Cubs Claim Cole Hamels

I wouldn't mortgage our farm that we waited the last 3+ years to build up and develop for a 31-year old LHP, considering we can make a splash in FA to get a pitcher of equal or lesser value (maybe even at the same/cheaper price) without moving several of our Top 100 spects. That's the thing we have to consider now. Most teams don't have 10% of the top prospects in baseball. In the past you could make a case by saying "Bryant is all we have, can we entice you with [insert several lower ranked prospects in your organization that are outside the Top 100]"....Now teams see Bryant, Baez, Schwarber, Almora, Soler, Edwards, Tseng, Johnson, and Jiminez...and they are not gonna budge on taking at least 2-3 of them behind the Bryant/Baez/Soler untouchables....which is a MUCH better haul that going to Houston for Folty + 2-3 of their lesser spects that arent on the radar.

ZAN said:

I wouldn't mortgage our farm that we waited the last 3+ years to build up and develop for a 31-year old LHP, considering we can make a splash in FA to get a pitcher of equal or lesser value (maybe even at the same/cheaper price) without moving several of our Top 100 spects. That's the thing we have to consider now. Most teams don't have 10% of the top prospects in baseball. In the past you could make a case by saying "Bryant is all we have, can we entice you with [insert several lower ranked prospects in your organization that are outside the Top 100]"....Now teams see Bryant, Baez, Schwarber, Almora, Soler, Edwards, Tseng, Johnson, and Jiminez...and they are not gonna budge on taking at least 2-3 of them behind the Bryant/Baez/Soler untouchables....which is a MUCH better haul that going to Houston for Folty + 2-3 of their lesser spects that arent on the radar.

Click to expand...

So do you think the main reason why Jed and Theo came over is to just overhaul a farm system? No that was a phase. They identified that the farm was shit. They built it up. But the goal has been to put a quality product in Wrigg not in the minors.

They are shifting from the development phase to the contending phase. This like this happen. They have no pitching prospect but a over load of hitting talent.


The stupidest move would be to let this wave come up then when the next comes up trade out for the next wave. That is just running a team on a budget. Not putting out a winning product.

Since Hamels has the Cards listed, can it be assumed that the Cubs are part of the NTC because they are losers? Does that change now that it is apparent that the Cubs are on the upswing?

NL Notes: Hamels, Bastardo, Alderson, Neshek
By Charlie Wilmoth [August 7, 2014 at 9:34am CDT]
Cole Hamels of the Phillies has been claimed on revocable waivers by an unknown team, and David Kaplan of CSNChicago.com notes that the Cubs might have interest. If in fact Chicago was the team that claimed him, trading for Hamels would be a huge splash for a Cubs team that’s spent the past few years mostly avoiding acquiring big-ticket players. The Cubs do, however, appear to be interested in an ace to complement their collection of young hitters — they were connected to Masahiro Tanaka last offseason. Hamels is signed through 2018 with a club/vesting option for 2019, with $96MM guaranteed after this season. His limited no-trade protection would allow him to block a deal to the Cubs, but Kaplan notes that Hamels reportedly had interest in pitching for the Cubs in the past. ESPN’s Buster Olney (Insider-only) noted earlier this week that claiming Hamels would make sense for the Cubs. Here are more notes from the National League.

Parade_Rain said:

Since Hamels has the Cards listed, can it be assumed that the Cubs are part of the NTC because they are losers? Does that change now that it is apparent that the Cubs are on the upswing?

Click to expand...

Cubs are on most players NTL. Think it has to do with market size issues. From what I've heard it is common.

The Philadelphia Phillies put veteran starter Cole Hamels on revocable waivers on Wednesday, a process that allows them to pull him back if he is claimed by another team. Late Wednesday evening Mike Missanelli, a sports radio host in Philadelphia, tweeted that his sources say that the Cubs were the only team to put in a claim on the standout starter.


Would the Phillies consider dealing one of the top starting pitchers in baseball and the ace of their staff? Would the Cubs put together an attractive enough offer to convince the Phillies to trade him? Would the Cubs take on the nearly $100 million remaining on his contract that runs through 2018 with a team option for the 2019 season?

[MORE CUBS: Javier Baez hopes to speed up learning curve]

While the Cubs were unavailable for comment late Wednesday evening, I did speak with two major league baseball sources outside of Chicago who believe that the Cubs would indeed be willing to acquire Hamels if he was made available. In addition, it is worth remembering that before Hamels agreed to a $144 million deal in 2012, he reportedly had the Cubs on a short list of teams that he was interested in. ESPN’s Buster Olney wrote about potential waiver deals on Wednesday, and referenced the Cubs and Hamels in several scenarios that make smart baseball sense.

Could the Cubs be interested in Hamels as a staff ace? Most definitely. They could also be putting in a claim to keep other teams from grabbing him which would open up some interesting trade scenarios as Olney wrote. Whether or not Hamels is traded to the Cubs is not the big story here. Yes, a star like Hamels would be a huge addition to the organization, but the bigger message that discussions like these show is that the Cubs are serious about adding impact pitching to go along with the elite prospects that are going to form the core of their team over the next several seasons. Showing the baseball world that the Cubs are again open for business is refreshing and should signal a start of some very interesting times at Wrigley Field. And that’s a long way from the inactivity of the past few offseasons.

Here's a look at Cole Hamels' contract (courtesy Cot’s Baseball Contracts):

Cole Hamels, LHP
-6 years/$144 million (2013-18), plus 2019 option

Signed extension with Philadelphia on July 25, 2012
$6 million signing bonus
2013: $19.5 million, 2014: $22.5 million, 2015: $22.5 million, 2016: $22.5 million, 2017: $22.5 million, 2018: $22.5 million, 2019: $20 million club option ($6 million buyout)
2019 option guaranteed at $24 million if Hamels 1.) has 400 IP in 2017-18, including 200 IP in 2018, and 2.) is not on the disabled list with a shoulder or elbow injury at the end of the 2018 season
Limited no-trade protection (may block trades to 20 clubs each season); (for 2014, may block deals to all clubs except Atlanta, Boston, LA Angels, LA Dodgers, NY Yankees, San Diego, St. Louis, Texas and Washington)
At signing, the second-largest contract ever for a pitcher

CSF77 said:

So do you think the main reason why Jed and Theo came over is to just overhaul a farm system? No that was a phase. They identified that the farm was shit. They built it up. But the goal has been to put a quality product in Wrigg not in the minors.

They are shifting from the development phase to the contending phase. This like this happen. They have no pitching prospect but a over load of hitting talent.


The stupidest move would be to let this wave come up then when the next comes up trade out for the next wave. That is just running a team on a budget. Not putting out a winning product.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn't to build a farm. I completely understand the aspect of Moneyball is to get fat at the organizational depth-level and then trade potential for MLB-ready players when your window of opportunity is there (i.e. Oakland this year...Boston is years past). I also see the clear imbalance of hitting to pitching talent in our organization.

But the reality of the situation is that our window of opportunity is NOT next year; though I see us being much more competitive. The offense has not been a problem lately, and it's only going to be getting better with Baez up, Soler most likely this weekend (rumor has it - I'll be patient though), and Bryant in September and into next year...with Almora and Schwarber (hopefully) being next years version of this year's wave.

My point is that when you have all this hitting in the pipeline about to bust out on the ML level, and you don't having the pitching to match, you often acquire it through trading to win now. But we aren't in that win-now window yet. We ALSO have a bottom 3rd payroll (heck, 13 mill of it is even paying Soriano who is off the books finally this winter)...we have about 40 million to spend this offseason. We can acquire an ace, and then have enough to go get a middle rotation guy like Ian Kennedy, and even bid big on Maeda if we wanted to go all out on pitching. There's no reason at all to think we can't spend to get either Lester or Scherzer and also get one of Kennedy/Maeda. That would pack a QUICK punch to our rotation.

I just think that's a much better splash than giving away one or two of our Fab Five (Baez, Bryant, Russell, Soler, Almora) and then 1 or 2 of Edwards, Tseng, Eloy, etc...

But the reality of the situation is that our window of opportunity is NOT next year; though I see us being much more competitive. The offense has not been a problem lately, and it's only going to be getting better with Baez up, Soler most likely this weekend (rumor has it - I'll be patient though), and Bryant in September and into next year...with Almora and Schwarber (hopefully) being next years version of this year's wave.

Click to expand...

Lets see about this:

#1 LF: Chris Coglan .302/.382/.498 Fangraphs has him at a .384 wOBA. He could be the comeback player of the year.
#2 2B Javy Baez
#3 1B Rizzo
#4 3B Kris Bryant
#5 RF Jorge Soler
#6 SS Starlin Castro
#7 CF Arismendy Alcantara I like that he has HR power at the bottom of the line up.
#8 C Wellington Castillo

That is a pretty impact line up next year. To be honest you could go forward with it alone. Adding Schwarber, Almora, Russell just means that you are selling Castillo, Castro Alcantara etc anyways.

It makes sense for the Cubs to become legit now. Loosing Russell and Almora is not hurting the future of this team. If anything all they are doing is being forced to trade someone anyways. Might as well be fore a ace vs a prospect....

I see your point, I'm not sure they view Alcantara the way you view him. I think he's great as a super-sub. Hollandsworth was saying that Coghlan is playing himself into serious consideration for full-time gig next year...but he's not taking time away from Soler or Bryant (assuming they move Bryant to the corner OF), and unless Schwarber amazes behind the plate, they are seeing him as a corner outfielder as well.

I can see Castro being on the move...but would rather they just let him play his way through next year and prove he's a lifetime Cub and part of the WS run in the future. Russell is capable of playing 3B if they want to move Bryant to LF. Soler's arm strength slots well in RF.

The good thing with all this talent is the multi-position eligibility. I think you could see a 2016 make up of this (sure, some of the situations aren't ideal...but you know Bryant or Schwarber can spell Rizzo). Baez is versatile, defensively. Russell is too. Alcantara as well. You'll basically be able to spell anyone on the roster, and Coghlan and Alcantara....and this is with only 10 guys...you figure 7-8 in the pen and 5 in the rotation...gives us 2-3 more bench players to do whatever with...

C - Castillo/Schwarber
1B - Rizzo (maybe groom Schwarber/Bryant to play a little 1B when Rizzo needs a day off)
2B - Baez/Alcantara
3B - Russell/Bryant
SS - Castro/Baez
LF - Bryant/Coghlan/Alcantara
CF - Almora/Alcantara
RF - Soler/Bryant/Schwarber

ZAN said:

...Hollandsworth was saying that Coghlan is playing himself into serious consideration for full-time gig next year...but he's not taking time away from Soler or Bryant (assuming they move Bryant to the corner OF)

Click to expand...

Why would anyone assume that Bryant is getting moved to corner OF? He's staying put at 3B unless/until Russell would come up at least.

Parade_Rain said:

Why would anyone assume that Bryant is getting moved to corner OF? He's staying put at 3B unless/until Russell would come up at least.

Click to expand...

The real key is if Bryant continue to make strides defensively; if he does they definitely will leave him there. I believe Jed Hoyer said in mid-July that moving Bryant to the OF is always a possibility (after the Russell trade, IIRC)

Castillo - C
Rizzo - 1B
Baez - 2B
Bryant - 3B
Castro - SS
Soler - LF
Almora - CF
Open - RF

This would allow us the ability to make Alcantara a super-sub, Coghlan as continued depth off the bench...and start to plan a spot for Addison Russell. I think the Cubs genuinely think he can slot and perform well at SS, 3B, or in a corner outfield slot with his size, power, speed, and arm strength.

Na Soler has a gun and has played RF from day 1. He is the long term RF. Schwarber is 1-2 years out. Then add to it in Daytona they have Billy McKinney and Jacob Hannemann.

The biggest challange going forward is infusing quality LH bats in a RH core hitting team. That is why I feel Almora is expendable. Too RH anyways.

And I feel that Alcantara is a core player. He has a better top end than Almora. Almora is a steady player. Not a impact talent.

The Bandit said:

I'd love to add Cole Hamels, but, I'm doubting anything comes out of this. The Phillies aren't just gonna hand him to us with a bow. Cliff Lee maybe, but not Cole Hamels.

sent from Jimmer range using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

no doubt he will cost a good haul, but the cubs should go for it. they have all these infielders. not all these specs will pan out so do it! since shark is gone they need a rotation.

:clap:

DewsSox79 said:

no doubt he will cost a good haul, but the cubs should go for it. they have all these infielders. not all these specs will pan out so do it! since shark is gone they need a rotation.

Click to expand...

DewsSox79 said:

no doubt he will cost a good haul, but the cubs should go for it. they have all these infielders. not all these specs will pan out so do it! since shark is gone they need a rotation.

Click to expand...

The problem with trading the prospects is that you don't want to trade the ones who will pan out, you want to trade the ones that don't. The Braves tend to be really really good at doing this. It's all apart of the gamble, but if it gets us a World Series title, it's worth it.

Captain Obvious said:

The problem with trading the prospects is that you don't want to trade the ones who will pan out, you want to trade the ones that don't. The Braves tend to be really really good at doing this. It's all apart of the gamble, but if it gets us a World Series title, it's worth it.

Click to expand...

Its not about a title

They lied. Its about sustainability. So far A+ on that. Continually awful

LOL.

If getting a number one means giving up a roll of the dice, outside of Bryant, the Cubs would be stupid not to do it.

Baez and Almora for Hammels? I got time and gas money to drive them to O'hare, eat a beef while I wait for Hammels, then drive him to Wrigley. Are you fucking kidding me?

Captain Obvious said:

The problem with trading the prospects is that you don't want to trade the ones who will pan out, you want to trade the ones that don't. The Braves tend to be really really good at doing this. It's all apart of the gamble, but if it gets us a World Series title, it's worth it.

Click to expand...

No one knows who will or will not pan out. It has more to do with who is MLB ready or not. Almora/Russell in AAA next year. Bryant/Castro/Rizzo/Baez/Soler/Alcantara in the majors. The last thing you do when putting together a core then spen on a ace is turn over the core. That is stupid.

In the end if they flip shark for Russell then use Russell to get 4 years of Hammel's you do it.

I'm surprised the flap festers don't get this

CSF77 said:

Price came with 1 year of control. Hammels has 4...not really the same situation

Click to expand...

That's more relevant to small market teams like the Rays, Royals, Indians, White Sox, Twins, etc.. And it also doesn't change tag ridiculous prospect package you're offering. Years of control for 30+ year old pitchers is quite the euphemism. What you're calling "years of control", the Red Sox are calling "buyer beware".

And you're right about it not being the same situation. Price is younger and ha withstood pitching the ALEast. I think the ALEast thing is overrated but others don't.

Hamels probably isnt going to happen, but Theo did confirm that we are going after pitching at market price.

http://www.csnchicago.com/cubs/not-cole-hamels-now-cubs-will-be-market-no-1-starter