Pirates star Andrew McCutchen rarely gives long, opinionated interviews, so his lengthy and relatively candid discussion with Rob Biertempfel of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is surprising. McCutchen, who is controlled through 2018, says that he would like to play the rest of his career in Pittsburgh. He also says, however, that the Pirates’ front office needs to do more to provide him with a championship-caliber supporting cast, and he suggests that the Pirates’ platoon arrangement at first base in particular is a problem. “You can have a platoon in the outfield every now and then,” says McCutchen. “Outfield platoons, I understand. But when it comes to the infield, you need that group of guys who are always going to be there.” The Pirates platooned Ike Davis and Gaby Sanchez at first in 2014, and Davis, Sanchez and Pedro Alvarez are candidates to play there next season. Here are more notes from the National League.
- The Phillies want “at least three” top prospects, including two who are ready for the big leagues, in return for Cole Hamels, Jim Salisbury of CSNPhilly.com writes. It’s not currently known who is on Hamels’ limited no-trade list (which he updated at the beginning of the month), but Salisbury suggests that Hamels would have been smart to add the Cubs, Red Sox and Dodgers so that he can demand that his new team pick up his 2019 option as a condition of a trade.
- GM Dave Stewart says the Diamondbacks won’t be bidders for Max Scherzer, Jon Lester or James Shields this offseason, Jim Bowden of MLB Network Radio tweets. Diamondbacks president Derrick Hall has said that the team will look for starting pitching this offseason. There have been few or no indications that the D-backs plan to pursue top-tier pitchers, however.
Norris, Pompey and a lower level prospect…for Hamels?
Not worth it. Just pay for Shields then. The value of Shields plus those prospects has to be greater than paying full price for Hamels.
Hamels is guaranteed $90mill for four years with a team/vesting option for a fifth.
Let’s assume Lester and Scherzer make a similar AAV for seven years ($158mill).
That means one would save $68 mill with a potentially attractive team option included.
If you are the Cubs, for example, you have to look at what your prospects are worth to you. Let’s take Javier Baez for example. Can you make a statistical guess on what WAR he will put up over your six years of club control, and guess what his salaries would be? Couldn’t they calculate an expected value? I have to believe it would be well under $68 mill, but to include three top prospects is absurd.
Which is why what Amaro is asking is absurd. The contract for Hamels doesn’t have that much surplus value to justify the HUGE haul he’s demanding.
Not demanding, yet…I think this is just due diligence in the early stages of negotiation. If the Cubs put Bryant and Soler on the untouchables no-trade list, a package could still be centered around ANY two of Baez, Castro, Almora, Russell, Alcantara…The Cubs bring Hamels to Wrigley for four, possibly five, years and avoid giving up their two most prized possessions, while the Phillies sell high on Cole and bring some talent back
With 3 comparable pitchers available for just cash (or cash and a draft pick) at a salary similar to what Hamels is making, 3 top prospects is a ridiculous price for Hamels. The Phils need to be at least a little reasonable if they are serious about trading him.
door-in-the-face technique
No they don’t, because what your not realizing is they don’t have to trade Hamels. They don’t need salary relief and he’s their best player and a ballpark draw. From a Philly perspective, Hamels is available if teams make it worth their time with top prospects. Amaro can’t afford to screw this up, if Hamels is dealt it needs to be for a franchise altering package otherwise they may as well just hold on to him.
If Hamels is dealt, Ruben cannot expect 3-4 top prospects back if he doesn’t eat any of Hamels salary. As Grant said, better off signing one of the big 3 and saving your youngsters than trading it and paying about $90 million to Hamels.
First of all it’s a starting point, you never start a negotiation with exactly what you want to get. He will not get 4 top prospects back. But if that is his starting price then you can negotiate down from that.
Second, then fine, sign one of the big 3 and keep the youngsters, you are ignoring the fact that the Phillies are not motivated to move Hamels right now barring someone blowing them away in a deal.
Hamels isn’t demanding a trade, they are not at risk of losing him to free agency, his contract is reasonable both in terms of compensation and years so they do not need to shed it, and he is still in his prime and should remain one of the top 10-15 pitches in baseball for a few more years.
Nothing about this means the Phillies have to deal him right now for whatever the can get. If they don’t like market right now, then they are better served holding onto him and seeing if they can get a better return in July or next offseason.
Would you trade Hamels and Utley to the Tigers for Price, Nick C and Perez or Travis. There is your 3 MLB ready players besides Travis he will need another year.
No. Because Price and Hamels are equal (stats support that) – and we only get 1 year of Price.
Nick may hit as well as Utley some day and he is under team control for many years. If the Tigers threw in Robbie Ray?
Teams don’t trade top prospects for big time contracts any more. Especially when the Phillies want two that are ready to play in the bigs now and another???
If they expect that much, they better be ready to eat some/a lot of Hamels contract.
Except whenever you are dealing with a franchise starting pitcher with value, you are dealing with a ticking time bomb. If he gets hurt, his value is significantly affected. Also, the older he gets, the less he is valuable.
Yes but at 30 he can still reasonably be expected to provide another 3-4 years of elite pitching. This is not a 35 year old Cliff Lee we are talking about.
The point remains that if the Phillies are not getting the value they need out of a deal, they are better served holding on to him rather than just make a deal for the sake of making a deal.
Remember, their motivation for a deal would be to improve the franchise for the future. Dealing Hamels for anything less than top prospects will demoralize the fan base and not move the franchise forward. Such a trade would be absolutely pointless.
You totally missed my point. As with any elite SP, they are an injury away from going from valuable to worthless. Lets say he gets hurt next year and requires Tommy John, his age won’t mean a thing and he will be a 31 year old with a bad arm. A good return instead of a great return is still better than getting nothing.
That’s not a thing unique to pitchers. That’s all players in any sport. 1 injury could wipe away your entire value. If that is the reason you are hesitant to deal for someone, then you shouldn’t be in the business of making trade proposals – even fake ones.
Except with SP, it is more important than with a position player. Position players usually have more options if an injury occurs including but not limited to a position change to make up for any decline that the injury might have brought. With SP, an injury can pretty much ruin them and their value.
That makes sense Grant, but the Cubs haven’t signed any of those 3 yet. What do the Cubs do if 2 or 3 of them get signed elsewhere?
They do what everyone else would do. They sign a second tier pitcher, trawl the trade market, and wait for next year. I am pretty sure this is the contingency that Hoyer was referring to yesterday when he warned that the Cubs were not going to go crazy this year. He is hedging his bets, so that they can be smart about all this and not go all in just because of fan expectations.
I do like the idea of Hamels to the Cubs. I want Lester in Seattle. 😀 Probably isn’t going to happen though.
The Cubs have the pieces to do that deal.
Why would the Cubs trade for Hamels when they can pull the trigger on Lester or Scherzer or Shields? Then they get to keep all their prospects.
The Phillies are living in a fantasy world.
Because they haven’t pulled the trigger yet? If the Phillies end up pulling the trigger on Addison Russell and a couple of of other minor leaguers not top of the crop?
No the Phillies are living in the real world where the team giving up the star actually has to get value in return in order for it to make sense for them to deal them.
End of the day, the reality just is that the Phillies and Cubs don’t really match up as trade partners. The Cubs certainly have the prospects available to put together a competitive package to get Hamels, but they don’t have the incentive to pull the trigger because they are not a contender yet.
On the flip side the Phillies do not need to trade Hamels. Money is not a problem, attitude is not a problem, performance is not a problem, free agency is not a problem. It only makes sense to trade him if they get a strong package back, so they are not motivated to move Hamels for anything less.
If the Phils and Cubs don’t match up as trade partners than who does? What team makes sense to trade for Hamels? It takes a team with a really good minor league system and deep pockets.
There is no way the Phils will get two kids ready to break into the bigs along with a third unless they eat some of that contract. Otherwise, a team that has deep enough pockets to trade for Hammels will just sign another big name pitcher to a big dollar contract and keep the prospects.
The Phils might get three minor leaguers, but two of the three won’t be ready to break into the majors.
This right here is exactly correct. Well said Voice of Reason.
Mariners and BoSox are 2 examples of who else can. There are other teams that do have a few top tier prospects close to or are in MLB already, ie Marlins, Twins and Dodgers who in theory can but probably wont consider trade.
The Cubs pick up Russell Martin and one or two of the second tier of pitchers, and wait until next year to grab a TOR starter when there predict to be even more options available This is just the start of their window of contention – no point in selling the future for a slight boost in a year they don’t expect to be at their peak.
They can sign one of the three. That’s really all they need.
Then sign one or two of Peavy, McCarthy, Liriano.
There is no way the Cubs are trading propsects for Hamels UNLESS it’s the 2016 trade deadline and they’re a starter away from getting ready to make a run at the playoffs.
It’s going to be a fun winter to watch. No?
If that is the price that the Phillies will move Hamels then there is a good chance we will still be having this conversation come the trade deadline when need may match up with want.
I’d much rather the Red Sox overpay in AAV for Shields or Lester than part with three top prospects for Hamels.
No doubt the Phillies would ask the Sox for Henry Owens, Mookie Betts, and say Blake Swihart. Agree, free agency would be a better option
OUCH! Phily will never get Betts or Swihart. Owens? Maybe
Three…count em…three top prospects for Hamels when as others have said, you can get far more value in simply being a cash buyer in the FA market.
RAJ living in cloud cuckoo land one would suggest.
Top prospects (1-100) are worth somewhere between $6 -15 million, so trading 3 for Hamels will end up costing at most $140 million (closer to 130), and his contract will end before he becomes dead weight.
Signing Scherzer will cost minimum 7 years/$150 million, plus a draft pick valued at $6.5 million, and will run several years into his decline phase, and Lester will cost slightly less.
Considering the extremely high failure rate of even top 10 MLB prospects they are much more valuable as trade chips to land a premium, proven MLB player, which in this case would be someone like Hamels. Too many people fall into the trap of thinking that good prospects will automatically be great MLB players, which is rarely the case for even the best ones.
People think top prospects have a high likelihood of being regulars with a shot at being stars. Too many people fall into the trap of thinking that old, expensive pitchers will continue to play at a high level much less at all.
30 = old? Well then, why should teams even bother signing Lester/Scherzer/Shields then? Especially if it’s going to cost $50+ M more.
I’m just providing a counter example of his argument. His claim that everyone invests unrealistic expectations is false and his valuation of them is probably rarely accurate.
Fans do invest unrealistic expectation in prospects (the fact that they talk that they are all going to make it to the big leagues is the biggest one). And his valuation is a little off, from other articles done on the subject, but not by much. If you use a study done in 2008, hitting prospects had a surplus value (basically, the money they’re valued at by WAR minus the money they actually make) of between $36-$12 M (depending on where they are ranked). Pitching prospects have a surplus value of $15-$10 M (depending on where they are ranked). Put that together, and we see that the average top 100 prospect has about a $18 M surplus value (not far off). Another study found that prospects have a bust (less than 1.5 WAR) rate of about 70%. So, go optimistic, and say of the 3 prospects, 1 has full success ($36 M), 1 has half-success ($18 M), and 1 bust ($10 M) – leads to a $66 M surplus value for the 3 prospects. Add on Hamels $94 M contract, and you wind up with $160 M value (I’d bet Scherzer and Lester will roll in right around that number). He’s not as far off as you want to believe.
Some fans are unrealistically positive. There are many, perhaps more, that are unrealistically negative. People who think that they will “automatically be great players” are very rare in my experience.
His valuation is usually off because its an average.
yeah, who would want a pitcher at 7/150 when they could have one at 4/140 instead? Those extra three years for 10M? 3M each? ugh. no thank you. I can see why the phones in Philly are ringing off the hook.
There is no need for Hamels to update his no trade list.
He isn’t going anywhere.
I don’t think it’s really an issue of a first base platoon being bad, it’s just that Sanchez and Davis didn’t really add up to the kind of offense you want out of first base.
Agreed. In retrospect, Abreu was a perfect fit at 1B, but otherwise there haven’t been any easy answers at that position in the last two off-seasons. The top first basemen around the league have been locked up and aren’t going anywhere, so the platoon was a smart idea. But after two years of it not working out, it might be time to try something different.
Or they had a good thing in Morneau, who signed cheaply with the Rox, a non-contending team. Waste. So they saved on Burnett and Morneau, and reinvested in … Volquez? Did well in 2nd half then got exposed in most important game of the year, which wasn’t a complete surprise. They’ve gotten carried away with the reclamation pitcher success they’ve had.
The Burnett move seemed more like cheapness to me and I wasn’t a fan of it at the time. I, and many people smarter than me, thought there were plenty of good baseball reasons for not bringing back Morneau.
But if you’re going to criticize them based on 2014’s results, it seems odd to count against them both the Morneau decision (which looks bad after he played so well this year) and also the Burnett-Volquez decison (which looks smart after Burnett imploded and Volquez pitched decently). I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
It’s also not like they signed Volquez with the express intention of playing him in a one-game playoff. That was a freak occurrence of scheduling, combined with Hurdle’s decision in the last week to burn his best pitchers in an attempt to win the division.
Way to go Cutch!
Not resigning Morneau I thought was pure cheapness on the part of the Bucs.
I disagree. Morneau literally didn’t hit a single home run in a Pirates uniform. He was 32 years old and had been pretty close to a replacement-level player for 3 years since the concussions started to really set him back.
Now that he bounced back it looks like a dumb move, but there wasn’t much reason at the time to suspect he would have been markedly better than Ike Davis.
I see your point, but Davis didn’t come along until what, several mos. into the season. So at the time they were choosing not to keep an established ‘name’ free agent who signed for a reasonable market rate, by a non-contending team with tight purse strings themselves. Gaby Sanchez and Ike Davis are throwaways from other teams, that’s the appearance. And the appearance is correct.
weeks, april 20th or so was when he was dealt. so unless your weeks count as months he wasnt traded months after the season
Hamels won’t get traded until the big 3 are signed. Lester not going to cost you 3 prospects either. Phillies could do mega trade with the Tigers because Tigers are always open for business. Hamels and Utley for Price, Nick C and Perez. Tigers get a very good pitcher for a few years and Utley or Kinsler could move to 3B. Phillies get a great hitter in Nick 3B/1B and potential starter at 2B that is MLB ready in Perez. They also remove some money from payroll.
So, the Phillies need to find a team that;
1. Can afford to take on Hamels contract
2. Has three really good prospects and two that are ready to play in the big leagues right now.
Good luck with that! My suggestion is they wait until after all the top free agent starting pitchers are gone like Lester, Shields and Scherzer. Then, maybe, they’ll find someone to meet their demands. Highly unlikely to happen until perhaps the 2016 trade deadline.
Two things that I see from this article.
1. What RAJ (or the source) classifies as “top prospects”? Does he mean top 50 prospects, top 100 prospects, or top 10 organizational prospect? That makes a huge difference.
2. I have no problem with RAJ starting the negotiations with 3 top prospects. The same way I have no problem with the other GM starting the negotiation with 1 top prospect and filler (because, if I had to bet, that’s the other side of the story that isn’t being reported). You don’t start negotiations with what you’ll settle for. You start higher than that and work down to what you’ll settle for (which I think that’s exactly what is happening here).
When you start way too laughably high, it doesn’t start negotiations, it makes teams not bother.Especially when it’s the samr GM that has had laughably high prices on his players for years. I guarantee you if this is really his opening stance other GM’s will be like “Nvm, Hamels isn’t really available. It’s just RAJ being RAJ.”
Again, if he’s saying 3 top 10 organizational prospects, is that still “way too laughably high”? The gut reaction at the deadline was the Rays got way too little for Price – but after thinking about it, most have realized the Rays got a quality #3 starter for 4.5 years, a (recent) top 100 prospect middle infielder, and an A+ SS who rocketed into the Rays top 3 prospects (depending on publication). It may look lesser, but it’s also much less risk (since 2 of the 3 have already reached the MLB level).
We have no idea because we don’t know the organization. Four of the Cubs’ top 10 organizational prospects ARE Top 50 MLB prospects, and six are in the top 100. I don’t know the Red Sox guys’ names enough to run through a count, but I’d be they’re similar.
True. But it’s a matter of what he means. 3 organizational top prospects from the Cubs could be Almora, McKinney, and Pierce Johnson (1 top 50 and 2 borderline top 100 guys, maybe). I think people are getting too caught up in what they believe are top prospects, instead of what each GM/team classifies as “top prospects”.
Raj needs to sell high on Hamel’s after he botched the Hunter Pence deals and the Cliff Lee trade. For some reason too many people want the Phillies to give Hamel’s away.
One can only “sell high” if another entity is willing to “buy high.” Hamels should just stay where he is because no one is paying that premium for him.
Andrew McCutchen would look so sweet in a French Vanilla San Francisco Gigantes uni. They won’t platoon 1B, you’ll have a bunch of crazies cheering for you, and you can have alls the moneys. Go west young man!
Let me go out on a limb and say Hamels stays put. The Cubs might be able to swing a deal but no one else gets near what Amaro is asking for.
I wonder, would the Diamondbacks be interested in Buchholz? He’s a safe bet to miss a few games each year, but when he’s healthy and on the field he’s a great pitcher, and he’s under control for three more years at a pretty reasonable price.
As much as I would like to trade off Buccholz, I don’t think now is the time. After a bad year the return will be neglible. A couple flier prospects doesn’t interest me when we already have gaping holes in the front half of our rotation
He doesn’t really belong in the front half of our rotation due to health issues, and it would give us the ability to add three pitchers and still have a spot to give the young guys chances.
His health issues are the exact reason a team like the red sox keep him. They have so much depth in starting pitching to work through and determine where everyone fits. What is more valuable to the sox: 20 starts from a guy who has shown the ability to dominate when he is on the top of his game, or some lottery ticket prospect years away from contributing
Who said anything about lottery ticket prospects years away from contributing? Buchholz, despite the health concerns, is a good pitcher with 3 years of cheap team control. He’s still got decent value even if they are selling low, and it’s not that low if you find a team smart enough to look past wins and ERA (his peripherals suggested a league average pitcher last year, and he’s shown he’s much better than that when he’s fully healthy).
What do you think is a realistic return then?
A guy on the fringes of the top 100 maybe (between 75 and 150 say). I’ve wondered if Arizona would be interested in him for Blair or Lamb (or Drury?)
That’s a little better than I would say… I just don’t think he has that much value because of the injury history
Yea I doubt the Redsox will trade Buccholz. in 2013 he was arguably the best pitcher in baseball, in 2014 he was arguably the worst. hes had a carrer of ups and downs. Right now his value is at a all time low, so I really doubt hes dealt.
Isn’t this what everyone does when negotiating? Ask for the highest possible price and then take offers?
There is such a thing as starting too high. People are just going to look at him funny and say never mind.
Good point. Of course, I also forgot what happened at the trading deadline. The problem seems to be that Amaro doesn’t always know when to adjust down when bargaining. My bad.
I really don’t want the Sox to go for Hamels. They need to keep their prospects to have at least a few of them pan out and have the money to buy good pitchers without giving up talent as well.
The value of Hamels will go up after the big 3 sign their deals. RAJ shouldn’t even begin discussions until then.
If a team asks for the moon for a player, it means they don’t want to trade them. You don’t want to be the Phillies or Yankees. Old, injured, expensive, over the hill players.
the value of hamels might better be calculated by factoring the cost of the balance of his contract, assuming that his aav and expected performance level will be comparable to the big three, and then backing out the value of not having to play the extra years in the big three contracts. hamels has four more years, with a vesting option for a 5th. If you follow mlbtr predictions, shields will get around 5/100, so if i were aiming at shields, i don’t see hamels having much value as compared to shields–certainly not enough to give up three top prospects. for the other two, if the bidding is really going to get close to tanaka money, then hamel’s contract is worth more. would you give up three prospects not to have to pay shark or lester for the last 2/3 years?
Would I give up three top prospects to avoid 2-3 years of one of the free agent pitchers? Nope. I consider myself somewhere on the border of realistic and pessimistic when it comes to valuing prospects, so my opinion is hardly based on overvaluing anybody. But if even one of those three guys hits, the surplus value over his six years of team control easily outweighs the potential negative value of the last two or three years of a FA pitching contract. Especially when we’re talking about “MLB ready” prospects, where the bust risk is substantially reduced.
If the only option to acquire high-end starting pitchers is a trade, you have to consider something like this. But this is a fairly strong offseason for it, and next year is looking pretty good too. I don’t do it at that price.
Jackie Bradley Jr., Matt Barnes, Sean Coyle, Victorino for Hamels + 6.5 million to cover half of Vic’ s contract. That would be quite fair and yes Ruben you have to take Victorino and pay half his salary.
So, an ace (plus cash) nets the Phillies an excellent defender who has shown no signs of hitting, a middling starter in the minors who looks like he’d max out as a 4 starter (but could potentially be an average BP piece), a solid 2B prospect, and an oft-injured corner OF (with a year left on his deal).
I’m not saying we can get 3 top prospects – but I’d bet we can get more than that.
That’s a joke, right? If the Phillies are taking one of your 1 year OF’s, it would be Cespedes, not Victorino. Then add in Webster, Coyle and Bentz and then that would be fair. Make it even more interesting… Phillies add in Rollins, Bastardo, Franco or Asche and JP Crawford and then the Sox add Bogaerts and Middleton to the deal..
To the Red Sox: Hamels / Rollins / Franco or Asche / Crawford / Bastardo
To Phillies ; Bogaerts / Cespedes / Webster / Bentz / Coyle / Middlebrooks
Red Sox:
1B) Napoli
2B) Pedroria
SS) Rollins in 2015 – JP Crawford in 2016
3B) Franco or Asche (Sox choice)
C) Vazquez
LF) Craig / Victorino
CF) Castillo
RF) Betts
DH) Ortiz
P) Hamels / Shields / Buchholz / Kelly / Owens (de la Rosa – Ranaudo)
as a Phillies fan and baseball fan in general, I just threw up from that.
Did you puke as a “baseball fan” when Ruben asked for Betts, Owens, Swihart and Margot for Hamels…….let’s be honest……If that’s the starting point my counter proposal makes plenty of sense. I’m trying to make a point.
Because anyone actually knows if he asked for that. 99% of what we hear ends up being garbage/exaggerated. But if that was true, yes that makes me equally puke. But still not as much as the fact Amaro is still employed.
How about Hamels to the Rangers? Is this realistic?
Hamels & Rollins to Houston for Jake Marisnick, Mike Foltynewicz, & Rio Ruiz.
I could see Pittsburgh being a dark horse for LaRoche
When Huntington took over as GM we needed a 1st Baseman, 3rd Baseman, Catcher and Outfielders – going in to this off season the outfield is filled (no thanks to Huntington) but we still need a 1st, 3rd and catcher.. How long are they going to give this GM before finding someone who can judge talent, then again as long as he keeps taking all the blame for the cheap owner he’ll be here forever