2015 Rosterbation

[calsnowskier]

Cole Hamels has requested a trade from the Phil's to a contender. He still has 4/94 with a 19M option remaining.

He is a stud, no doubt. But he is paid like an Ace+. Would we take him and his contract if the Phil's were to just had it over? How much would they need to cover in order for us to send over a couple prospects (Crick and Osich, for example)?

 

[msgkings322]

Cole Hamels has requested a trade from the Phil's to a contender. He still has 4/94 with a 19M option remaining.

He is a stud, no doubt. But he is paid like an Ace+. Would we take him and his contract if the Phil's were to just had it over? How much would they need to cover in order for us to send over a couple prospects (Crick and Osich, for example)?

Really cool post here...actually gets me thinking if the FO can be creative like this maybe they don't punt?

And trading for him would give Panda something to think about in terms of staying on a proven winner, that's not afraid to try to compete, maybe take a bit less money...

Oh and I think we would take on almost all of the Hamels contract if we only had to give up a B prospect. To get us to give an A/B or two? Phils gotta eat half.

 

[calsnowskier]

Really cool post here...actually gets me thinking if the FO can be creative like this maybe they don't punt?

And trading for him would give Panda something to think about in terms of staying on a proven winner, that's not afraid to try to compete, maybe take a bit less money...

Oh and I think we would take on almost all of the Hamels contract if we only had to give up a B prospect. To get us to give an A/B or two? Phils gotta eat half.

If you are willing to eat Hamels' contract, why not go after Lester? Do you think he would demand 23.5M aav?

 

[Reefer]

If you are willing to eat Hamels' contract, why not go after Lester? Do you think he would demand 23.5M aav?

If Lester gets 7 years then I see the appeal of trading B level prospects and taking on the rest of Hamel's contract since they are the same age.

Really hoping they can find a way to keep Pablo AND add Tomas. That would make for an exciting offseason.

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

I don't think any team is concerned about Hamels contract in trading for him. Still an ace SP and with the huge market for him, PHI is asking for a lot. Two MLB-ready high-level prospects and a third prospect who is near-ready (from CSNPhilly writer Jim Salisbury)

I do like idea of Lester (if we were to go big money)

 

[Mays-Fan]

Yes.

Either/or.

MAYBE even get both. Signing Tomas would be a good safety net, but it may also give Panda more reason to stay -- another bat in the lineup and another "Latin" player to hang out with.

We could probably do it budget-wise. I had a scenario earlier with Panda and Melky. Tomas would cost annually about what Melky would cost. No other FA SP's though, other than Vogey. No Morse, no Romo.
But the always unanswered question is: What is the budget?

 

[calsnowskier]

I don't think any team is concerned about Hamels contract in trading for him. Still an ace SP and with the huge market for him, PHI is asking for a lot. Two MLB-ready high-level prospects and a third prospect who is near-ready (from CSNPhilly writer Jim Salisbury)

I do like idea of Lester (if we were to go big money)

If they are looking for the equivalent of Crick, Carbonell and Law, AND they are not eating any contract, screw 'em. He may be a stud, but that contract is ridiculous.

Like I said, I am not sure I would take him with no compensation if that contract is attached.

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

If they are looking for the equivalent of Crick, Carbonell and Law, AND they are not eating any contract, screw 'em. He may be a stud, but that contract is ridiculous.

Like I said, I am not sure I would take him with no compensation if that contract is attached.

I personally think that league-wide view has cooled on Crick. Control problems remain an issue, may not even be a top-65 overall prospect in baseball as of now. So would be hard to get a lot for him regardless.

McCovey Chron (realize this was fictional offseason mock) traded Crick for Jackie Bradley Jr. So just not sure how much value he has

 

[calsnowskier]

I personally think that league-wide view has cooled on Crick. Control problems remain an issue, may not even be a top-65 overall prospect in baseball as of now. So would be hard to get a lot for him regardless.

McCovey Chron (realize this was fictional offseason mock) traded Crick for Jackie Bradley Jr. So just not sure how much value he has

I don't argue any of that. However, Crick is still a near-MLB-ready prospect, who I currently rank as the orgs #3 prospect (behind Carbonell and Beede).

Again, though, I go back to the crux of my argument. I would be hard-pressed to accept Hamels and his contract for no players, let alone 3 near-MLB-ready high prospects.

 

[GiantsPackersChamps2011]

I don't argue any of that. However, Crick is still a near-MLB-ready prospect, who I currently rank as the orgs #3 prospect (behind Carbonell and Beede).

Again, though, I go back to the crux of my argument. I would be hard-pressed to accept Hamels and his contract for no players, let alone 3 near-MLB-ready high prospects.

Yeah I can definitely get that. I mean if we were going to spend that money as you said, better investment is to use it on Lester (if it's not already going to Sandoval)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Cole Hamels has requested a trade from the Phil's to a contender. He still has 4/94 with a 19M option remaining.

He is a stud, no doubt. But he is paid like an Ace+. Would we take him and his contract if the Phil's were to just had it over? How much would they need to cover in order for us to send over a couple prospects (Crick and Osich, for example)?

1) The option automatically vests if Hamels pitches 400 innings in 17+18, and at least 200 in 18. It vests at $24M in that case.

2) Although $22.5M is pretty high, that's just the crazy increase in salaries since the new TV deal - teams spent it on salaries, and salaries skyrocketed upwards. I thought Pence's salary was out of line, but today that's just the salary for a decent performer (NOT a star, just a good player). Hamels would get a lot more if he was signing a contract today, just 2 years later.

3) I'd really like our chances in 2015, and 2016, and 2017 with Hamels here. Top 3 of MadBum, Cain and Hamels? FUCK yeah! (doing the Lefty, righty, lefty thing).

4) Talk to Panda (NOT just his agent) and say "We're thinking of going for it continually for the next 4 years. We've just traded for another star pitcher, because great pitching wins championships. We'd like you to be part of the team, but we can't offer you what you can get elsewhere - either the money or the years. But we think you'd like another WS ring. Or maybe even 3. We'll can give you 4 years at $20M/per and have great chances to get back to the WS. We really do want you here, but that's all we can offer. Do you want the extra millions, or a good chance at extra rings with the team-mates you know and love?" And then be flexible enough to offer him Pence's contract if he has to have 5 years.

Since Wil Nieves is gone, the Phils could use a backup catcher. Trade Hector Sanchez, and a A or AA relief pitcher and maybe a A- (or lower) player for some (?$5M?) salary relief the first year. (After 2015 Timmy and Scutaro are off the payroll). But after winning it all in 2014, the team is pretty flush in cash and really doesn't NEED the relief for 2015. But if we don't get the money, just send them Hector. He'll provide their cheap backup, and they don't appear to have a star catcher (or even a good catcher) anywhere close to the majors. A decent, cheap backup catcher is one thing that they need. We've got Susac and can spare him.

Having said all that, I don't know what Hamels is like in the clubhouse. If he's an arrogant fucktard, then you don't trade for him under any circumstances. I get the impression that the Giants are a team - that is, a group of people - who are fighting not just for themselves, but for all of their team-mates, and that's an important part of why they've won 3 rings in 5 years. They ALL refuse to give up, and want it almost more for their team-mates than they do for themselves. Just my impression. You don't want to fuck with that dynamic. It works.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don't argue any of that. However, Crick is still a near-MLB-ready prospect, who I currently rank as the orgs #3 prospect (behind Carbonell and Beede).

Again, though, I go back to the crux of my argument. I would be hard-pressed to accept Hamels and his contract for no players, let alone 3 near-MLB-ready high prospects.

Salaries are just higher now. I don't particularly like it, but it is the new reality. $22M is the new $16M (which was unheard of for a pitcher when Zito signed that abortion of a contract). Clayton Kershaw, Justin Verlander, Felix Hernandez, CC Sabathia, and Masahiro Tanaka all made more money than Hamels (Tanaka is earning about the same annually, but got an extra year). Kershaw's contract, signed just one year after Hamels is just insane. $32M or $33M AND he can opt out 2 years early if he wants to.

I *wish* that the contract was just for 3 years, but it is what it is. Going into the playoffs with TWO #1 aces (if not 3) would be fantastic. Belt and Crawford and Panik are not going to be expensive for awhile, so now is when the team can afford it. If another ace comes up from the minors in 2 years, we trade him again (preferably to an AL team like Boston or the Yankers or the Angels) for a huge haul in prospects.

 

[msgkings322]

Sidebar: if they don't keep Panda, maybe bring Uribe back to play 3rd for 1-2 years as a stopgap? Isn't he a free agent?

 

[msgkings322]

Salaries are just higher now. I don't particularly like it, but it is the new reality. $22M is the new $16M (which was unheard of for a pitcher when Zito signed that abortion of a contract). Clayton Kershaw, Justin Verlander, Felix Hernandez, CC Sabathia, and Masahiro Tanaka all made more money than Hamels (Tanaka is earning about the same annually, but got an extra year). Kershaw's contract, signed just one year after Hamels is just insane. $32M or $33M AND he can opt out 2 years early if he wants to.

I *wish* that the contract was just for 3 years, but it is what it is. Going into the playoffs with TWO #1 aces (if not 3) would be fantastic. Belt and Crawford and Panik are not going to be expensive for awhile, so now is when the team can afford it. If another ace comes up from the minors in 2 years, we trade him again (preferably to an AL team like Boston or the Yankers or the Angels) for a huge haul in prospects.

Exactly...that crazy deal Stanton's about to sign? By the end of it the per year numbers will be not really all that high. He of course still won't be earning even that number, and may in fact be DHing on another team by then, but long deals are like that, at first the number is crazy, then the market keeps on rising, by the end of it it's not so crazy.

 

[tzill]

1) The option automatically vests if Hamels pitches 400 innings in 17+18, and at least 200 in 18. It vests at $24M in that case.

2) Although $22.5M is pretty high, that's just the crazy increase in salaries since the new TV deal - teams spent it on salaries, and salaries skyrocketed upwards. I thought Pence's salary was out of line, but today that's just the salary for a decent performer (NOT a star, just a good player). Hamels would get a lot more if he was signing a contract today, just 2 years later.

3) I'd really like our chances in 2015, and 2016, and 2017 with Hamels here. Top 3 of MadBum, Cain and Hamels? FUCK yeah! (doing the Lefty, righty, lefty thing).

4) Talk to Panda (NOT just his agent) and say "We're thinking of going for it continually for the next 4 years. We've just traded for another star pitcher, because great pitching wins championships. We'd like you to be part of the team, but we can't offer you what you can get elsewhere - either the money or the years. But we think you'd like another WS ring. Or maybe even 3. We'll can give you 4 years at $20M/per and have great chances to get back to the WS. We really do want you here, but that's all we can offer. Do you want the extra millions, or a good chance at extra rings with the team-mates you know and love?" And then be flexible enough to offer him Pence's contract if he has to have 5 years.

Since Wil Nieves is gone, the Phils could use a backup catcher. Trade Hector Sanchez, and a A or AA relief pitcher and maybe a A- (or lower) player for some (?$5M?) salary relief the first year. (After 2015 Timmy and Scutaro are off the payroll). But after winning it all in 2014, the team is pretty flush in cash and really doesn't NEED the relief for 2015. But if we don't get the money, just send them Hector. He'll provide their cheap backup, and they don't appear to have a star catcher (or even a good catcher) anywhere close to the majors. A decent, cheap backup catcher is one thing that they need. We've got Susac and can spare him.

Having said all that, I don't know what Hamels is like in the clubhouse. If he's an arrogant fucktard, then you don't trade for him under any circumstances. I get the impression that the Giants are a team - that is, a group of people - who are fighting not just for themselves, but for all of their team-mates, and that's an important part of why they've won 3 rings in 5 years. They ALL refuse to give up, and want it almost more for their team-mates than they do for themselves. Just my impression. You don't want to fuck with that dynamic. It works.

Don't forget the luxury cap. With Hamels on the books for 2015, we'd be at $152MM before any FA or arb guys are added. Add in Panda at $20MM and you're likely over the cap, which I seriously doubt ownership would allow.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Don't forget the luxury cap. With Hamels on the books for 2015, we'd be at $152MM before any FA or arb guys are added. Add in Panda at $20MM and you're likely over the cap, which I seriously doubt ownership would allow.

The cap isn't that bad, the first year (if you're barely over it). And in 2016, Timmy and Scutaro are gone. In 2015, the 'Tax Threshold' is $189 million. And the tax would be 17.5% of the amount over $189M (if the Club did not exceed the Tax Threshold in the preceding Contract Year). So suppose the Giants spend $200M in 2015. They would pay a tax of (drum roll please) ... about $2M. Snore.

 

[msgkings322]

The cap isn't that bad, the first year (if you're barely over it). And in 2016, Timmy and Scutaro are gone. In 2015, the 'Tax Threshold' is $189 million. And the tax would be 17.5% of the amount over $189M (if the Club did not exceed the Tax Threshold in the preceding Contract Year). So suppose the Giants spend $200M in 2015. They would pay a tax of (drum roll please) ... about $2M. Snore.

Bam! Educated...

Marco droppin' SCIENCE

 

[msgkings322]

Also did anyone else hear about Scott Boras saying Barry Zito wants to come back and pitch next year?

He is younger than Vogelsong and Hudson...

 

[tzill]

The cap isn't that bad, the first year (if you're barely over it). And in 2016, Timmy and Scutaro are gone. In 2015, the 'Tax Threshold' is $189 million. And the tax would be 17.5% of the amount over $189M (if the Club did not exceed the Tax Threshold in the preceding Contract Year). So suppose the Giants spend $200M in 2015. They would pay a tax of (drum roll please) ... about $2M. Snore.

Good point. I don't see them expanding the payroll that much anyway.

 

[tzill]

The cap isn't that bad, the first year (if you're barely over it). And in 2016, Timmy and Scutaro are gone. In 2015, the 'Tax Threshold' is $189 million. And the tax would be 17.5% of the amount over $189M (if the Club did not exceed the Tax Threshold in the preceding Contract Year). So suppose the Giants spend $200M in 2015. They would pay a tax of (drum roll please) ... about $2M. Snore.

Just thinking this through...if they were at 200 in 2015, that about 202 with the tax.

2016, Timmy/Huddy/Scoots/JA come off for a savings of 43MM. But, Casilla/Belt/Blanco/Petit/Crawford/Kontos all due raises too. Tough to see us getting under 189 again, and then the tax would be 30%. However, the cap likely goes up in 2017. Tough call.

Bottom line, I can't see ownership expanding payroll by $50MM over opening day this year.

But, I am often in the business of being wrong.