Cherington / Amaro

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Cherington / Amaro

    Go find the link for yourself, but Ben Cherington took the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge after being nominated by Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr.


     


    So the guy who has been non-stop scouting the Sox and controls the pitcher the Sox are most-often linked to is also calling out the Sox GM from anyone and everyone in the world to take the ice bucket challenge?  These two are getting a bit too cozy here to think nothing will happen this off-season...


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to notin's comment:

    Go find the link for yourself, but Ben Cherington took the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge after being nominated by Phillies GM Ruben Amaro Jr.

     

     

     

    So the guy who has been non-stop scouting the Sox and controls the pitcher the Sox are most-often linked to is also calling out the Sox GM from anyone and everyone in the world to take the ice bucket challenge?  These two are getting a bit too cozy here to think nothing will happen this off-season...

     

     




    [object HTMLDivElement]. The Sox do seem very interested in Hamels. While he would be expensive, it would not be nearly as expensive as Lester. The Phillies extensive scouting of the Sox farm system would indicate that they don't have their mind set on one or two obvious prospects. It is possible that we could get Hamels without giving up the top guys like Betts and Owens. Especially Betts. Will be an interesting off season. 

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    I have to think either Betts, Owens or both would be required in a package for Hamels and his four years of expensive, but not crazy-over-market, control.

     

    If he could be had for Betts, Webster and Coyle, it probably should be done, although I hate giving up Betts.  I would think the package would be closer to something like Betts, Ranaudo and either Vazquez or Marrero.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to notin's comment:

    I have to think either Betts, Owens or both would be required in a package for Hamels and his four years of expensive, but not crazy-over-market, control.

     

    If he could be had for Betts, Webster and Coyle, it probably should be done, although I hate giving up Betts.  I would think the package would be closer to something like Betts, Ranaudo and either Vazquez or Marrero.




    [object HTMLDivElement].  I would be very reluctant to give up Betts. He looks like he has All Star potential. I would rather give up all of the other prospects you mentioned than do a straight Betts for Hamels deal. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    I can't C sox getting hammels


    3 thoughts


    1) phillie's have no surplus of starters or need (money issues) 2 trade him


    = a bargain won't be in play


    2) there will be more than just sox bidding on the guy


    = a bargain won't be in play


    3) sox would look pretty foolish giving up more than minimum talent while letting lester walk

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    I can't C sox getting hammels

     

    not sure if this is 2 thoughts or 1 thought 2 to remember

    1) phillie's have no need (money issues) 2 trade him

    = a bargain won't be in play

    2) there will be more than just sox bidding on the guy

    = a bargain won't be in play

    lets call it 3 thoughts

    3) sox would look pretty foolish giving up more than minimum talent while letting lester walk




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    1-The Phillies are stuck and money is an issue.  They are at $144M for 10 players, and not very good.

    3-And therein lies the problem.  Hamels is a few bucks cheaper, so we give up 2 top-100 prospects to replace Lester, a RS hero, with Hamels?  How could that possibly make sense?  And to make it worse, it won't work with the fans.  Sometimes you have to make an unpopular move, like letting Ellsbury walk, because it's the right BB move.  But this move has failure written all over it.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    I can't C sox getting hammels

     

    not sure if this is 2 thoughts or 1 thought 2 to remember

    1) phillie's have no need (money issues) 2 trade him

    = a bargain won't be in play

    2) there will be more than just sox bidding on the guy

    = a bargain won't be in play

    lets call it 3 thoughts

    3) sox would look pretty foolish giving up more than minimum talent while letting lester walk




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    1-The Phillies are stuck and money is an issue.  They are at $144M for 10 players, and not very good.

    3-And therein lies the problem.  Hamels is a few bucks cheaper, so we give up 2 top-100 prospects to replace Lester, a RS hero, with Hamels?  How could that possibly make sense?  And to make it worse, it won't work with the fans.  Sometimes you have to make an unpopular move, like letting Ellsbury walk, because it's the right BB move.  But this move has failure written all over it.




    IDK JB I couldn't find anything to support your ''The Phillies are stuck and money is an issue''

    but I did find this to support my statement

    heck it looks like I read it B4 I posted which I didn't

    Cole Hamels has been mentioned in several trade talks over the past several weeks, but the Philadelphia Phillies intend to keep the veteran pitcher unless offered an attractive trade package

    Matt Gelb of the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the Phillies are not looking forward to parting ways with Phillies, but they could eventually decide to deal the left hander if a trade partner expresses interest in giving up four top prospects in the deal.

    "The Phillies will want an acquiring team to surrender three or four top prospects and assume the $96 million owed to Hamels. They are in no way motivated to trade the 30-year-old pitcher," Gelb wrote.

     

    http://www.latinpost.com/articles/19424/20140817/mlb-philadelphia-phillies-want-four-prospects-hamels.htm

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    Lots of empty seats at cbp...football town all the way and only show up when phillies are front runners.  

    other names i have posted under:  none

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to notin's comment:

    I have to think either Betts, Owens or both would be required in a package for Hamels and his four years of expensive, but not crazy-over-market, control.

     

    If he could be had for Betts, Webster and Coyle, it probably should be done, although I hate giving up Betts.  I would think the package would be closer to something like Betts, Ranaudo and either Vazquez or Marrero.




    Cole Hamels luxury tax salary number is $24M. If we take his 2019 option of $20M, he will cost us $132.5M/6 or about $22M a year. (The $6M buyout is what inflates his luxury tax number.) How much will it take to bring Lester back or to sign Shields. I know Scherzer will cost quite a bit more, but what is the financial value of Betts, Owens and Ranaudo?

    I'm not a big fan of overpaying pitchers over 30 either, but signing Shields to a 3-4 year deal and keeping the prospects or using them to land a big bat or less costly pitcher makes more sense. Overpaying Lester or Scherzer makes more sense as well.

    Remember, our first round pick is protected, so we will not lose it by signing a big star. If we ever had a window to go large in free agency, it's this winter. We have about $65-70M to spend and a protected 1st round draft pick. It's now or never.

    I suppose we could trade for Hamels and sign a big SP'er, but I doubt that happens. The other thing that worries me is that the Phillies always seem to want way more than what their players are worth.

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    I can't C sox getting hammels

     

    3 thoughts

     

    1) phillie's have no surplus of starters or need (money issues) 2 trade him

     

    = a bargain won't be in play

     

    2) there will be more than just sox bidding on the guy

     

    = a bargain won't be in play

     

    3) sox would look pretty foolish giving up more than minimum talent while letting lester walk



    The SOX have the money to buy Lester during the offseason. OK, so John Henry won't make the profits he made this year; he'll make up for it some how. Other than buying a starting pitcher, I don't see the SOX making any major trades during the offseason.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to notin's comment:

    I have to think either Betts, Owens or both would be required in a package for Hamels and his four years of expensive, but not crazy-over-market, control.

     

    If he could be had for Betts, Webster and Coyle, it probably should be done, although I hate giving up Betts.  I would think the package would be closer to something like Betts, Ranaudo and either Vazquez or Marrero.




    Cole Hamels luxury tax salary number is $24M. If we take his 2019 option of $20M, he will cost us $132.5M/6 or about $22M a year. (The $6M buyout is what inflates his luxury tax number.) How much will it take to bring Lester back or to sign Shields. I know Scherzer will cost quite a bit more, but what is the financial value of Betts, Owens and Ranaudo?

    I'm not a big fan of overpaying pitchers over 30 either, but signing Shields to a 3-4 year deal and keeping the prospects or using them to land a big bat or less costly pitcher makes more sense. Overpaying Lester or Scherzer makes more sense as well.

    Remember, our first round pick is protected, so we will not lose it by signing a big star. If we ever had a window to go large in free agency, it's this winter. We have about $65-70M to spend and a protected 1st round draft pick. It's now or never.

    I suppose we could trade for Hamels and sign a big SP'er, but I doubt that happens. The other thing that worries me is that the Phillies always seem to want way more than what their players are worth.

     



    132 for 6 years would seem to be an amount people would be ok giving to Lester, with no prospects or picks having to be sent out. Lester might be offered around 160 over 7 years to pitch somewhere else, but I believe he just wants the Sox to be 'competitive' and he will come back here.

    Add Shields at Lackey money over 3 years (48 million) and we have a quality rotation again.

    Trade Joe Kelly, Webster, Victorino and Jackie Bradley Jr. for Carlos Gonzalez.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from croc. Show croc's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    If they sign Lester and Shields....they'd have signed 2 pitchers over the age of 30 in l-t deals.  Lester makes way more sense than Shields on any level.  He's younger, has pitched better, pitched better in playoffs, can pitch in Boston, is durable.  He's the one guy you turn off the philosophy for.  But they didn't. 

    Is it Hamels they are interested in, or is it Lee? 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Cole Hamels luxury tax salary number is $24M. If we take his 2019 option of $20M, he will cost us $132.5M/6 or about $22M a year. (The $6M buyout is what inflates his luxury tax number.) How much will it take to bring Lester back or to sign Shields. I know Scherzer will cost quite a bit more, but what is the financial value of Betts, Owens and Ranaudo?



    moon, you're including 2014 in those numbers.  2015-19 is 5 years, including the option year.

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    3-And therein lies the problem.  Hamels is a few bucks cheaper, so we give up 2 top-100 prospects to replace Lester, a RS hero, with Hamels?  How could that possibly make sense?  And to make it worse, it won't work with the fans.  Sometimes you have to make an unpopular move, like letting Ellsbury walk, because it's the right BB move.  But this move has failure written all over it.

    +1000

     

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from seannybboi. Show seannybboi's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    Reports are saying Amaro wants 3 top prospects AND not willing to eat any of Hamels salary.  I'm sure he will eventually cut down his asking price but that's pretty high starting point.  

    "There is no try.  Do or Don't"

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to Flapjack07's comment:

    3-And therein lies the problem.  Hamels is a few bucks cheaper, so we give up 2 top-100 prospects to replace Lester, a RS hero, with Hamels?  How could that possibly make sense?  And to make it worse, it won't work with the fans.  Sometimes you have to make an unpopular move, like letting Ellsbury walk, because it's the right BB move.  But this move has failure written all over it.

    +1000 

    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.



    The idea of getting Hamels but losing Lester brings this term to mind:

    'Consolation Prize'

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    If the Sox get Hamels for 4 years and save $50 to 70 M and maintain the philosophical integrity of not signing a pitcher in his 30's to more than 5 years--I thinks that's important. Hamels is a comparable pitcher and it may cost Xander and a pitching prospect---or Owens and a prospect further down the line. We have great depth in the pitching prospect dept.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BogieAt12oclock. Show BogieAt12oclock's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to MadMc44's comment:

    If the Sox get Hamels for 4 years and save $50 to 70 M and maintain the philosophical integrity of not signing a pitcher in his 30's to more than 5 years--I thinks that's important. Hamels is a comparable pitcher and it may cost Xander and a pitching prospect---or Owens and a prospect further down the line. We have great depth in the pitching prospect dept.



    I don't believe one should use the word 'great' in that context.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from croc. Show croc's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    Comparable isn't the same.   His post season stats aren't as good, neither is his record vs AL teams. If they trade for Hamels I'm sure he'll be good, but don't expect he's the same guy that Lester has been on the biggest stage. 


    Lester has been durable and successful at the highest level.  He's the type they should give great consideration to make an exception for.  I'd favor a 6 year deal to him over a 3 year deal for someone like Shields. 


    Not all pitchers fall off the table. 


    http://www.billjamesonline.com/other_pitchers_who_pitched_well_in_their_old_age/" rel="nofollow">http://www.billjamesonline.com/other_pitchers_who_pitched_well_in_their_old_age/


     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from croc. Show croc's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to seannybboi's comment:

    Reports are saying Amaro wants 3 top prospects AND not willing to eat any of Hamels salary.  I'm sure he will eventually cut down his asking price but that's pretty high starting point.  

    "There is no try.  Do or Don't"



    All the reason not to do it.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MadMc44. Show MadMc44's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to BogieAt12oclock's comment:

    In response to MadMc44's comment:

    If the Sox get Hamels for 4 years and save $50 to 70 M and maintain the philosophical integrity of not signing a pitcher in his 30's to more than 5 years--I thinks that's important. Hamels is a comparable pitcher and it may cost Xander and a pitching prospect---or Owens and a prospect further down the line. We have great depth in the pitching prospect dept.



    I don't believe one should use the word 'great' in that context.



    "Substantial" pitching depth.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from billge. Show billge's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    If Amaro does not want to eat any of his salary , let him keep eating all of itt.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pinstripezac35. Show pinstripezac35's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to billge's comment:

    If Amaro does not want to eat any of his salary , let him keep eating all of itt.




    I'm not saying sox FO wouldn't say the same thing but

    that makes no sense

    the way he is pitching no one is 'eating' his salary

    if U R a sox fan contemplating getting him

    his salary should be the least of your concerns

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to billge's comment:

    If Amaro does not want to eat any of his salary , let him keep eating all of itt.




    I'm not saying sox FO wouldn't say the same thing but

    that makes no sense

    the way he is pitching no one is 'eating' his salary

    if U R a sox fan contemplating getting him

    his salary should be the least of your concerns




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Unless you are willing to pay the payroll tax, then all spending is a concern.

    But I agree on the previous statement about the Phillies not HAVING to eat payroll, but sometimes you do better when you do eat it.  Essentially, if Hamels is worth $100M/4, and his salary is $88M/4, then someone owes you $12M worth of prospects.

    If you chip in $10M, then they owe you $22M worth of prospects, BUT, you might have 6-7 teams inquiring instead of 3-4.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Cherington / Amaro

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    I can't C sox getting hammels

     

    not sure if this is 2 thoughts or 1 thought 2 to remember

    1) phillie's have no need (money issues) 2 trade him

    = a bargain won't be in play

    2) there will be more than just sox bidding on the guy

    = a bargain won't be in play

    lets call it 3 thoughts

    3) sox would look pretty foolish giving up more than minimum talent while letting lester walk




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    1-The Phillies are stuck and money is an issue.  They are at $144M for 10 players, and not very good.

    3-And therein lies the problem.  Hamels is a few bucks cheaper, so we give up 2 top-100 prospects to replace Lester, a RS hero, with Hamels?  How could that possibly make sense?  And to make it worse, it won't work with the fans.  Sometimes you have to make an unpopular move, like letting Ellsbury walk, because it's the right BB move.  But this move has failure written all over it.




    IDK JB I couldn't find anything to support your ''The Phillies are stuck and money is an issue''

    but I did find this to support my statement

    heck it looks like I read it B4 I posted which I didn't

    Cole Hamels has been mentioned in several trade talks over the past several weeks, but the Philadelphia Phillies intend to keep the veteran pitcher unless offered an attractive trade package

    Matt Gelb of the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that the Phillies are not looking forward to parting ways with Phillies, but they could eventually decide to deal the left hander if a trade partner expresses interest in giving up four top prospects in the deal.

    "The Phillies will want an acquiring team to surrender three or four top prospects and assume the $96 million owed to Hamels. They are in no way motivated to trade the 30-year-old pitcher," Gelb wrote.

     

    http://www.latinpost.com/articles/19424/20140817/mlb-philadelphia-phillies-want-four-prospects-hamels.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.latinpost.com/articles/19424/20140817/mlb-philadelphia-phillies-want-four-prospects-hamels.htm




    [object HTMLDivElement]

    That might be-

    1-A negotiating tactic

    2-A GM that is still holding out for a big prospect for Lee.

    At the end of the day, there are very few ways out for Amaro.  Hamels is a fine player, but they are unlikely to be be good with or without him.  So do you want your team to be .475-.500, or do you want to suffer a a few bad seasons before becoming a .550 team?

    And there are two other considerations.

    At $22M, he's a nice contract, but it isn't like Trout of Posey or Bumgarner where there is huge excess value.

    And at some point, you have to figure out whether players will still be around when you're ready to compete.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share