Reasons The Dodgers Shouldn’t Trade For Cole Hamels?

Steve Mitchell-USA TODAY Sports

There’s suddenly a debate about who the best team in the National League West is. Whether that’s a serious one really remains to be seen, but the simple fact that the Padres have improved one of the worst offenses in baseball history into potentially being above average, while keeping their already good pitching staff and elite bullpen intact AND adding a perennial 200 inning workhorse who’s demise has likely been overstated because of an ill fated nickname renders some discussion about the best team in the NL West.

Scott talked about blocking the Padres for Shields earlier, but that was never really an option given that the Dodgers were “out” on him for a couple months. This post isn’t to say that the Dodgers absolutely have to go out and trade for Cole Hamels, even though it would end all discussion about the NL West, and spark debate about which “super rotation” is better, the Nationals or the Dodgers. This post is acknowledging the fact that Hamels is great but also taking a look at what I think are legitimate reasons not to trade for Cole Hamels.

First off, Grant Brisbee did a great job of looking at mostly inadequate reasons why the Padres shouldn’t trade for Hamels, one of them is the idea of the rotation being full. Replace “Padres” with “Dodgers” and you see that Brett Anderson nor Brandon McCarthy are better than Cole Hamels. Heck, there’s a non-zero chance that Hamels throws more innings than those guys combined next season. Hamels is the type of guy a team makes room for because oh my goodness Cole Hamels is really freaking good.

Damn the surplus WAR arguments, every team needs one more left handed ace. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t reasons against trading for the second best left handed starter in the National League.

You Think Your Prospects Are Going To Break Convention

The Dodgers have some amazing prospects in the system right now. Julio Urias, Joc Pederson, and Corey Seager are all anywhere from B+ type prospects to A type prospects, elite guys that are viewed as universal top 30 guys. I have issue with ranking a guy like Urias in the top 10, but he’s still probably one of the 30 best minor leaguers in the game right now.

But prospect cliche’s exist for a reason. “Prospects are prospects not major leaguers”, “ThereIsNoSuchThingAsAPitchingProspect”, “Prospects are prospects until they aren’t” are all prime examples of what a prospect pessimist might say to a prospect liker. To work with some numbers, here’s fangraphs, of all places, from 5 years ago talking about prospect bust rates

"* 10% of top 10 hitting prospects bust.* 31% of top 10 pitching prospects bust.* 21% of top 11-25 hitting prospects bust.* 32% of top 11-25 pitching prospects bust.* 35% of top 26-50 hitting prospects bust.* 33% of top 26-50 pitching prospects bust.* 45% of top 51-75 hitting prospects bust.* 39% of top 51-75 pitching prospects bust.* 43% of top 76-100 hitting prospects bust.* 43% of top 76-100 pitching prospects bust.* 59% of ‘B grade’ hitting prospects bust.* 52% of ‘B grade’ pitching prospects bust.* 83% of ‘C grade’ hitting prospects bust.* Around 75% of all ‘C grade’ pitching prospects bust."

A “bust” can be defined as a prospect who “averaged 0 or less Wins Above Bench per year” and the numbers are striking, there really is no such thing as a pitching prospect, and many top prospects never amount to anything other than AAA filler.

What’s changed in 5 years? Nothing but the names (and access to information). Tis the nature of the business, prospects fail because there simply isn’t enough room for every prospect to be a bench piece, let alone a regular player. There are 240 starting spots “available” in any given year, most are taken up by incumbent major leaguers, the others are up for grabs in Spring Training that prospects and free agent signees are battling for. I’m willing to wager that those numbers are generally pretty consistent with history’s assessment of top prospects and their values, so the Dodgers are left with a dilemma. Corey Seager is probably never getting moved, just based off of how the team is constructed, and Kasten’s prior dealings with top prospects. Joc Pederson isn’t getting moved, because LOL a Chris Heisey/Andre Ethier platoon or Yasiel Puig in CF is just not something that a contender should run around with. It would also defeat the purpose of wanting to have a home grown impact on the major league roster, something that the Dodgers have touched on this offseason.

That, then leaves Julio Urias. Forget about Jose De Leon headlining any potential trade, or Zach Lee suddenly being at the forefront of any Hamels discussion, or Scott Schebler being the sticking point in any discussions they’re fill-ins at this point. The real prize in any Hamels deal would likely be Urias.

Urias obviously has upside everywhere, he is 18 years old, he has dominated the most hitting centric league in the United States, and has a higher floor than many of us would say to.

But those bust rates hold a lot more value than a potential historical anomaly. Urias is probably a top 25 prospect in America by anybody’s standards, and while that shelters him from the dangers of being a B grade pitching prospect, top 25 pitching prospect still “bust” 32% of the time. That’s a lot of times! Enough times to be wary of his potential, and that’s before we start throwing out the qualifiers that Urias isn’t a conventional top 25 pitching prospect, Urias is 18 years old, that adds some inherent volume of risk.

But the risk talk isn’t over, how about touching on the fact that “bust” is a very low bar to clear and that according to that data, only 12% of top 25 pitching prospects become “regular” performers (think solid mid rotation guys). If Urias reached that level in his age 20 season, it would be a resounding success, and that STILL wouldn’t be better than what Cole Hamels is right now. Hamels is a “star”, and the aforementioned research suggests that only 3% of top 25 pitching prospects get to that level.

The good news is that Urias is as anomaly as there’ll ever be. He could very well be the second coming of Fernando Valenzuela, and I still love him as a prospect. This isn’t to say he won’t be a good player, this isn’t to take anything away from his prospect star, this is just saying that the Dodgers are betting on Urias to break convention in most scenarios where they won’t trade for Cole Hamels.

The other scenario is my preferred defense against a Hamels trade because believe it or not, there is risk when dealing with a Hamels trade that doesn’t involve the words “prospect” or “surplus WAR”.

You Think Cole Hamels Is Going To Break Down

This time last year Cole Hamels was battling shoulder tendinitis and didn’t actually pitch in a regular season game until April 23rd against yours truly. That’s a little over 2 months of having the shoulder issue and trying to rehab through an injury that is significant. It’s worth noting that a major injury to the shoulder is equivalent to death for a starting pitcher. The list of pitchers who have come back from shoulder surgeries is a very small one, the list of pitchers who have come back to the level they were at before their shoulder surgery is almost nonexistent. Tommy John surgery is “okay” nowadays, shoulder surgery is at worst a career alterer for a pitcher.

Surgery is always a risk with a pitcher. James Shields is probably the best case scenario for a pitcher with a shoulder surgery (and even then only had a cyst removed), he just signed for 4 years and 75 million dollars as opposed to 5 years and >100 million dollars as predicted because he’s an older pitcher with mileage on the arm. Hamels has thrown 1882.2 career innings James Shields has thrown for 1969.2 innings, the difference is about half a season. Hamels is, of course only 31 years old opposed to Shields being 33 years old, so the age is a good thing but the shoulder issues last season were hardly new for Cole. He’s battled shoulder issues as far back as 2006, and also 2011. These are not insignificant things, especially when considering that Hamels also underwent elbow surgery in 2011.

Jeff Sullivan, while I don’t agree with his surplus value pieces outlined why historically Hamels might be in for a rough ending to his career. Basically saying that he compares up to this point to Bartolo Colon, Justin Verlander, and Orel Hershiser, and none of those guys enjoyed their early to mid 30’s very much. It’s an interesting thought to consider, teams don’t trade for players unless they think they have a bounceback in them or will continue to be good, if Cole Hamels has enough risk to be wary of his chances going forward, there’s a really good argument to not trade for him.

I have faith in the Dodgers front office because even if AJ Preller scares the everything out of me. And the argument against a Cole Hamels trade because he might decline and/or get hurt could be applied to every single pitcher -yes every pitcher-. Put a gun to my head and i’d lean towards trading Urias and a collection of depth guys for Cole Hamels even if the injuries scare me. I don’t see the Dodgers landing Hamels, not right now at least but the list of reasons against trading for one of the top pitchers in the game, predictably is very short.