This is what Hamels agreed to when he signed with the Phillies in 2003 (or was it 2002?). The Phillies already have thrown him a bone, so to speak, by renewing him at $500K; he's not owed any more than the major league minimum ($390K).

The players cannot expect to have no restrictions on salary otherwise payroll would be completely out of control. The 6 years before free agency rule is the only thing that keeps teams other than Yankees/Red Sox/Mets/etc. competitive and even then the teams have a hard time maintaining any consistency even when run by a good front office. (i.e. Oakland/Minnesota). The Players Union decided that they preferred this structure, so if Hamels wants to complain about a "low blow" then he should direct those complaints to Donald Fehr. By no means am I without sympathy for Hamels in situation, as pointed out Eaton stands to make 16 times as much. It really sucks for him right now, but assuming he stays healthy, he will probably be reaping the benefits of the current system in about 4 years. Still, he should be pissed at the Union and Fehr, not the Phillies for taking one of the few advantages afforded to them in the current CBA. Owners lose on the draft (Boras trying to turn it into an auction) and free agency (It just takes one bad contract like Zito's to inflate the market value of everyone else), so they need to make up ground on the 6 years in between.

But, in reference to the fact that 500K was fair because that was what was collectively bargained for by the PA, let's remember, Hamels is a 23 or 24 year old kid.  He had no say in the last collective bargaining agreement.  Just because the CBA strives for fairness for players in the aggregate does not mean each and every player is handled fairly.  Hamels, in this case, unfortunately is getting at least 20x less than he would make in the market.  Now, I'm not saying that players should hit free agency like 2 years after they enter the league.  But, it would be more fair to take a player's past performance into consideration when creating the salary scale for younger players.  Say a player like Hamels, because he was so successful for the team and so instrumental to its success, rather than the standard bump, how bout a double-bump?  Yes, I know that's not in the CBA, and I know the retort to this response will be 'that's the CBA for you'.  But, just because it's in the CBA does not make it fair.  For a kid to look around the inflated salary numbers  and say 'why not me', I don't think there's anything wrong with that.  

And, in the future, I really hope the Phils do not expect a 'hometown discount' or any other loyalty discount for Hamels.  And for those of you that posted that the Phils were right to only offer 500K, I hope you don't say he should take a hometown discount when that time rolls around.  In fact, I hope you say he should go to the highest bidder, because, by the CBA rules, Hamels can choose any team he wants.

I was following the Twins negotiating with Santana.  They offered the hometown discount and when he didn't take it, the Pohlad (sp?) ownership really did release a statement saying they thought Santana not taking the discount shows lack of loyalty.

Not saying Hamels is Santana, but the loyalty discount thing happens.

'when Hamels is an FA, he'll be playing for the highest bidder regardless of whether the Phillies paid him $500,000 or $600,000 or $700,000 in 2008. expecting anything else is naive.'

Maybe.  But, is there anything inherently wrong with trying to keep your best players happy?

Plus, who knows how healthy he'll be in 2012.  Again, if his arm blows out or he suffers from some other career threatening injuries, like Mark Prior did, he won't get that FA money at all.  I wonder if that entered Hamels' mind

Even if, from a business standpoint, there's only like a 1% chance that he will take a discount later on, showing graciousness here at least won't create the disagreement that we're seeing.

And again, we can rationalize it however we want.  Getting to the basics of it.  If we knew that a worker A in industry X got paid substantially less than worker B, despite the fact that worker A vastly outperforms worker B, that's unfair, regardless of tenure.  This is alleviated somewhat by arbitration in the latter years of the rookie scale.  But I know if I was in Hamels shoes, I would not like the rule as it plays out.  From Hamels' point of view, he is getting the shaft.