Phillies Trade Rumors: Philadelphia Would Be Nuts Not to Deal Cole Hamels
The Philadelphia Phillies have been made an offer that they can’t refuse.
After finishing with the best record in baseball last season, Philly is in dead-last in the NL East at 37-50. It would take a miracle for the Phillies to qualify for the playoffs this year. Their best bet is to look toward the future and if they play their cards right, their future will look quite bright.
Philadelphia must execute a trade. Cole Hamels is its most valuable asset. But why deal away a 28-year-old three-time All-Star and former World Series MVP?
Because in a way, he’s begging the Phillies to.
According to John Smallwood of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Hamels said that if he’s traded before the deadline, his feelings won’t be hurt one bit. He’ll totally understand and when he becomes a free agent after the season, he’ll still give them “the right of first refusal” for his services.
Yeah, that just happened.
Will Philly deal and then sign Hamels?
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that the Phillies can’t pass up. They’re in position to receive Hamels-like value in a trade for absolutely nothing. With two moves—swapping and re-signing Hamels—Philadelphia would be back on top of the National League.
Is it fair? Not at all. Should the Phillies care?
Not at all.
Now, Hamels might have just hurt his trade value a bit, but there’s always a sucker out there. For example, Dwight Howard has promised that the Brooklyn Nets are the only team that he’ll sign a long-term extension with.
Despite that fact, other NBA teams continue to pursue him as either a rental or they simply believe that they’ll be able to persuade him to re-sign.
The Phillies are still capable of pulling off a like-taking-candy-from-a-baby trade and that’s what they must do if they want to bounce back from their 2012 letdown quickly. The only question is, what are they waiting for?
David Daniels is a featured columnist at Bleacher Report and a syndicated writer.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?