Until he slows down, it is. The Astros shouldn't be looking for a one-year rental at this point and they shouldn't be looking for a long-contract for a player they think is in decline. If they trade for Hamels, it should be because they think he'll be an ace for them for a few years. If they think he will suck after this year, they shouldn't even be remotely interested.
Wow! Ignoring the risk of an aging pitcher is like ignoring the risk of a prospect that has never seen big league ball. Well, except a prospect that busts only involves setting back a team money paid and an aging pitcher that falls apart could have 80 or so million left guaranteed.
Again, the Astros have to decide if they think he's going to be an effective pitcher for the next few years. If so, he's worth good prospects. If not, they shouldn't go after him regardless, because his salary will be a negative going forward. There's not a lot in between. If they are interested in him, we can safely assume they think he's going to be useful beyond this year.
Astros didn't say "You wouldn't trade those two for a legitimate ace pitcher that's signed for several more years? " Astros (both analytics and baseball sides) have said they don't like signing pitchers for more than 3 years. Astros have made a ton of moves showing that they value club control years and are willing to risk minor leaguers don't develop. "Several years" in regards to pitchers post arb should be considered a bad thing. 100 million dollars or so is just a lot to risk as well as give up two prospects. When discussing trades for Hamels, the first "player" listed should be the cash needed to cover Hamels deal as that is the most valuable thing Astros would be giving up.
If that's the case, the Astros can just not bother. Philly isn't going to be paying for Hamels to pitch for anyone else. Teams do that for players that kind of suck - not players that are currently playing like legit aces.
To expand further, if Hamels was a free agent this year, he could easily get a 3 year deal at $25MM/yr or whatever would be remaining on his deal. He'd only be 34 at the end of that contract, which is a far better deal than you'll get signing many of the top free agents. Some team will happily trade some prospects for him with the contract. It would be fair market value and prospects are the equivalent of guaranteeing he signs with you and that you don't have to go pay someone like a Scherzer through age 37.
Rangers did that for AROD. Astros did that for Wandy. The Phillies though give all indications that they don't feel that they need to add cash and deserve prospects. Hamels is definitely the type of pitcher Astros should be going for, but I highly doubt Astros and Phillies see eye to eye on the value of 100 million dollars.
Think of it this way. If you trade for Hamels, you're trading prospects for a half-season rental, plus you sign a 32 year old legit ace to a 3-year deal for $25MM/yr. I think that's better than any deal they'd find in free agency - any player of Hamels' caliber would get a 5+ year deal where you're overpaying past age 35. If they are truly looking for an ace, I don't think the Astros should or would look at the 3-years remaining as a negative in trading for Hamels. It's the perfect solution and a huge bonus.
Hamels has three years after this plus Hamels likely requiring option year to be picked up to waive his no trade clause. Shields's contract would be what I would expect from Hamels on open market today. On paying guy to age 37, Astros aren't forced to do that. The 100 million dollars or so not spent on Hamels could easily be spent on less risky position player. Heck, a small portion of the 100 million dollars or so (probably 85-90 million now) could have Correa in Astros uniform by Friday and likely have a much bigger return on the investment long term as well as short term win totals.
Maybe we're just valuing the players differently. I don't think Shields is nearly the player that Hamels is. I've said I'm not really a fan of WAR, but from ESPN, Shields has a an average WAR the last 4 years of 3.6. Hamels is at 5.4, and 3 of those 4 seasons are better than Shields' best. I'd rather have Hamels at 4 years / $100MM over Shields at 4 years / $75MM. That's an additional 1.8 WAR for $6.25MM per year, which I believe is a steal based on those $$/WAR metrics. Hamels at the end of this year will also be one year younger than Shields was this past offseason.
That said, if the Astros aren't looking for an ace, that's fine too. But if they are, Hamels is basically their perfect fit in terms of contract length. I don't think they'd trade for a half-season rental, and in free agency, they aren't going to get a shorter/better deal than Hamels for that caliber of player.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Preston Tucker called up by the <a class="hashtag" action="hash" title="#Astros">#Astros</a> <a href="https://t.co/g3mukUTCIe" title="http://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/status/756324450807578625/video/1">pic.twitter.com/g3mukUTCIe</a></p>— Mark Berman (@MarkBermanFox26) <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkBermanFox26/status/756324450807578625" data-datetime="2016-07-22T03:06:15+00:00">July 22, 2016</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I was wondering how this thread could be 3 pages and not say "WTF WHY?" in every post, then I realized it is a year old.
