Cubs Acquire Cole Hamels from Rangers

[adambr2]

Adam, you missed a ton of seasons of Theo moves, but yeah I guess that axe you got is really dull... Grind on...

 

Oh really? Guess I assumed that since this is the Cole Hamels thread and all, that we were using the Cole Hamels trade to justify how much better Theo is than David and how David missed out on his big opportunity. Didn't realize we were going back and evaluating Theo's every historical move here.

[bill hAll Star]

Don't beat yourself up about that. I remember when I posted that the Cubs essentially bought a lottery ticket with Hamels (and those have been known to be winners every now and then). Big market teams can afford to take more chances than small market teams because they have the financial strength to eat their mistakes. The Brewers can be winners, but it is much harder for them than for big market teams like the Cubs (who spent nearly seventy years acting like a small market team). Epstein and Hoyer aren't gods, but they like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers understand the advantages their financial situation affords them and they leverage it.

Market size had little to do with it. He cost the Cubs around just $4-6 million this year and he’s a FA after the year if his team option isn’t exercised, Schoop will cost more. If we can’t afford that, then what are we even doing?

 

I think it needs to be noted again that there are 29 other teams in the league and somewhere between 10 and 15 that are competing in playoff races.

 

That's not a cop out for Stearns. Some people wanted Hamels and so far they're right.

 

The point, though, is that yes, the Brewers can afford to make a $5 million dollar "buy" move 2-3 times/year in contending years as we've seen. But with 10-15 other teams bidding over a timeline of 3 weeks and needs and market ever changing...we're not always going to get the ideal set of 3 guys. Throw in Hamels maybe preferring the Cubs and the Brewers maybe having to deal with a no trade clause and maybe there was a prevailing thought that it would've cost them more.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

How about we take into account that Hamels was basically a horrible, worthless pitcher for the Rangers this year. Nothing in his numbers with the Rangers said he was going to be any better, or even close to better, than what the Brewers have in their rotation. Yeah, he's pitching great for the Cubs right now. Yeah, that sucks. But I'm not going to lose sleep over the Brewers not acquiring Cole Hamels. The Cubs getting him is akin to the Brewers grabbing Wade Miley this past spring. Sometimes you take a chance on an underperforming vet in the hope that they find something and it works out. Most of the time is doesn't. But once in a while it does. I still wouldn't trust Miley in a one-game playoff, just as I would think the Cubs wouldn't trust Hamels.

[bill hAll Star]

How about we take into account that Hamels was basically a horrible, worthless pitcher for the Rangers this year. Nothing in his numbers with the Rangers said he was going to be any better, or even close to better, than what the Brewers have in their rotation. Yeah, he's pitching great for the Cubs right now. Yeah, that sucks. But I'm not going to lose sleep over the Brewers not acquiring Cole Hamels. The Cubs getting him is akin to the Brewers grabbing Wade Miley this past spring. Sometimes you take a chance on an underperforming vet in the hope that they find something and it works out. Most of the time is doesn't. But once in a while it does. I still wouldn't trust Miley in a one-game playoff, just as I would think the Cubs wouldn't trust Hamels.

 

People are bringing up his H/R splits, which is valid but those might even be a bit drastic.

 

But I will also point out that in 4 games, Hamels has basically gotten out of some jams, mostly against mediocre offenses. If one or two of those bust open, we're talking about a 3.50 ERA or something like that instead of his dominant numbers.

[Fear The Chorizo]

with regard to Hamels, as a Cub he's pitched twice at Pittsburgh, once at KC, and once at home against the Nationals. His home start came in that pitcher's duel with Scherzer on a Sunday night game at Wrigley - wind happened to be blowing in from left center at around 10MPH, too.

 

He's been great for 4 starts, no doubt - but he hasn't exactly pitched in difficult circumstances yet either. Frankly his value to the Cubs is to pick up innings from the shambles of a rotation they are in the progress of having despite spending a TON of money and prospect capital to put together.

[Thurston Fluff]

As I was reading through a few of these threads about how little this guy would have cost and how easily we could have afforded that guy I started to wonder; If we keep making these sort of moves how long can we continue to afford them? Death by a thousand small cuts makes on no less dead. It isn't just about affordability it's about sustainability.

[tmwiese55]

I'm not sure if I've seen it mentioned but I think I saw on twitter that Hamels had us on his no-trade list. Granted, he might have waived it in a year like this but it would've been a hurdle. Maybe he demands his option picked up for next year or something. He was someone I wanted months ago due to his bad contract so you don't have to give up a ton of prospects, but I didn't know about the no trade clause.

[Boomer5]

Adam, you missed a ton of seasons of Theo moves, but yeah I guess that axe you got is really dull... Grind on...

 

Oh really? Guess I assumed that since this is the Cole Hamels thread and all, that we were using the Cole Hamels trade to justify how much better Theo is than David and how David missed out on his big opportunity. Didn't realize we were going back and evaluating Theo's every historical move here.

 

I was really just stating the obvious; That when a move needs to be made that Theo would make the better one.

 

You can’t possibly argue that Stearns is anywhere near Theo’s skill level, right?

[bill hAll Star]

Adam, you missed a ton of seasons of Theo moves, but yeah I guess that axe you got is really dull... Grind on...

 

Oh really? Guess I assumed that since this is the Cole Hamels thread and all, that we were using the Cole Hamels trade to justify how much better Theo is than David and how David missed out on his big opportunity. Didn't realize we were going back and evaluating Theo's every historical move here.

 

I was really just stating the obvious; That when a move needs to be made that Theo would make the better one.

 

You can’t possibly argue that Stearns is anywhere near Theo, right?

 

I'm an Epstein fan but it's hard to say. I think if Epstein was tasked with being GM of the Rays or Brewers he would not be going out and paying $50 million/year to put a band aid on the pitching staff. That said, I don't fault any of the moves he's made given how he set up their big picture to do so.

 

Stearns might've gone out and gotten a pitcher like Hamels if he was the Cubs because with each move where you toss $5 million to fix something, there is still more money waiting in the coffers.

 

Epstein is a good GM but if Stearns got aggressive with pitching before this season and they still had to get a 5th pitcher, he probably wouldn't have the leeway remaining to make a Hamels move (and I'm not even sure he could've this year anyways).

[KeithStone53151]

I was really just stating the obvious; That when a move needs to be made that Theo would make the better one.

 

You can’t possibly argue that Stearns is anywhere near Theo, right?

 

I'm an Epstein fan but it's hard to say. I think if Epstein was tasked with being GM of the Rays or Brewers he would not be going out and paying $50 million/year to put a band aid on the pitching staff. That said, I don't fault any of the moves he's made given how he set up their big picture to do so.

 

Stearns might've gone out and gotten a pitcher like Hamels if he was the Cubs because with each move where you toss $5 million to fix something, there is still more money waiting in the coffers.

 

Epstein is a good GM but if Stearns got aggressive with pitching before this season and they still had to get a 5th pitcher, he probably wouldn't have the leeway remaining to make a Hamels move (and I'm not even sure he could've this year anyways).

 

I've made my opinion on Theo abundantly clear, so I won't rehash. I'll generally agree with bill hall that these 2 guys are working with completely different sets of resources and therefore have to operate in a completely different manner. It's hard to know how Theo or Stearns would operate if they switched places/resources. I think it's relatively safe to say that Stearns likely would be more aggressive while Theo likely would be more cautious. It is definitely much more difficult having success with a small market team than a big market team.

 

Regarding the bold, that's definitely not true. I'm gonna grab the low hanging fruit and say Theo signed Chatwood for double the money while Stearns "settled" for Chacin. That's just one of plenty of examples of Theo not making the absolute best decision every time.

[Thurston Fluff]

The Astos appear to be to have a better outlook than the Cubs at this point. Both essentially started at the same point and built their teams at the same pace. The Brewers, Braves and Phillys all built competitive teams is far less time than it took either of those teams. The difference is, when the Cubs got to the point where the Brewers are now, they could afford to buy the missing pieces without worry of cost or mistakes that cripple the team for years. I think Epstein is a fine GM, but he's never done anything without having mega resources and hasn't turned those mega resources into a dynasty like Brian Cashman has.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Epstein isn't the Cubs' GM - I know that's splitting hairs, but it's also reflective of the sheer disadvantage an organization like the Brewers has compared to what the Cubs have in their budget just for front office personnel. It's not as simple as Theo vs. DS - not even close.

 

And for anyone that thinks Theo walks on baseball water, I give you two other pieces of low hanging fruit. Carl Crawford's Red Sox contract and Eloy Jimenez's 2018 statline as a 21 yr old between AA and AAA. He's made a bunch of great moves and won titles with big market organizations who had painful droughts - that gives him an infinitely long leash and makes the myriad of bad moves he has made easy to forget....

 

Truth is that anyone who things any GM is 100% right all the time is fooling themselves

[A Swing and A Drive]

Truth is that anyone who things any GM is 100% right all the time is fooling themselves

 

With the exception of Stearns

[KeithStone53151]

Truth is that anyone who things any GM is 100% right all the time is fooling themselves

 

With the exception of Stearns

 

Be careful, JohnBriggs will be here any second posting about all the dingers Khris Davis is hitting in Oakland...sorta kinda blue

[Thurston Fluff]

Epstein isn't the Cubs' GM - I know that's splitting hairs, but it's also reflective of the sheer disadvantage an organization like the Brewers has compared to what the Cubs have in their budget just for front office personnel. It's not as simple as Theo vs. DS - not even close.

 

And for anyone that thinks Theo walks on baseball water, I give you two other pieces of low hanging fruit. Carl Crawford's Red Sox contract and Eloy Jimenez's 2018 statline as a 21 yr old between AA and AAA. He's made a bunch of great moves and won titles with big market organizations who had painful droughts - that gives him an infinitely long leash and makes the myriad of bad moves he has made easy to forget....

 

Truth is that anyone who things any GM is 100% right all the time is fooling themselves

 

He won World Series titles. Anyone who does that deserves a long leash. But that doesn't make him necessarily better. Similarly if Stearns can win a WS with the small market Brewers he'll have done something Epstein hasn't. But that doesn't necessarily make Stearns better either.

[Boomer5]

The Astos appear to be to have a better outlook than the Cubs at this point. Both essentially started at the same point and built their teams at the same pace. The Brewers, Braves and Phillys all built competitive teams is far less time than it took either of those teams. The difference is, when the Cubs got to the point where the Brewers are now, they could afford to buy the missing pieces without worry of cost or mistakes that cripple the team for years. I think Epstein is a fine GM, but he's never done anything without having mega resources and hasn't turned those mega resources into a dynasty like Brian Cashman has.

 

I’d much rather the Brewers followed the Astros model instead of the 2 WAR scrap heap and pray brigade but whatever.

 

The fact that Stearns and his two 80ish win seasons can possibly be discussed here in the same breath with a guy who won two titles with two franchises who went like 100 years of not winning is pretty much the definition of a homer.

 

I couldn’t imagine how a post of Theo > Stearns could possibly be argued but I guess surprises happen every day.

[Thurston Fluff]

Two major spenders who have the same resources of the Yankees. In similar a situation Cashman is way ahead of Theo. The Red Sox seem to be doing pretty well without him as well. The point is, he succeeded in good situations but really hasn't been tested in less than ideal conditions. That's not his fault and shouldn't take away from what he's done. But it isn't as much a slam dunk that one is so obviously better than the other simply because we have no idea how well Theo would do if he couldn't buy half his starting staff while simultaneously absorbing a Jason Heyward level mistake.

[adambr2]

Adam, you missed a ton of seasons of Theo moves, but yeah I guess that axe you got is really dull... Grind on...

 

Oh really? Guess I assumed that since this is the Cole Hamels thread and all, that we were using the Cole Hamels trade to justify how much better Theo is than David and how David missed out on his big opportunity. Didn't realize we were going back and evaluating Theo's every historical move here.

 

I was really just stating the obvious; That when a move needs to be made that Theo would make the better one.

 

You can’t possibly argue that Stearns is anywhere near Theo’s skill level, right?

 

I would have absolutely no idea how to compare the two as they operate in completely different environments. Stearns has financial limitations. Theo has far more financial flexibility.

 

I will say (and I'm not saying Theo isn't a good GM), he has a ton of whiffs with the Cubs for all the love he gets here. Theo had really (in part because of his own good moves, I'll admit) built an embarrassment of riches as far as young talent in Chicago and has basically whittled it down to nothing. That would be fine if the Cubs had built a dynasty with what they got there, but they really haven't.

 

Chatwood was a total dud move.

Darvish, so far, has been a total bust.

Quintana has not been worth nearly what they gave up. Jimenez is a top 3 prospect in baseball, and Cease top 50.

Wilson wasn't a great move. His control has gone to hell since he went to Chicago, and the Tigers got a real nice player in Candelario.

We can go all day about whether or not the Cubs would have won the World Series without Chapman, but giving up one of the most exciting young players in baseball for a 2 month rental, wow.

Davis did well for them in his only year, but there they gave up more young talent in Soler who was breaking out this year before he got hurt.

 

The difference is that Theo can afford to make more mistakes because he can correct his mistakes with money, while Stearns has a lot less margin for error. In addition Chicago is generally a more desirable trade destination than Milwaukee for players with NTCs. Is Theo a good GM? He is, but some do overrate him, and he definitely has some advantages and an uneven playing field.

[danzig6767]

How about we take into account that Hamels was basically a horrible, worthless pitcher for the Rangers this year. Nothing in his numbers with the Rangers said he was going to be any better, or even close to better, than what the Brewers have in their rotation.

Hamels had a 6.41 ERA, a 6.16 FIP and a 4.49 xFIP when pitching in Texas this season, but a 2.93 ERA, 4.17 FIP and 3.83 xFIP on the road.

 

That is why the Cubs took a chance on Hamels, and that regained velocity which declined earlier in the season.

 

Granted, Theo and the Cubs likely weren't expecting Hamels to be this good, but it's not as if there were no reasons to acquire him.

[jjfanec]

How about we take into account that Hamels was basically a horrible, worthless pitcher for the Rangers this year. Nothing in his numbers with the Rangers said he was going to be any better, or even close to better, than what the Brewers have in their rotation.

Hamels had a 6.41 ERA, a 6.16 FIP and a 4.49 xFIP when pitching in Texas this season, but a 2.93 ERA, 4.17 FIP and 3.83 xFIP on the road.

 

That is why the Cubs took a chance on Hamels, and that regained velocity which declined earlier in the season.

 

Granted, Theo and the Cubs likely weren't expecting Hamels to be this good, but it's not as if there were no reasons to acquire him.

 

So his road FIP put him right around Kyle Hendricks, Gio Gonzalez and Jake Odorizzi's overall numbers. His ERA was good on the road but his peripherals were just fine. Also Wrigley Field is much closer to a hitters park than a pitchers park so to expect him to match the road numbers which included a division with 4 teams in the bottom half of the one park factor I could find (http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor) seems odd. He was pitching at Oakland and Seattle which are opposite ends of the spectrum of Texas. Even Houston and Anaheim rated 18 and 20 on this list. i know theses lists are far from perfect but to say hey his road numbers were good so obviously he would be good is really overstating it. Texas is a hitters park but so is Wrigley. In the division he will pitch at more hitter friendly parks in Milwaukee and Cincy than he did in the AL West.

 

The biggest factor is probably a veteran who went from a terrible team to a good one and got some life back in him. Maybe it sticks for the rest of the year, or maybe he fades hard like Jon Lester has. It has been a good pick up so far but you cant just take road splits and say here is why it was an obvious move.

[markedman5]

Darvish out for the year

 

[BigAlBarampGrill]

Darvish out for the year

 

Darvish wasn't helping the Cubs much even before his injury. Not really a big loss for those guys.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

The Cubs seemingly have a horseshoe up their "you know what" when it comes to moves like this. Hamels looked done. DONE. Now he is suddenly Cy Young. It is pretty infuriating. I keep telling myself that luck will eventually run out ... hoping ... hoping

[adambr2]

The Cubs seemingly have a horseshoe up their "you know what" when it comes to moves like this. Hamels looked done. DONE. Now he is suddenly Cy Young. It is pretty infuriating. I keep telling myself that luck will eventually run out ... hoping ... hoping

 

Frankly after both Jeffress and Hamels, the Rangers' pitching coach isn't looking too good.

[bill hAll Star]

The Cubs seemingly have a horseshoe up their "you know what" when it comes to moves like this. Hamels looked done. DONE. Now he is suddenly Cy Young. It is pretty infuriating. I keep telling myself that luck will eventually run out ... hoping ... hoping

 

Frankly after both Jeffress and Hamels, the Rangers' pitching coach isn't looking too good.

 

Throw Matt Moore into there.

 

Now, I was the guy throwing up flags when people discussed the Brewers acquiring Moore in the offseason because he's terrible away from San Francisco and not the guy we thought he was in Tampa anymore...but I did not think Moore would be a 7.01 ERA guy, even in the tough pitching conditions of Arlington.