A long-term contract for Hamels takes about as much thought as it did for the Phillies to sneak in at the last moment and sign free agent Cliff Lee to a 5-year deal worth a minimum of $120 million, with a vesting option for a sixth year that could bring it to $135 million. The Phillies didn't even seem to be on the radar when they announced their surprise press conference introducing Lee on Dec. 15, 2010.
Lee was already 32 when the Phillies broke their unwritten but clearly advertised rule of not guaranteeing pitchers more than 3-year deals.
Just to highlight the significance of that change in position, the Phillies only guaranteed Roy Halladay a 3-year extension when they surrendered a huge chunk of their farm system to the Toronto Blue Jays in a trade.
Montgomery said that while the Phillies can't throw money around like it is going out of style, the increased revenues from the string of sellouts at Citizen Bank Park over the last several years has made it less of a sticking point.
The money isn't that big a factor and the precedent for longer contracts was set with Lee and now duplicated by signing closer Jonathan Papelbon to a 4-year deal with a vesting option for a fifth.
So what's the issue with Hamels?
At a minimum, the Phillies should offer him the same 5-year guarantee for $120 million that Lee got. Give him the same easily reached numbers for a vested sixth year to kick in. (Lee's sixth year reportedly becomes vested if he pitches 200 innings in 2015, or 400 in 2014 and '15.)
In the grand scheme, when you're talking about that much money, why quibble?
