I'm just not sure who is putting who off in this stand-off between Hamels and the Phillies.

My view for some time has been that Hamels wants to test the market. This is not to say that he's not willing to re-sign with the Phillies, but rather that he wants his price set in free agency, and THEN he can decide if he wants to provide anyone a discount.

Regarding the issue of "what happens if he suffers a career-ending injury between now and season's end -- there's insurance that can be bought to cover him there.

A 7-year deal only takes Hamels to age 35. Roy Halladay is going to be 35 in three weeks and if he hits his vesting option, the Phillies are committed to him through his age 37 season. Same deal with Lee; his option year is his age 37 season. So if they're not afraid of these guys through age 37, I don't see where they're afraid to go to age 35 with Hamels. I understand not WANTING to, but that's the nature of the beast in FA, you either do that which you don't want to do, or you waive bye-bye.

I'm not sure why the Phillies would be balking at this point, it indeed they are. If they thought they couldn't sign Hamels long term, then it seems to me like they would have traded him, as that's precisely what happened with Cliff Lee coming into his walk year. RAJ determined that the Phillies weren't going to be able to extend Lee, so he traded him and acquired a guy they could extend. I don't see why things would be different with Hamels.

"I understand not WANTING to, but that's the nature of the beast in FA, you either do that which you don't want to do, or you waive bye-bye."

Surely Banner-murph could not have uttered the words, "that's the nature of the beast in FA, you either do that which you don't want to do, or you waive bye-bye".

Sort of like offering an extra year to ensure that a deal gets done because you lack other options?

Hmmm.

Cole would be smart to test FA. Just as Doc would have been and Lee actually was.

The bidding war for Hamels will be high, especially since I believe he's the only big name out there this off season, isn't he?

If Cole leaves, we will move on.

I love the guy. I picked him early in fantasy draft just to have him but ultimately how many years do you want to give these guys?

My personal opinion is that 5 years is too long for a positional player regardless of who you are.

I think if you know the pitcher, you know his makeup, like the Phils did with Lee, then you give him 5.

And I think in this case, with Cole Hamels, you offer him 6.

You have to draw the line somewhere. If he wants to go to the White Sox for 7 years and $165 million, well then adios Cole.

UNLESS, the Phils know that the Comcast deal will mean they will able to live with luxury tax....

The other way you look at it is this: IF you are willing to give Cole 5 years at $120 million, well then in year 6 and 7, all of the other contracts come off the books, so go for it.

"It seems everywhere I turn - watching TV, listening to the sports radio shows, posting on message boards, reading blogs and newspapers - I see and hear the same thing: TRADE CLIFF LEE!"

I haven't heard anyone say anything about trading Lee, but there should never be a single player on any team that is ever "untouchable". The purpose of a trade is to make your team better, so if trading Cliff Lee does that, then you do it. You trade anyone if it makes your team better, taking into consideration short and long term gains.

You are such a pretentious windbag. You love to inflate your own ego by typing out your legend in your own mind rants.

and, it would be tough to trade Cliff anyway with the contract he has without the Phillies taking on part of his salary .

I stay pretty current on all things baseball related and particularly Phils' related, but I have yet to read or hear anything of the kind. Would you mind sharing your sources?

Cliff Lee, Doc, Hamels, Worley, Blanton, Papelbon....no complaints!

I'm confused. Why on god's green earth would you even CONSIDER trading Lee? I remember last year when your team secretly snagged him and there was joy in the city. And rightly so.

I hope 7 yrs isn't the reason Cole hasn't been signed past this year yet. Seriously, we're paying top dollar for a closer for 5 yrs, when those types of players can go from elite to average or even complete garbage in a snap (See Brad Lidge 08 vs 09, 10, 11), yet 7 years for a fairly young starter entering his prime is too long?

Offer him 6, with a easy vesting option for a 7th year. Cole might have a bad year or a long DL trip within the next 7 years, but baring serious injury he won't be garbage or done.

"...and, it would be tough to trade Cliff anyway with the contract he has without the Phillies taking on part of his salary..."

-- Agreed. At the end of this year, for the remainder of the contract, Cliff Lee becomes the highest paid player in baseball. I would imagine that would be an incredibly difficult contract to move because as I think arvy said earlier, anybody who wanted him at that price would have wanted him these past two years for substantially less money, and could have just signed him in FA.

The Cliff Lee signing was a "World Series in 2011 or bust" signing.

"...I hope 7 yrs isn't the reason Cole hasn't been signed past this year yet..."

-- If you believe what David Montgomery has said for public consumption, the years is the issue, not the money, so I suspect that is indeed the issue. And like you, I think it shouldn't be, given his age. In fact, my issue, were I in charge would be the money, not the years. Exactly the opposite of where things are said to be.

Blah, blah, blah.

WAR rating.

Blah, Blah, Blah

Luxury tax.

Blah, Blah, Blah

"public consumption"

blah, blah, blah

RAJ is bad

blah, blah, blah.

He just was never that great of a player. He was a late bloomer. The year before his Cy Young he was sent down because of how bad he was doing. He's a good top of the rotation pitcher but he's not the elite guy people think he is.

if lee is not elite, how many starting pitchers in baseball are?

My point is people act as if Lee is in the same league as Halladay which he isn't. Guys like Halladay don't come around every year. Lee had a few very very good yrs and could be a late bloomer but he was never worth the contract we signed him too. Remember the year before he won the CY Clevland sent him to the minors due to how horrible he was doing. People get carried away with the exciting flavor of the month which Cliff Lee has been pitching wise in baseball for the past 2 1/2 yrs now. I'd rather they have not signed Lee because I'll take Doc and Hamels over their career over a few very very very good yrs by Lee who sh** the bed for the very reason we got him for the playoffs last year.

I agree with murph on the Lee signing was a World Series in 2011 or Bust. IMHO it wasn't a needed signing as much as people think it was. It was a pressure signing RAJ made because of the outcry of the trade and and wanted to fix that. Who knows though if they kept Lee in 2011 maybe he signs a contract extension for a lot less then it is now.

that doesnt really address my question though. if youre saying youre rather they'd pass on lee and go after someone else, ok, but im curious that if you dont think he's elite, how many starters are? unless you were just using it for effect.

Using it for effect. Only guys who'd be elite right now would be Verlander at the moment. Doc isn't the pitcher he was back in Tor but he's still extremely good. Also elite could be different from what I think or you think. When I think of elite I think of Atl's 1-2 of their rotation in the 90's in Maddux and Glavine. I think of Randy Johnson or Halladay in their primes or Justin Verlander right now.

I was using the word "elite" for some effect there to make a point some fans think Lee is better then what he really is.

"Doc isn't the pitcher he was back in Tor but he's still extremely good"

Except so far he's been BETTER here than in TOR, and if you're talking elite you have to talk Halladay, Kershaw, Hernandez, Johnson, Weaver and some more.