Comments on: Phillies “know how much” Cole Hamels is going to cost

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 02:00:48 +0000

Jonny 5 – Sounds like a reasonable conclusion. If there is a deal I’ll be interested to see what it is. I have no doubt it’s going to be for more then 4 years, though.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 20:09:15 +0000

UYF, By the looks of this there may already be a deal in place. It seems that the Phills have much to lose if they don’t play with this until the regular season kicks off. Kinda like A-Gon.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillies_zone/Did-Hamels-show-his-hand.html

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:33:30 +0000

sorry, my bad. last line should read “negotiations with Hamels and his agent”.

One day this site will get an edit comment.

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:30:29 +0000

Jonny 5 – I saw the “in excess of $20MM” comment. But by my way of thinking and like you said probably not much more then $20MM per since Halladay’s per year is $20MM and Lee’s deal is for $24MM per. So even though technically the article said “in excess of $20MM” I’m more then willing to go on record as saying it won’t be much more then the $20MM on a per year basis that the Phillies think “they know how much it will cost” to sign Hamels.

So I stand by my original comment 4 years/ $80+/- doesn’t come close. Like I said look at what Buehrle just recently signed for and tell me Hamels is going to settle for something in the area of 4 years, ain’t gonna happen. And anything less then at least $120MM total and I think it’s going to have to be north of that.

This is just my opinion. But Halladay’s and Lee’s contracts work against the Phillies re-signing Hamels. They don’t want to “insult” Halladay by offering Hamel’s more money on a per year basis and they probably don’t think they should give him more guaranteed years then they gave Lee, 5 years. Both those factors work against the Phillies if they stick to that way of thinking in any negotiations with Lee and his agent.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:07:18 +0000

“in excess of” 20 M.

C’mon UYF, with all your wishful thinking!! J/K it happens to the best of us

By: patjams

patjams — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:45:30 +0000

Two words – Barry Zito…

By: martywinn

martywinn — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 17:44:32 +0000

That didn’t take long, Howard already can’t move. Too bad the contract isn’t over yet, or even started.

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:33:34 +0000

Jonny 5 – I saw this link on MLBTR last night.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/03/latest-on-phillies-cole-hamels.html

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:29:50 +0000

My guess is 5 yrs @ 125M. Maybe 6 yrs. I do know signing any pitcher to a LTD is very risky.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:28:02 +0000

They HAVE to offer him that so they don’t offend Roy y’know. That man is a saint for what he signed for. BTW, where did you hear 20M per anyway? I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard anything when it comes to dollars actually.

By: stex52

stex52 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:13:55 +0000

Of course it was.

By: bravojawja

bravojawja — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:59:08 +0000

You’re right, the comparison isn’t perfect (they never are). You’re also right about him more likely staying with his current team. That, I think, is a general rule unless the player or team has specifically said otherwise (like Gary Sheffield every time he was a FA, or sort of like Prince Fielder this offseason). It’s the Incumbent Rule of free agency.

I would guess they go 6 yrs, maybe with a mutual option for the 7th. He’s still young enough that the 6th year is still a decent bet.

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:04:33 +0000

Jonny 5 – and the Phillies have said all along they want him. Yet they offer him something in the neighborhood of $20MM per for just a 4 year commitment. I realize it’s called negotiations for a reason but seriously 4 years. That’s bordering on insulting for a pitcher of his caliber and age in today’s baseball market.

Heck a 33 year old Mark Buehrle signed just this past winter with the Marlins for 4 yrs/$58MM. You can’t tell me Hamels isn’t worth at LEAST TWICE those dollars and at least 6 years. Yet the Phillies basically come to him with an offer of 4 yrs/$80MM +/-. That’s just my opinion.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:02:32 +0000

I have to agree with everything you said there, but we can’t really compare the Cards/ Pujols with the Phills/ Hamels. Two different teams/ pocket books. All a fan can do is hope everything comes together right? I’m just sick of everyone pretending there’s a better chance of the man ending up on another team. I just don’t see it that way.

By: bravojawja

bravojawja — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:26:40 +0000

Pujols had always been a Cardinal and had said many times he wanted to remain one, too, but somebody threw him a ton of money for a bunch of years and now he’s in Anaheim.

If memory serves, we were having this same conversation about Pujols before last season. The difference is that Philly has the money to spend and, quite frankly, should pony up. I’d be careful about that 7th year, though. Those 7 year deals for pitchers don’t seem to work out so well.

By: Jonny 5

Jonny 5 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:39:32 +0000

I wish people would stop acting like He’s a deadlocked FA with other teams on his horizon when he isn’t even a FA yet. Seriously though, what do the Dodgers have to do with Hamels? NADA.

Look people, Cole Hamels is the most valuable commodity the Phillies now have. He’s the youngest of their good pitching staff and has the best chances of being the Ace of the staff when the rest of the team is full of fresh faces (besides Howard who will apparently always be the first baseman until he can’t move anymore) The Phillies, if they want to be competitive into the future sign Hamels and if they can’t afford to, they trade OTHER players. He’s always been a Phillie, and has said many times he wants to remain one too.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:06:20 +0000

Hamels’ ranking on their depth chart shouldn’t have any impact on his value to the team. Maybe if they had an average-ish guy making the minimum ready to step in for him I could see that argument, but it doesn’t make much difference whether you spend $20 or so million on a five-win Hamels or a three-win bat and a two-win pitcher. Oh, and if Ethier’s your target, you aren’t getting a #3 on the FA market for the residual value between what Ethier and Hamels sign for.

By: phillyphreak

phillyphreak — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:46:09 +0000

So a #3 starter and another 30 year old outfielder is a better investment than one of the best pitchers in baseball? Color me skeptical….

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 09:34:24 +0000

Hamels just turned 28 years old on Dec. 27th. That means he will hit FA and through his 1st full playing year he will only be 29. IF he’s smart and I’m sure he and his agent are, no way they settle for anything less then 6 years guaranteed. That means through the life of a 6 year guaranteed contract he will only be 34 pitching in the final year of that contract. Also, I think some sort of a 7th vesting year is a must. He’s to young and to good to settle for anything less. Keep in mind he will be the premier FA pitcher of his class and a lefty.

By: jason1214

jason1214 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:57:44 +0000

I think they settle on 5 @ 22 and add option year to meet in middle.

By: hittfamily

hittfamily — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:23:19 +0000

How much do you want them to spend on their #3 starter?

Realistically, 20 mil per would be better spent on a few bats with Utley, Rollins, and Howard all in decline, and Dom Brown a big question mark. Eithier and a real #3 starter, not another #1, would be a better investment.

By: gabrielthursday

gabrielthursday — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 02:18:08 +0000

The Phillies can’t say they’re prepared to pay Hamels’ price tag when they are so far apart in terms of years. Effectively, they’re tens of millions apart.

By: djpostl

djpostl — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 01:45:52 +0000

Yup. They have a new TV deal they can get done, using the Angels $3 billion deal they got last year too. Add in Magic being part of the ownership group and good lord, they can be a force in the free agent market and stay under the luxury tax threshold.

By: Kevin S.

Kevin S. — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:59:59 +0000

Well more than $50 million. They have $92 million committed for 2013, when the threshold will be $189 million, with Ethier being their only key FA. We don’t know if the tax is their limit (and I rather doubt it will be right away), but they can pretty much bid with abandon on any elite FA who strikes their fancy.

By: schmedley69

schmedley69 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:55:47 +0000

The Cardinals were once in a similar situation with a LH pitcher about the same age as Hamels. They decided that they didn’t want to pay him, so they traded him to the Phillies where he went on to win over 300 games on his was to Cooperstown. I would hate to see a reverse-Steve Carlton situation and watch Hamels go on to do great things with another team for the next decade+. Just get it done, Amaro. He is worth the money.

By: cltjump

cltjump — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:50:51 +0000

I reaaaaaaally hope that was sarcasm…….

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:31:56 +0000

Four (4) years at a little of $20MM isn’t going to get it done. They are going to have to go at least 6 years/$132MM minimum with possible some sort of 7th year option. If the Phillies don’t do it some other team will.

By: djpostl

djpostl — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:28:44 +0000

LA is 50 million in change under the luxury tax threshold. They can afford to sign Hamels and Cain PLUS lock up Kershaw long-term at a high rate and still be good.

Not saying they should. Not saying they will. But they could.

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:28:17 +0000

The years equate to money.

By: randygnyc

randygnyc — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:18:37 +0000

10 years, 31 million a year, ALL GUARANTEED. He’s just worth it. (plus performance bonuses of 1 million per start). Hurry up!!!!