Cole Hamels Should Reject The Phillies’ Offer

The Philadelphia Phillies are going to make a big play to keep Cole Hamels. The team is planning to offer Hamels a six-year, $130 million extension in the coming days, according to CBSSports.com’s Jon Heyman. Since 2006, Hamels has been a mainstay in the Phillies rotation, accumulating an ace-like 25.7 WAR for the team over that period. Hamels is set to be a free-agent at the end of the season, which is why the Phillies are making a play to keep him now. If Hamels declines, it’s more than likely he’ll be traded so the Phillies can receive something of value for him before he hits the market. And even though the Phillies reported offer is more than fair, Hamels should reject it.

Whether he accepts the Phillies’ offer or chooses to test his luck on the free-agent market, Hamels is going to receive a huge contract. About two months ago, I looked at Hamels’ performance a that point in his career and determined that he deserved to make anywhere between $140 million and $160 million on the free-agent market based on recent contract signed by similar players. Hamels has had two months to build more value, so his outlook is rosier now. While a contract worth $130 million is pretty fair, there’s already a good chance Hamels will make more on the market.

In his article, Heyman mentioned that the $130 million could just be a starting point, and the figures could rise based on negotiations. But even if the Phillies are willing to offer something in the ballpark of $140 million and $160 million, Hamels should still decline and test the market.

When I looked at Hamels two months ago, I looked up similar pitchers who had reached free agency in order to come to my conclusion. But now that Hamels is being offered an extension, it makes sense to look at similar pitchers who never hit the market, and instead signed extensions with their teams. I made a custom leader board that looked at the cumulative WAR totals of pitchers between their age-22 and age-28 seasons since 2000. Hamels made his debut at age 22, and is 28 this season. I used the cutoff of the year 2000 in order to look at more recent contracts. Even that was probably too far back, so I narrowed it down to recent deals that players signed around age-28.

Here are some of the relevant players who signed extensions.

Pitcher Age Year WAR Deal
Jered Weaver 29 2012 24.3 Five-year, $85 million
Matt Cain 27 2012 22.8 Six-year, 127.5 million
CC Sabathia 31 2012 37.5 Five-year, $122 million
Dan Haren 28 2009 26.6 Four-year, $44.75 million

And here’s a list of similar players that tested the free-agent market.

Pitcher Age Year WAR Deal
John Lackey 30 2010 25.5 Five-year, $82.5 million
Barry Zito 28 2007 24.2 Seven-year, $126 million
CC Sabathia 28 2009 37.5 Seven-year, $161 million
Johan Santana 29 2008 35.1 Six-year, 137.5 million
Cliff Lee 32 2011 9.1 Five-year, $121 million

A few notes about the charts: Cole Hamels has accumulated 25.7 WAR over his career, placing him squarely in the middle on both charts. The WAR total shows each pitcher’s WAR up until their age-28 season. That’s why Sabathia’s total is the same on both charts, I only wanted to look at his performance through age-28 since that is Hamels’ age.

The two charts show some very significant differences. Both Matt Cain and CC Sabathia were able to attain big money through extensions this season. But if you look at the players who tested free agency, nearly all of them received significantly more money. Both Johan Santana and Sabathia produced more value than Hamels at that point in their careers, so it’s unclear whether Hamels will receive an offer as large as Sabathia’s $161 million. The inclusion of Cliff Lee shows just how much a pitcher can make on the market. He only accumulated 9.1 WAR through age-28, but still managed to receive a $121 million contract. Between age-28 and age-32 Lee has been an exceptional pitcher, which is why he received so much money, but he was also four years older than Hamels when he signed that deal. The difference in age is a major factor in Hamels’ favor.

It’s not difficult to figure out why players receive more money on the free-agent market. There are more teams bidding for their services, and agents can pit those offers against each other until one team offers huge amounts of money. Players that negotiate with their teams don’t have that leverage.

If the Phillies are willing to offer Hamels $130 million now, there’s a good chance they would offer him a similar deal once he hits the market. And Hamels knows that he’ll be able to leverage that offer with whatever offer he receives from the Dodgers, who are rumored to be very interested in the left-hander. The Phillies aren’t stupid. They realize this could be their last chance to keep Hamels. Even if they offer a better deal, he’ll probably still play the market. And it’s the right thing to do, because he’s going to make significantly more money once he has that leverage.




Print This Post



Chris is a blogger for CBSSports.com. He has also contributed to Sports on Earth, the 2013 Hard Ball Times Baseball Annual, ESPN, FanGraphs and RotoGraphs. He tries to be funny on twitter @Chris_Cwik.


60 Responses to “Cole Hamels Should Reject The Phillies’ Offer”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. TKDC says:

    I think you should caveat this post. You kept saying what Hamels should do based on maximizing his contract, but he might have other considerations. I realize that is what most guys care about most and other factors are usually irrelevant, but you could at least mention it.

    And didn’t Santa-na sign an extension?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BX says:

      Santana signed an extension, but he essentially had all the leverage in that situation.

      He refused to waive his NTC without signing an extension. Essentially, the Mets couldn’t trade for Santana without agreeing to an extension with him, and he could choose to stay with the Twins, veto the trade, and test the market if he didn’t like the extension offered.

      Santana had just about as much leverage as any free agent in that situation.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Evan says:

        One of the interesting aspects of the new CBA is that it creates an incentive for top players, with veto power, to approve trades in the last season of their contract. If he is traded, teams looking to sign the player no longer have to weigh the downside of surrendering draft picks and the acquiring team is no longer compensated if it chooses let the player walk.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • vivalajeter says:

        “Santana had just about as much leverage as any free agent in that situation.”

        I disagree. He was negotiating with one team, so he couldn’t play multiple teams off of one another. Also, the Mets had to give up prospects in the deal – so they would be likely to offer less money than they would offer if it was a straight free-agent signing.

        But when it comes down to it, he had a year left on his contract so he should be considered in the ‘extension’ category even if he did have a little more leverage than the typical ‘extension’.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Damned Liar says:

    This post confuses salary (money) with value. Those pitchers who signed before hitting the market gave up salary for other factors that they valued, namely, staying with their current team and securing themselves against the risk of injury. So it’s not a fair comparison at all. The post might be better titled “Cole Hamels Should Reject The Phillies’ Offer If He Only Cares About Salary,” although even then it would assume that Hamels is not at all risk-averse against the threat of injury. A pitcher’s value on the market can turn in an instant. (See, e.g., Ryan Madson.)

    This isn’t to say that the post is wrong. Perhaps it makes perfect sense for Hamels to reject the offer. But it’s not nearly as open-and-shut as the post suggests. Instead, the decision turns on the value Hamels perceives from staying with the Phils against the value (and risk) of waiting until the winter and getting what the market will bear for him.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • chuckb says:

      If he does want to stay with the Phils, he could still decline the offer and sign with the Phils in the offseason for the amount that he’s worth. Therefore, he gets the salary he’s worth and the team he wants. Choosing to decline the offer today doesn’t preclude him from ending up in Philly, if that’s what he really wants to do.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Damned Liar says:

        It’s no certainty that, by waiting until the offseason, Hamels have his cake and eat it to (stay with the Phils and get market value). That assumes the Phillies will match any other offer if he hits the open market, which I doubt will happen. (Though it’s fair to say that he might be able to extract more out of the Phils if he hits the market and asks them to raise their offer in light of a competing offer.) And again, if he waits until the offseason to sign, he runs the risk of serious injury that destroys his market value.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • BJ says:

        That’s a huge risk. The Phillies have been extremely aggressive in the open market. If Hamels rejects a very solid offer there is every reason to believe that they will move on and make other plans.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. Bavarian Yankee says:

    I think it all depends on whether he wants to be with the Phillies or not. If he wants to he’ll take the 130 million, there’ll be no bad blood and both parties will be happy. I mean come on, once you get that much money you really don’t care if it’s 130 or 160 million – imho at least, not even your grandchildren will be able to spend that money unless they’re complete idiots. If you’re in Hamels’ situation you just choose the team you wanna play for, not a team that (maybe) offers slightly more money.

    I know that real life MAY be different in some cases, for whatever reason some players seem to chase every penny they can get like they need’em to survive XD

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Babidaboopi says:

      “I mean come on, once you get that much money you really don’t care if it’s 130 or 160 million”

      How would one not care about 23% more in salary? If I was making $130,000/year I would very much appreciate the opportunity to make $160,000/year. That’s major dollars. I can’t imagine any of these players would be playing at this level if they were that indifferent about something like that. Salary is recognition of the hard work they do, no different than “regular people”.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bavarian Yankee says:

        130k ? 130 million. Sure, it’s significant when you talk about 130k compared to 160k. If you get 130 million you’ve got more money than several generations of your family can ever spend. Why “worry” about possibly getting even more if you wanna play for the team that pays you 130 million? Not saying that this is the case with Hamels but he said he’d like to stay in Philly, right?

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Steve says:

        The marginal utility of the increase from $130K to $160K is not the same as from $130M to $160M.

        That’s not to say we should just wave away $30M like it is irrelevant, but the two scenarios are not really analogous.

        There is a decent case to be made that $130M RIGHT NOW playing (presumably) for a team you and city you enjoy is worth just as much as $160M times the probability of not getting injured/the economy not collapsing before the winter/not getting lit up in the AL playoffs post trade and losing some FA luster/etc, etc, etc

        Even if all of those other things have a small probability of happening, there is a decent argument for taking the 100% chance of getting $130M.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Bavarian Yankee says:

        huh, seems like a sign got lost in my post. In the beginning it should be 130k “not equal sign” 130 million.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • jcxy says:

        yes, but this assumes that every dollar a player earns is created equally, which isn’t the case. plenty of research suggests, in fact, that extra happiness as a function of extra salary diminishes greatly beyond 75k/year and is almost nonexistant once you get beyond a few MM/year.

        now, as for your point that salary is recognition…i suppose that could be correct but i’d be caution about affixing a broad trend to an individual without weighing what that individual values. there are plenty of examples of players who, for any number of reasons, choose to sign in places that offer nominally less money. look no further than cliff lee and roy halladay.

        if you want to expand the scope beyond baseball, note that LBJ could have received more money from cleveland in base salary but chose to go to miami to get something that money couldn’t measure.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • hk says:

        In practical, every day spending terms, there’s a bigger difference between $130K and $160K than there is between $130M and $160M. Yes, salary is recognition of the hard work they do and some players will pursue every last cent. However, when you are talking about money that will most likely never be spent by the player, his kids or their kids, some players – Jered Weaver comes to mind – choose to forego the extra dollars for some other “quality of life” benefits like not having to relocate from a place the player and his family like living.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Charles In Charge says:

        We don’t know his utility function, this is a stupid argument

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • chuckb says:

        I don’t think the argument is realistically “can Hamels really spend that last $30 M?”. To many, if not most, of these athletes, the extra $30 M is a sign of respect or superiority to other athletes. “A team that offers me $160 M has more respect for me than one that offers $130 M.” Or, “I’m better than the guy earning $130 M so I deserve more than $130 M.” They’re going to be able to take care of their families and buy all the houses and cars they want for the smaller amount of money so, in my opinion, the extra $30 M is more about respect, appreciation, and dignity than it is about what it will buy.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Jason says:

      Of course, for his agent, the difference between $130M and $160M is massive. The agency’s cut on that $30M would almost certainly all drop to the bottom line. It could be the difference between a 10% profit margin and a 40% profit margin in a given year. (Just making this up, but…).

      What advice do you think the agent is giving?

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Steven says:

        Steve, you’re stating marginal utility incorrectly. True, if there are diminishing marginal returns to money (which is assumed here) than an increase in your income when you make $130K leads to a higher increase in utility than an identical increase in income when you make $130 Mil. It does not mean that increases in income that are proportionally the same (23% in this case) lead to smaller increases in utility at higher levels of income.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. RMD says:

    So, basically Hamels is being offered Zito’s contract from six years ago? Lol.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. Pinstripe Wizard says:

    While Hamels has pitched like an ace for the last few years, let’s remember that he technically is the Phillies No. 3 starter, at least that’s what I consider him. He’s a great pitcher, but I don’t put him in that Halladay/Lee category just yet. Even if you put him on the same plane as Lee, 6 yr/$130M seems more than fair for a No. 2 starter. If they consider him their No. 3 starter, that is a huge contract for a middle of the rotation guy. Is Hamels a legitimate No. 3 starter? Of course not, so the Phillies aren’t offering him No. 3 money. Hamels could make more elsewhere because he could probably step in and be the ace of a staff, but given his present situation, I think this contract is more than fair.

    -16 Vote -1 Vote +1

    • hk says:

      Since Hamels is much younger than Halladay and Lee, if he does sign an extension with the Phillies, there is a point in that contract – maybe as soon as next year – when Hamels will be the #1 starter.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • chuckb says:

      Come on. If Hamels is the Phils’ 3rd starter, it’s b/c of who their first 2 starters are. Do you seriously not think he wouldn’t be the #1 starter on at least half the major league teams — probably 2/3? If he goes to the Dodgers, he may not be #1 but he’ll be #1A. Calling him a 3rd starter is wholly disingenuous. He’s one of the 15 or so best pitchers in the majors and he deserves to be paid as one.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. mcbrown says:

    If 130 is an opening bid and Sabathia represents an absolute ceiling at 161 then realistically we are talking about the difference between 140 now and 150 in free agency. Once you factor in the risk of injury between now and the end of the season, say a 5 percent chance of a 50 million reduction in value, the difference is 140 now versus 147.5 later. That is small enough that non-financial considerations could easily trump the difference in value. I think we need to know more about Cole Hamels personal utility function to opine on what he SHOULD do.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Ari Collins says:

      This. While the injury risk is smaller the less time there is left to injure yourself, it’s a non-zero risk, and should be factored in.

      On the other hand, should he be traded to a contender, he has some upside as well market-wise by being in a pennant race. Recent postseason success does seem to raise your value.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Ari Collins says:

        But agreed that, with the slight injury risk being potentially very costly to him, the difference is closer than this article’s conclusion.

        (Which is otherwise an excellent article.)

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Steve says:

        Just as there is the risk that he could fizzle in the playoffs and (slightly) lower his value…

        Vote -1 Vote +1

    • vivalajeter says:

      I agree completely. Not that there’s a great chance of it happening, but if he did injure his elbow/shoulder over the next two months, that could cost him upwards of a hundred million dollars. And there’s also the chance that he keeps pitching as well as he has been, but his ERA spikes up due to normal fluctuation. In 2008/2009 he had a nearly identical FIP/xFIP, but his ERA was 3.09 in 2008 and 4.32 in 2009. If he pitches to the tune of a 4.3 ERA over the next couple of months, that could impact an offer.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. bk says:

    you note that Hamels would probably go for 140-160m after this season.
    how much do you think he would have gone for if the Phillies had made a push last offseason to sign him?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Tangotiger says:

    It’s more important to show performance through his last year, than performance through age-28. The Cliff Lee example is a perfect example. If you want to EXCLUDE pitchers over 30, then fine, do that. But you can’t do what you just did there with Cliff Lee.

    Secondly, a pitcher’s talent level is heavily based on recent performance. Again, you can’t just look at what Hamels did at age 22 and what he did at age 27-28, and weight them the same.

    If you want to do a quick blog post, then fine, you can get away with it. If you just want to present some considerations, then you can get away with it.

    But, in this case, the author is coming to a conclusion about something. If you are going to have an opinion, it should at least use more relevant data.

    That said, the conclusion that a pitcher can get more on the open market than through an extension is going to end up being true. It would just be better to have a stronger framework for that opinion.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Switters says:

    Dear Cole,

    I advise you to take the money from PHI now. You never know what can happen between now and when you become an FA:

    http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/the-cove/Tim-Lincecum-Contract-Rumors-Five-Years-100M-137886938.html

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BX says:

      Half a season vs. two seasons.

      Huge, huge difference.

      Also should Lincecum revert back to form (and his peripherals say he mostly should) and post a strong walk year, he’d easily still get a 5+ year deal for 100MM+

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Switters says:

        I can’t argue that the risk window is smaller for Cole than for Timmy.

        This is really a question of Cole’s level of risk tolerence.

        If I were in Cole’s shoes, I would be thiinking about Brandon Webb. But maybe I worry too much?

        I doubt I need to convince you that in the blink of an eye it can all change, especially for a starting pitcher.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

      • vivalajeter says:

        “Also should Lincecum revert back to form (and his peripherals say he mostly should)”

        I live in San Francisco. I haven’t heard a single person (who’s seen him pitch) try to make the case that he’s pitching anywhere near his old form. Look at his peripherals all you want, but time and time again he’s getting crushed. Heck, at one point he had the absolute worst ERA in baseball. That’s not just a matter of bad luck.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. RC says:

    Signing right now also removes the risk that he gets hurt at some point between now and the end of the year.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Cidron says:

      you mean, getting penalized if he gets hurt. signing now improves his health, and lowers his injury risk in no way.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. MikeS says:

    6/$137.5 is a hell of a contract for a 20 year old second basemen with 176 rookie league at bats who didn’t even play in 2011.

    http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=sa505996&position=2B

    No, this mistake never gets old.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Mitchell says:

    I used to be naive enough to believe salary was less of a factor than people said in player decisions, but most of the time I think athletes are willing to throw everything else away for more money.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • hk says:

      Many players outside of Philadelphia* give up getting every last dollar in exchange for the security of signing extensions before they actually reach free agency. Weaver gave the Angels a huge discount to ensure his security and his ability to stay with the team.

      * Ryan Howard did not have to take a discount to sign his extension nearly two full seasons before he was eligible free agency and Kyle Kendrick got a 2-year, $7.5M contract when most teams probably would have non-tendered him.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. TheOneWhoKnocks says:

    There’s always a risk by waiting for free agency.
    He can get injured or have his performance fall off a cliff.
    There were a couple guys offered big extensions earlier this year that come to mind (Lincecum and Russell Martin) they turned them down and now have lost themselves many millions.
    Hamels has a good consistent track record and has been pretty healthy so I’m sure he’s not too concerned about that, but you have to seriously ask yourself is chasing an extra $20mil worth losing all of it potentially? An offer of $130m to be fairly compensated, eliminate the risk of anything happening over the next couple months that will jeopardize your payday and play in a place you are happy has got to be pretty attractive

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Steve says:

      Your overall point stands, but just for the record, Martin rejected what was widely considered to be a very team friendly offer (something like $24M/3 when he is already making $7M in his last year of arb). It looks “foolish” now, but I remember reading a lot of people say the Yankees were trying to “lowball” Martin.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • soamx says:

        People may have been saying that, but they may have been overestimating his value. He had a .732 ops in 2011 and a .680 ops the 2 years prior to that, I think he’d have been hard pressed to get a better offer than 3 for 24.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. contrarian says:

    anyone else read that list of 5+ deal SP and think that the best outcome for the phillies is hamels turning down the deal, them swapping him to texas for olt or andrus, and giving bj upton + shaun marcum the hamels/victorino money?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. John says:

    I love Cole, but his career hasn’t been exactly “elite.” Very good certainly…look at his WAR totals, last years 4.9 was his highest. CC was coming off consecutive 7+ WAR years. Same with Johan. I don’t think these are really in the same category.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. nik says:

    Hamels also has to know that he’ll get traded if he doesn’t sign the deal. Some players don’t enjoy that process all that much. Small factor, but a factor.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • chuckb says:

      The tradeoff, however, is playing for a team in contention, pitching in the playoffs and potentially winning another World Series vs. pitching for a 75-80 win team. Some people don’t enjoy pitching for 4th and 5th place clubs all that much either.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. JF145 says:

    “I think you should caveat this post. You kept saying what Hamels should do based on maximizing his contract, but he might have other considerations”

    Have you ever heard Cole Hamels talk before? I think it’s safe to say he wants every last dime.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. Matt Veasey says:

    As usual, someone is concerning themselves only with the maximization of dollars. The really important facts are three:
    1) Cole Hamels is a pitcher, he could get injured, perhaps significantly, in his very next start.
    2) The Phillies appear likely to offer the man a 6-year, $130 million contract to play a kids game for a living. That doesn’t even count the perks of first-class travel, accomodations, food, training, etc.
    3) He is on record as stating that he likes it here in Philly. He lives downtown, enjoys a tremendous lifestyle here, and has mostly become a local hero with his playoff and World Series performance, overcoming early career critics.

    Could some club offer Hamels 7-8 years at $150-160 million in the fall? Maybe. Maybe he ruptures a tendon tomorrow, maybe he requires Tommy John surgery after two more starts, maybe he gets into an auto accident. What kind of offer does he get then?

    $130 million dollars to play a kids game in a town where you are popular with a franchise that appears committed to staying in contention and where you enjoy living.

    Now THAT sounds like the true no-brainer…..

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • marc says:

      1) What are the odds of that? How many pitchers start a game and get seriously injured in that game? 0.10%? 0.05%?

      2) This is a standard argument by many people that makes absolutely no sense. Playing a sport is not a privilege or an honor. It is a service that is one of the most competitive jobs to get and to hold on to that exist in the world, and the “perks” are earned, not given. There are many industries (Sports magazines, ESPN, Rawlings, fangraphs, etc..) that are built upon the “kids game” also. Should those people just take less to work in their fields, since they cover kids games?

      3) This has some legs to it, but at the same time he came from Southern California, a place he also likes, and moved to the Northeast. Who is to say he won’t like the next place he goes to, where he will also be a hero? You are a hero in whichever town you go to as a big time free agent and that is not exclusive to Philadelphia.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. CHamelsToe says:

    Why only judge the player perspective? Both parties in these negotiations share the same goal: keep the biggest portion of what’s available for themselves.

    Even if the player could live without it, so too could the owner; the player’s “loss” of an extra $10 million is the owner’s gain.

    On a related note, are agreements ever reached where compensation is built around team wins? I’ve heard of bonuses for post-season and World Series, but what about broader deals where more wins = more salary?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BJ says:

      This assumes that the owner is not working from a budget.

      I have to believe that if they don’t drop $20m on Hamels that they will spend that same $20m just in a different way.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  20. Juan Chapa says:

    That is exactly what is wrong in the world today, GREED! That is why
    people lost their pension funds (investing 100% of their funds in their
    employer’s stock). The Treasury Dep. guidelines is no more than 20%
    of an employee’s account balance in one type of stock. If not for
    greed, not anyone could sucker you out of your hard earn money.
    In the meantime, keep going to the park, helping the greedy
    team and sponsors pay your heroes’ salaries. I quit going
    sine 1989, and attend only little league games. Their
    players play much better, believe it or not. If you don’t, just
    look at Adam Dunn’s batting average and what he’s being paid.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • BJ says:

      This doesn’t make sense:

      1. From a financial planning perspective
      2. From a baseball fundamentals perspective

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  21. JS says:

    Hamels said at one time he wanted to remain a Philly so if that’s the case if the Phillies offer him 130 Mil and I even heard 144 how much does he want to be a Philly. These guys IMO are all paid far too much but if the Phillies put 144 6 yr contract and he were to walk away from it then being a Philly fan he could kiss my arse. Holding out to see how much your worth is just egostistical to me. 144 mil would be more then fair and remember Lee took a cut from the Yankees because he and his family wanted to be in Philly so how true does Cole wanna be a Philly. He be making more money then he could ever spend in his life what more does one want. This thing with all players is now turning into plain simple greed and the avrerage fan goes to a game spends $10 to park takes his wife and say 2 kids ends up spending around $150 for one game and maybe they see 3 or 4 games the entire season because they don’t have the money and these players are worring if they can get 20 mil more on top of 130 mil. To me this money is getting way out of control and it is mainly blue collar workers making 40,000 to 60,000 a yr that are supporting these millionaires and do you think they give a crap about what the fans make nooooo way it’s all about them. Some times I wonder why I even watch sports because I couldn’t match in a lifetime what some players make a year come on Cole come back to earth and accept what the Phillies are offering you. If you were to leave this town I guarantee you , the fans would hate you for life and we all know how Philly fans can be.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>