.  That's how we get better.  I am far more concerned about drafting and development than free agency.  Hughes type moves our great but we do not have the revenue level that supports building through free agency in general.  Even the Yankees with double our revenue are anchored by the rate at which their elite FA signings have failed.

 

I'm not sure which of these things to tackle first.  Let's start with the fact that no one is suggesting we scrap development or reliance on the farm.

 

Next, this team is in the top half of the league in revenue according to Forbes.  Yes there are massive spending advantages for some teams.  Good thing acquiring Cole Hamels doesn't mean we have to engage in that.  We're trading for him, not signing him on the open market.

 

Third - the fact that all those players are on the way is reason, in my opinion, to start improving the current roster.  Not forego it for 3-4 years.

 

Fourth - while the Yankees might be "anchored" by bad FA signings, teams with failed prospects also get "anchored".  See the Royals and Pirates for the last several decades.  

 

I fully understand this is a business - I see ratings dropping.  Ticket sales dropping.  Apathy about this team growing.  I'd want to turn the needle back towards relevancy again and Hamels is a step in that direction.  I'd want to avoid giving up any guys like Meyer or Rosario who are close to the big leagues, but I'd certainly talk about most anyone to land a player like him.

[nicksaviking]

 

It's extremely hard to build a top-flight rotation merely by drafting and developing.  

 

I agree, yet to me it looks like it's the only chance under this regime.

 

 I don't know why a team would be willing to trade for a 30-year old making $22 million per but wouldn't be willing to pay one in free agency.  If this team wants to have a low end payroll, why would it matter how the contract is acquired? If there is no front office interest in Scherzer or Lester due to money and length of contract, logically there should be none in Hamels. 

[TheLeviathan]

I agree, yet to me it looks like it's the only chance under this regime.

 

 I don't know why a team would be willing to trade for a 30-year old making $22 million per but wouldn't be willing to pay one in free agency.  If this team wants to have a low end payroll, why would it matter how the contract is acquired? If there is no front office interest in Scherzer or Lester due to money and length of contract, logically there should be none in Hamels.

 

I agree, I find it pretty unlikely we would trade for or sign him with Ryan in charge.

[USAFChief]

I agree, yet to me it looks like it's the only chance under this regime.

 

 I don't know why a team would be willing to trade for a 30-year old making $22 million per but wouldn't be willing to pay one in free agency.  If this team wants to have a low end payroll, why would it matter how the contract is acquired? If there is no front office interest in Scherzer or Lester due to money and length of contract, logically there should be none in Hamels.

 

Hamels has 4 yrs and $90m guaranteed remaining, plus a 2019 team option at $20m.

 

Both Lester and Scherzer are going to get longer contracts with a good deal more guaranteed money.

 

I do agree that none of this is likely to happen, though.

[nicksaviking]

Hamels has 4 yrs and $90m guaranteed remaining, plus a 2019 team option at $20m.

 

Both Lester and Scherzer are going to get longer contracts with a good deal more guaranteed money.

 

I do agree that none of this is likely to happen, though.

 

I think if you're taking on a contract you have to do it under the assumption that option years will vest.  Hamels' 5 year $110 million likely will be slightly less than Scherzer/Lester in AAV, but likely not by more than a couple million per year..  As you said it's unlikely to happen, because one would have to think if they are willing to take on $22.5 million for 5 years , there would at least be some discussion about a $23-25 million per year contract for 5 or 6 years that wouldn't cost top prospects.  As expected, there have been none of those whispers.

[Major League Ready]

I would LOVE to add Hamels but we need to evaluate this over the entire term of the contract in terms of prospects given up, future payroll limitations, and the potential we block prospects.

 

We all know the saying that you can't have too much pitching.  However, let's put this in context.  If we add Hamels, we still have one open spot this year for May, Meyer, Milone, etc.  That's fine given it is really hard to keep all of them healthy.  2016 is a bit of a different story, now we have one spot of Meyer, May, Berrios, and hopefully someone else who really steps it up.  We would be essence relying on at least two of those main four going down which very likely takes us out of contention.

 

We would also have about half of our budget ($57M) tied up in Mauer, Nolasco, and Hamels for 2016-2017 and $45M in Mauer and Hamels in 2018 when the odds are neither one of them are all that productive.  The Cubs, with a larger budget, on the other hand has no contracts of this nature beyond 2016.  This is not by accident. 

 

I guess I go back to looking what the rest of the league has done while rebuilding.  I can't come up with a single parallel transaction.  Therefore, I have to conclude other GMs are very against this type of transaction for a rebuilding team.  Are these GMs incompetent, cheap or both?

[TheLeviathan]

I would never hold off on a trade for a pitcher as good as Hamels based on blocking prospects. Never.

[USAFChief]

I would never hold off on a trade for a pitcher as good as Hamels based on blocking prospects. Never.

I would stretch that into "worrying about blocking prospects because you have too much talent ahead of them" is like worrying your taxes are too high because you are making too much money.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The two aren't mutually exclusive, the team can keep building their own Hamels while trading for the actual one.

 

As a host of teams have shown lately, moving prospects for stars isn't exactly crippling because the bust rate on prospects is high.  I'd explore this deal if it costs us Kohl Stewart and a couple other pieces for sure.

Same here. Kohl Stewart or Lewis Thorpe, I can get behind that move... But I'm so wary of trading upper minors pitchers when four spots in this rotation have plenty of room to improve. One guy isn't going to put this team in contention.

 

Next year, if Meyer has a breakout season and the Twins win ~80 games, yeah, then go get a guy like Hamels but right now, there are so many holes in this rotation that I want all viable upper minors arms retained in hopes a few of them prove to be more than middling.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We would also have about half of our budget ($57M) tied up in Mauer, Nolasco, and Hamels for 2016-2017 and $45M in Mauer and Hamels in 2018 when the odds are neither one of them are all that productive.  The Cubs, with a larger budget, on the other hand has no contracts of this nature beyond 2016.  This is not by accident. 

While I could not care less if a pitcher of Hamels' contract is "blocking" a prospect, the monetary side of this is something the Twins need to consider. Having Mauer and Hamels in lock-step decline while consuming $45m might not hurt this team's ability to contend, it might cripple it beyond repair.

[Physics Guy]

While I could not care less if a pitcher of Hamels' contract is "blocking" a prospect, the monetary side of this is something the Twins need to consider. Having Mauer and Hamels in lock-step decline while consuming $45m might not hurt this team's ability to contend, it might cripple it beyond repair.

I'm not sure that would be the case. Aren't a large number of the regular lineup going to be on minimum contacts at that point, or just reaching arbitration?

[kab21]

If the team is still a 90 loss team without Hamels, I would not touch this trade.  Many of you absolutely completely ignore that this is a business.  As a business consultant, I cant.  It is not realistic and those responsible for financial performance are not going down this path.

 

Having said this ... I don't think the team will continue to lose 90 games and the organization does not need to mortgage the future to put a better team on the field.  For starters, rebuilding teams in the bottom half of the league in terms of revenue must improve via the farm system.  That need seems largely discounted by some here.  

 

Next year Berrios should be here.  Buxton, Sano, and Rosario will be here by 2016.  Our future lies squarely in the development of these players.  That's how we get better.  I am far more concerned about drafting and development than free agency.  Hughes type moves our great but we do not have the revenue level that supports building through free agency in general.  Even the Yankees with double our revenue are anchored by the rate at which their elite FA signings have failed.

 

BTW ... Most of the "top flight" staff are comprised primarily of team developed SPs and players that were acquired by sending established ML players for prospects with the exception of the richest clubs.

 

I would not consider trading one top prospect (Meyer, Stewart or Berrios) and some prospect depth for an ace on a reasonable length contract to be mortgaging the future.  Obviously if the the cost is Sano or Buxton and one of the pitchers then that is too much but right now we are just hoping that any of those 3 mentioned pitchers become anything close to Hamels.  I'm not even sure we can expect any of them to be as good as the 34/35 yr old Hamels at the end of the contract.

 

I will take a bird in the hand rather than the bird in the bush.  People remain too bullish on the outcome of prospects in this thread.

 

How much money the Twins need to pay Hamels + Mauer is completely irrelevant when so many starters are going to be making the MLB minimum.  It might not fit typical payroll strategy but the alternative is not spending the payroll or pissing that payroll away on average at best players.

 

I also disagree with your business acumen.  The Twins are setting up to get slaughtered in ticket sales if they post a couple more 90 loss seasons.  I completely expect them to remain conservative and just allow that to happen but the best way to keep fans is by winning games.  Despite this thread there is a 0% chance of the Twins trading for Hamels but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense.

[Major League Ready]

I am pretty sure the gap in perspectives of the "zero chance" and the opinion that this does not mean that it doesn't make sense" is a matter of perspective gained by being in this position.  It won't because the people who are entrusted with these decisions develop a pretty different perspective.  I went through that transformation as I took on these types of responsibilities so I am quite familiar with both perspectives.  I have also interviewed hundreds of individuals over the years in the process of organizational transformation who were certain the people at the top were idiots including organizations I ran myself so I am quite accustomed to being told I don't get it. 

 

Maybe I don't get it.  That's why I keep asking for examples of other GMs making such a move which would be evidence the idea has merit.  The only other real  alternative is that all of the GMs who have rebuilt teams did not get it either.  I am pretty sure I side with management because I have experience the responsibility of a multi-hundred million dollar P&L but maybe I have managed to fake people out for 20+ years of this type of responsibility.

[davidc3915]

Doesnt Hamels have the Twins on his no trade clause list anyway? Or at the very list is a 10-5 player and could (probably would) veto a deal?

[TheLeviathan]

Same here. Kohl Stewart or Lewis Thorpe, I can get behind that move... But I'm so wary of trading upper minors pitchers when four spots in this rotation have plenty of room to improve. One guy isn't going to put this team in contention.

 

Next year, if Meyer has a breakout season and the Twins win ~80 games, yeah, then go get a guy like Hamels but right now, there are so many holes in this rotation that I want all viable upper minors arms retained in hopes a few of them prove to be more than middling.

Right, I'd rather avoid the near ready prospects in such a deal.

 

As for recent examples, the AL champs pulled off exactly this kind of deal with Shields. You could argue the Nats and Gio Gonzalez. Indians and Ubaldo. It's not that far fetched if you truly believe in the near-ready talent.

[Willihammer]

Doesnt Hamels have the Twins on his no trade clause list anyway? Or at the very list is a 10-5 player and could (probably would) veto a deal?

Now that you mention it, yes.

 

According to Heyman, Hamels can be traded to: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Cardinals, Nationals, Braves, Yankees, Red Sox, and Rangers

 

But that's what 3 team trades were invented for right?

[jorgenswest]

Now that you mention it, yes.According to Heyman, Hamels can be traded to: Dodgers, Angels, Padres, Cardinals, Nationals, Braves, Yankees, Red Sox, and RangersBut that's what 3 team trades were invented for right?

Does the no trade clause go away once traded to another club?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Does the no trade clause go away once traded to another club?

Not usually, I believe. All terms of the existing contract carry over to the new club. I'm pretty sure of that.