Woody wrote:The Hamels deal is going to be what finally ruins this board

It's going to be glorious.

JFLNYC wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Hamels is not dealt before the deadline.

They could be posturing, but I wouldn't be surprised if he stayed for now

Personally, I'm pretty cool with not trading him given some of the crap I've heard as the return. I'd rather get nothing for him in 2015 than have nothing to show for him in 2018 (see the CLIFF LEE trade).

I was all in on getting something decent at least rather than just wasting the rest the of the prime of his career but if the return is going to send me into a death spiral then I hope they keep him too.

I'd rather they release him from his contract. Make one of these dumb teams pay $200 million for him.

Polar Bear Phan wrote:Personally, I'm pretty cool with not trading him given some of the crap I've heard as the return. I'd rather get nothing for him in 2015 than have nothing to show for him in 2018 (see the CLIFF LEE trade).

The mistake was not trading Cole last year. This is in no way comparable to trading Cliff prior to 2010. There we traded away a 5 win Player on a 95 win team. Wins mean something there. Getting anything for Cole right now would be great. Subtracting 5 wins from a 60 win team means nothing.

Keep the lines open with the Rangers. If the deal is built around Profar then so be it. Harvest assets now while they have value because Cole won't have value by the time this team is good again.

bleh wrote:I'd rather they release him from his contract. Make one of these dumb teams pay $200 million for him.

they can't just 'release' him. they'd still have to pay him. what they COULD do is put him on waivers, and then not revoke and/or deal if someone claims him.

it would never happen but they could mutually agree to tear up the contract at the end of the year. Hamels would be foolish not to do it since he'd get a much better contract going forward.

bleh wrote:it would never happen but they could mutually agree to tear up the contract at the end of the year. Hamels would be foolish not to do it since he'd get a much better contract going forward.

He would probably get about what Lester's deal was worth. It's why it pisses me off so much when people talk about his contract being an issue. It should actually be a positive, he is better pitcher than Lester. Now that prospects are more valued than ever would be the time though when we need to sell off the best.

JFLNYC wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if Hamels is not dealt before the deadline.

They could always move him after the deadline!

Or even get a better deal in the offseason. Yeah, definitely!

Time is a flat circle.

Hamels gets hurt next start and Ruben says "I don't know what you want me to do about it, no one's gonna give you anything for a hurt guy"

kruker wrote:Getting anything for Cole right now would be great. Subtracting 5 wins from a 60 win team means nothing.

Harvest assets now while they have value because Cole won't have value by the time this team is good again.

You're correct, I forgot the substantial impact Travis Lee, Nelson Figueroa, Vicente Padilla, and Omar Daal had on building the golden age Phillies. Give Cole away for anything.

Edit: But really, the point is that if GMs don't want to give in to Amaro now, then they can give into the next GM in December. Maybe that'll placate their fans from missing the playoffs by a game.

Look it's on the gm to get a fair return, but just keeping Cole and hoping he's still serviceable in 4-5 years from now is insane. You have to take a chance on the future. Not doing so is how we got into this predicament.

Everyone knows we're selling now. Get it over with before he gets hurt. You can't just keep holding off on this. Epstein got Russell last year. Anything close to that should be enough. Not sure how all of a sudden that type of prospect isn't available.

Absolutely do it if you get a guy on Russell's level. I am more on your side as far as acquiring anything of decent value before something truly disastrous happens.

Also I think a lot of the angle we see that makes us mad from the media are born out of the idea that they just believe that the Phillies are run by a bunch of dumb assclowns and will most likely get owned in a trade on that level. I think he will be traded and I also think we won't go nuts when it happens in either direction. I sort of trust the new guard. If I thought Amaro had a string to pull I would just go sit in a closet for the next two weeks.

The only thing worse than not trading Hamels now would be trading him for less than he's worse. This is not a 3-month rental. Any team acquiring him would be getting an ace still in his prime at below-market value for at least 4 pennant runs plus the option of a fifth in 2019 for $20MM. For any team with championship aspirations for the next few years (and that would include the Red Sox, Cubs, Astros and Rangers, at least) that's enormous value, far exceeding a 3-month rental. It would be a crime to trade that sort of value for a poopoo platter of subprime talent. Given the likelihood that one or more of the prospects you get won't pan out, you've got to get AT LEAST a couple of guys with the potential to develop into a player as valuable as Hamels.

I understand we're all a bit wary of injury after the precipitous declines of Lee and Halladay due to injury, but you can't make this trade out of fear Hamels will get injured. Young talent gets injured, too. If you got Profar a couple of years ago you'd be delighted, but now he's iffy at best. We almost built a deal for Lee a couple of years ago around Mike Olt.

I want to get it over and move on as much as the next guy, but you just can't give away the sort of value Hamels and his contract represent without getting premium talent in return. That would do nothing at all for your rebuilding efforts.

JFLNYC wrote:The only thing worse than not trading Hamels now would be trading him for less than he's worth. This is not a 3-month rental.

I agree with about everything you said but he is worth what the highest bidder is willing to pay right now. I guess they can keep waiting it out to the point where he does become a 3 month rental. He adds ZERO to a team that has nothing even to play for except the future. Hopefully the team is good again by the time his deal ends but getting value for him is going to almost have to be part of that transformation.

I don't think that prospects are going to suddenly get less valuable and if it keeps trending the way it is it might be impossible to pry a solid prospect away. If they can get a top 50-75 guy with a couple other B level prospects I would not be upset. Nobody is likely to trade a guy with the potential to become a Cole Hamels. It's why it sucks, you'd think the organization would be sitting pretty right now with teams lining up.

It's a lot less likely they get hurt when they are young and not a 31 year old pitcher with tons of mileage. And when Profar got hurt it didn't cost the Rangers $75 million. Plus Profar could still be good. And was anyone calling for the Phils to go after Scherzer or Shields this offseason? No because it doesn't make sense for this team to pay $25 million a year for a pitcher at this point. But that's what they're doing with Hamels. They could give him away for nothing and put the money in a bank and sign a pitcher in 3 years when they might need it and that would be better than keeping Hamels.

anybody catch the telecast in the 8th/9th inning last night? Schmidt was talking about something that had happened earlier. Started it off saying to McCarthy "when you started talking to Murph, <this happened etc.>", "and <this pitch sequence happened> while you were still talking to murph". A not-so-subtle hint from Schmitty about PAYING ATTENTION TO THE GAME ON THE FIELD instead of all that other crap they bother with. Loved it.

I remember watching some clip that someone posted here. Schmidt was talking about something and was interrupted by McCarthy laughing and carrying on about something funny The Phanatic did, and Schmidt seemed a bit annoyed.

Fwiw, I suspect the Dodgers will ultimately give us one of Corey Seager or Julio Urias and one other higher end prospect (top 100-ish) plus another two solid prospects. I'd be cool with that deal. The Dodgers seem more aware of prospect flameout rates than some other teams.

What's weird to me is that Seager seems more highly regarded than Urias. Given their age and performance, I would've expected it to be reversed.