In the Inquirer, Jim Salisbury said Cole Hamels is out of line for calling the Phillies contract offer, at 500K I believe, a low blow. Salisbury further says that Hamels is spoiled for wanting a paycheck that extends beyond his service class (i.e. years in the league) Yesterday, the Brewers and their 1b, Prince Fielder had the same issue. I think its regrettable that the beat writers take the team's stance on this issue. Hamels and Fielder generate how many millions of dollars in additional income for their teams. Why shouldn't they see any of that? Now, I'm not for allowing players to become free agents immediately, but this idea that younger players, especially stars, should be paid a pittance is ridiculous. Hamels looks around and sees schmucks like Adam Eaton get paid $8mil a year with a fraction of the performance. Of course Hamels is not going to think that's fair. Furthermore, we say 'Oh, but Hamels will get his in a couple years'. What if Hamels blows out his arm? What if he loses his effectiveness? There's no guarantee that he will get his. I'm sure if Phillies management would have offered Hamels a couple million, like 2 or 3, he would have been appeased. Does this extra money really mean that much to the team that they won't spend it on one of their most deserving players. Not paying Hamels just encourages an adversarial atmosphere where players feel like management is against them. It creates bad blood, and for a team trying to keep a nucleus together, that's not a good thing.