• Cole Hamels Signs $144 Million 6-Year Extension

    Posted by on July 25th, 2012 · Comments (11)

    Source.

    There have been few better since 2006:

    Rk Player ERA+ G From To Age GS W L IP BB SO ERA
    1 Roy Halladay 144 207 2006 2012 29-35 206 113 54 1498.0 236 1189 2.94
    2 CC Sabathia 141 215 2006 2012 25-31 215 117 54 1511.2 373 1373 3.12
    3 Johan Santana 138 174 2006 2012 27-33 174 80 51 1163.1 301 1081 3.03
    4 Clayton Kershaw 136 138 2008 2012 20-24 136 54 33 851.0 313 877 2.86
    5 Josh Johnson 135 139 2006 2012 22-28 132 54 30 832.2 268 762 3.13
    6 Chris Carpenter 132 134 2006 2011 31-36 133 59 32 908.0 204 708 3.04
    7 Adam Wainwright 132 199 2006 2012 24-30 138 73 45 988.1 279 835 3.12
    8 Jered Weaver 131 194 2006 2012 23-29 194 94 48 1242.1 332 1058 3.21
    9 Justin Verlander 128 217 2006 2012 23-29 217 118 60 1452.2 439 1350 3.40
    10 Felix Hernandez 127 213 2006 2012 20-26 213 89 68 1444.2 437 1330 3.23
    11 Cole Hamels 125 200 2006 2012 22-28 199 85 58 1295.0 325 1222 3.38
    12 Zack Greinke 125 201 2006 2012 22-28 160 72 48 1067.2 274 1035 3.43
    13 Roy Oswalt 125 189 2006 2012 28-34 186 79 55 1202.2 281 934 3.38
    14 Tim Lincecum 124 176 2007 2012 23-28 175 73 51 1139.2 432 1248 3.25
    15 Cliff Lee 123 194 2006 2012 27-33 190 85 58 1309.1 253 1075 3.40
    16 Matt Cain 123 216 2006 2012 21-27 215 77 75 1405.2 481 1183 3.33
    17 Erik Bedard 121 134 2006 2012 27-33 134 49 43 771.2 290 772 3.56
    18 Jon Lester 120 175 2006 2012 22-28 174 81 42 1078.0 400 994 3.75
    19 David Price 120 113 2008 2012 22-26 108 54 30 701.1 243 640 3.25
    20 Dan Haren 119 222 2006 2012 25-31 221 94 70 1474.0 292 1294 3.55
    Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
    Generated 7/25/2012.

    .

    Filed under Off The Field News · ·

    Comments on Cole Hamels Signs $144 Million 6-Year Extension

    1. clintfsu813
      July 25th, 2012 | 10:33 am

      The Phillies are ruining baseball with all this money they’re spending. If they fail to win titles with this team they are an immense disappointment.
    2. Steve L.
      July 25th, 2012 | 10:38 am

      We’ve seen this model before somewhere, right?
      High payroll, sold out ballpark, very few rings.
      Which team was that again?
    3. Evan3457
      July 25th, 2012 | 10:47 am

      Oh, look. There’s CC Sabathia, the non-ace, sitting 9 slots above Hamels. I guess CC’s one of the “few”.
    4. MJ Recanati
      July 25th, 2012 | 11:03 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Oh, look. There’s CC Sabathia, the non-ace, sitting 9 slots above Hamels. I guess CC’s one of the “few”.

      LOL, I saw that too.
    5. MJ Recanati
      July 25th, 2012 | 11:07 am

      My two cents on this contract: the Phillies wasted a golden opportunity to add one or more high-ceiling prospects to their organization. They could’ve easily signed him to this contract in the offseason since there are but only a few teams that both could’ve afforded this type of deal and had a need for starting pitching.

      For that minimal risk of losing him, the Phillies passed up a chance to add some elite talent…all while likely missing the playoffs this year. Not the best decision here, in my opinion.

      Funniest thing to me is that, for all of Philly’s talk about not handing out contracts to pitchers of longer than four years or more than $20M — thus locking in Doc Halladay to a deal that fit within those parameters — they just broke the bank for both Cliff Lee and Cole Hamels. So much for hard and fast rules. So much for making Doc feel good.
    6. Raf
      July 25th, 2012 | 5:54 pm

      Steve L. wrote:

      We’ve seen this model before somewhere, right?
      High payroll, sold out ballpark, very few rings.
      Which team was that again?

      Florida Marlins? Detroit Tigers?
    7. Raf
      July 25th, 2012 | 5:54 pm

      Boston Red Sox?
    8. LMJ229
      July 25th, 2012 | 9:39 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      My two cents on this contract: the Phillies wasted a golden opportunity to add one or more high-ceiling prospects to their organization. They could’ve easily signed him to this contract in the offseason since there are but only a few teams that both could’ve afforded this type of deal and had a need for starting pitching.

      For that minimal risk of losing him, the Phillies passed up a chance to add some elite talent…all while likely missing the playoffs this year. Not the best decision here, in my opinion.

      Well my husband is a Phillies fan so I’ll give you his take. He would agree with MJ regarding the opportunity to obtain prospects; however, he wanted to keep Hamels and didn’t want to risk him not coming back. There is no guarantee that he would. Alot of times players go to another organization and the proverbial grass suddenly becomes greener. And I would assume Hamels would have been traded to a contender which would make that organization even more appealing. And if that organization gave up such high ceiling prospects, I would assume they would make a big run at keeping Hamels. So you can’t just assume he would return to the Phillies.
    9. MJ Recanati
      July 26th, 2012 | 8:40 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      So you can’t just assume he would return to the Phillies.

      It’s not an assumption but a risk calculation.

      Here’s a scenario a friend of mine and I were batting around yesterday:

      The Phillies could’ve gone to Hamels and told him what they intended to offer (6Y/$140M) and told him that they intended to bring him back in the offseason but that, because of their position in the standings and their lack of impact talent in the high minor leagues, they sought to trade him. They could’ve told him that he had the right to take that offer of 6Y/$140M and shop it to other teams for a one-month period during the offseason. If he could do better than that, they’d understand and would wish him well. However, if he had any interest in coming back to Philly, that offer would be good and he could return to a stronger team made better by trading him for two months.

      In other words, the Phillies would take a calculated gamble that only a handful of teams in baseball could afford to match their 6Y/$140 offer and would make a good-faith showing to Hamels that would allow him a chance to earn more money if he could by shopping Philly’s deal to one of those teams. Given that only a handful of teams could match that offer, the Phillies would have pretty good odds that Hamels could come back at fair market value and they’d have gotten one or more prospects back in the interim.
    10. LMJ229
      July 26th, 2012 | 10:28 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      Can’t argue with that logic. As you said, its a matter of risk calculation. And I would agree with you, it is certainly a risk worth taking. I happen to believe he would have gone back to the Phillies.
    11. MJ Recanati
      July 27th, 2012 | 8:18 am

      LMJ229 wrote:

      I happen to believe he would have gone back to the Phillies.

      As do I, especially if, in that scenario, the money was not topped by some other club (which I imagine it wouldn’t have been).

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.