Halladay/Lee: Makes No Sense At All
by dajafi on Dec 15, 2009 1:28 AM EST
361 comments
Go back to around noon Monday, and two rationales and scenarios in which the Phillies trade for Roy Halladay seem more or less plausible:
- Rationale: put together a super-rotation for 2010 fronted by Halladay and Cliff Lee. Scenario: Phils give up a quality package of prospects and take certain cost-cutting measures, e.g. trading Joe Blanton in a straight salary dump
- Rationale: ensure that you have an ace beyond 2010 without having to give up much in the way of prospects. Scenario: trade Cliff Lee for prospects to flip to the Blue Jays, adding maybe a second-tier guy at most, and to free up payroll
But the upshot of the rumors we're hearing--effectively, Lee plus three of our best four prospects for Halladay, a few million bucks, and two or three guys from the bottom half of the Mariners' top ten prospects--is that the Phils will have made a slightly better than lateral move for 2010, depending on how you feel about Halladay vs. Lee, and weakened themselves beyond that through the swap of projected stars like Kyle Drabek and Michael Taylor for guys more likely to be marginal contributors like Phillippe Aumont (a relief pitcher) and Tyson Gillies (a third or fourth OF).
The only clear "win" is having Halladay at what seems like a team-friendly contract beyond 2010. That's a big deal, to be sure, but given Halladay's reported preference for the Phillies, it's very possible they could have obtained that outcome while either keeping Lee or their prospects. Remember, Johan Santana wasn't traded until February 2008; the Phils' leverage would have been stronger in a month or two, not weaker.
That Amaro has characterized himself as a "bird in hand" guy makes me worry that some variant of the upsetting reports is true--that the combination of his impatience and the atrociously short-sighted "$140 MILLION OR DEATH!" diktat of ownership (would it really have been so awful to have Lee one more year at a bargain price? I understand revenues from a championship can be pretty sweet) led to a splashy but awful deal.
That the deal is pretty clearly worse than what Amaro could have done to get Halladay five months ago, when he had much less leverage, gives me some hope that either the reports are erroneous or that the team knows something about the Mariners prospects coming back that we don't.
At any rate, I'm exhausted and somewhat depressed by this whole thing. Hopefully we wake up to better news.
0 recs |
361 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Halladay Deal
Sorry, but you’re crazy if you think there was any way we could have had BOTH Lee and Halladay in our 2010 lineup, it never would have come about. The Phillies aren’t playing with monopoly money like the Yankees, but should we get back to the World Series in 2010, we now have a guy who can pitch in 3 games in a best of seven series (Halladay) unlike Lee who can’t.
by RomanColoradoPhilly on Dec 15, 2009 1:54 AM EST reply actions
Sure, the Phillies aren’t playing with monopoly money. But if the big deal was clearing $9 million — the amount that Cliff Lee makes — then they simply could have non-tendered Chad Durbin (who’s likely to make $2 million), and either traded Blanton (who’s likely to make $7 million) for peanuts or just dumped him outright.
Or, I guess a big part of this deal seems to be that the Phillies are getting $6 million back from Toronto to cover part of Halladay’s salary. If that $6 million is what’s causing you to replace your best prospects with far inferior ones, then that’s completely ridiculous; you can just save $6 million elsewhere (say, not signing Fernando Rodney or someone of his ilk to a $5 million a year deal, which is coming shortly, just wait).
We should not be giving up 7 prospects in for Halladay, we gave 4 away for Lee now it sounds like 3 of our tops for Halladay, in total 7. If we get Aumont and this Gillies guy they better amount to something. But still there should be a proven reliever included in this deal like a Brandon Morrow for this is actually make sense
Just a red herring?
I am hoping(?) that the Phils are using the threat of the Seattle deal to get Lee and his agent to see Reality a little clearer: There IS no Sabathia contract out there, now or in the future. If you want to trade Lee for two prospects – do it in July!!! Personally, I think their system could use the two draft picks – if he eventually walks – MUCH more than the two losers we are hearing about!
Couldn't have said it better
You summed it up perfectly by saying that the Cliff Lee trade makes no sense at all. As I have been discussing all night, why the hell do we need to get rid of Lee for 2010? As of right now the Blue Jays are giving us $6 million. Add in $7 million if we can trade away Joe Blanton and that’s $13 million for this season. Since Lee is only making $9 million than that can cover his contract and part of the $15.75 million for Halladay. There is no reason to not do this. We traded for Halladay because he probably agreed to a contract extension or there would be no chance that we would take the risk. The worst case scenario here is that Cliff Lee walks in 2011 and the Phillies still have Roy Halladay. To me it is a no brainer…keep Cliff Lee in 2010!
http://www.broadstreetheroes.com/
by Heroes of Broad Street on Dec 15, 2009 3:00 AM EST reply actions
Add me to the list of those who’d like to see Lee stay even if there’s a risk he leaves after this season. The man just finished a sensational postseason – he’s only the second starter in Phillies history with two World Series wins (Steve Carlton) – and he put the team in a position to win every time he took the mound. To keep him beyond 2010 you’re talking about a John Lackey-type contract probably, but you don’t have to give up your top prospects on top of that. What are they saying Halladay would cost: I saw $20 million a year, which is more than what Lackey just got. And then you’re talking about three top prospects?! Like the heading says, makes no sense at all.
by phillyinportland on Dec 15, 2009 3:45 AM EST reply actions
According to MLBtraderumors...
…for what it’s worth, the haul from Seattle for 1 year of Cliff Lee is: Phillippe Aumont, Tyson Gillies and Juan Ramirez.
Take it with a grain of salt.
One other point
That brings up two questions:
1. Is this haul better than what we gave up for Lee during the middle of the season? I have no idea – people that know the prospects should chime in.
2. Is what we gave up to get Halladay for 3+ years (Drabek, Taylor and D’Arnaud) better than what we balked at giving up during the middle of the season (Drabek, Happ, Taylor or Brown and Gose) for only 1.5 guaranteed years of Halladay? That seems like a yes.
1. No, it’s not a better haul. If we were to line up the packages: Aumont is ticketed for the bullpen, and while he may wind up being very good there, it makes him far less valuable than Knapp; Ramirez is a less polished, further from the majors version of Carlos Carrasco; and Gillies is a nice player, but I’d take the value afforded by a Marson/Donald combo over him anyway, or at the very least it’s a wash.
2. What we’d be giving up now is slightly less than what we balked at in July, but again, it makes no sense. If Drabek + Top 25 outfielder was a non-starter then, why should you be so motivated to do it now on top of dealing Cliff Lee?
We Stole Lee in my opinion, I don’t know why we are letting the Mariners Steal him back for less.
I refuse to believe this deal the way it is written now. We had about a million different varieties of it so far. The only one that ever came close to making sense to me was if we got Morrow as well, who is a cost controlled, younger Blanton.
Otherwise, there is absolutely ZERO sense it this deal, and Ruben is an idiot for playing his cards wrong. We are in the drivers seat…we already have an ace, Halladay didn’t want to goto the west coast team.
The Angels were apparently offering quite a nice package for Halladay, but Halladay said he didnt want to play for them. If we were smart, we would take that package for Lee, ship them off to Toronto, and make this an equal 1 to 1 swap of aces. Losing 2 of our top 3 prospects in this deal, and getting inferior replacements doesn’t make sense…so this deal doesn’t hold any water for me yet.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 6:53 AM EST up reply actions
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills
Otherwise, there is absolutely ZERO sense it this deal, and Ruben is an idiot for playing his cards wrong. We are in the drivers seat…we already have an ace, Halladay didn’t want to goto the west coast team
Exactly. How can we go from refusing to trade any of our top-3 prospects to trading 2/3 AND Lee and subsequently getting pants’ed in the deal?
by Screen Name 20 on Dec 15, 2009 8:09 AM EST up reply actions
My take is . . .
. . . that a significant portion of Lee’s value was that the Phillies had 1+ year of exclusive negotiating rights with him. When he made it clear that he wanted either Sabathia money or to test free agency, that exclusive bargaining right lost a lot of its value. It seems Amaro panicked and decided the Phillies would be losing out if they couldn’t extend him, so they needed to turn him into Halladay who they could extend. Amaro had to have an ace who would last past this year.
Of course the Mariners knew of Lee’s position regarding free agency or an extension and likely knew that Amaro felt like he needed something to show long-term for Indians deal, so they knew they could get him from the Phillies at a reduced price .
Toronto probably knew the same thing and were thus had all the leverage in the Halladay bargaining since Amaro didn’t want to lose out. Hopefully between the time Amaro agreed to the deal and the time it is supposed to be finalized, Amaro will come to his senses and realize that giving up the farm for Halladay turns a mistake (the inability to extend Lee) into a major problem. Sure it would have been nice to have Lee long term, but sometimes you have to cut your losses.
I guess “mistake” is the wrong term for the Lee deal. Even without the extension, it was a good deal for the Phillies. Maybe “slight disappointment” is a better term since everyone had hoped Lee would sign a long-term deal with the club (and, as argued above, that right to negotiate with Lee was part of his value to the team).
First thought
Actually, I want to before anything else: well done, dajafi, collecting the scattershot reasons this deal makes no sense and merging them into one coherent piece.
So my first thought is that, as rumored right now, you need to look at this for what it is — two separate trades — and evaluate them individually.
Deal #1: Drabek, Taylor & d’Arnaud FOR Halladay
Even by itself, I don’t get this. If Drabek was untouchable back in July, why is he suddenly expendable in December? (And Aumont does not replace him — we’ll get to that in a minute.) Toronto’s suitors for Halladay are falling by the wayside, and even the package that the Angels have allegedly offered up is less impressive when you actually analyze it (I’ll explain why if anyone wants me to).
I give Anthopoulos credit for framing this as “Hey, you’re trading for multiple years of Halladay, not just one!” but that’s just clever adaptation on his part: in reality, Halladay won’t accept a deal without an extension, so it’s not like Anthopoulos has any leverage whatsoever to demand more. If the Phils pulled the plug on this deal, Toronto would be up shit’s creek without a paddle, to use the vernacular.
Deal #2: Lee for Gillies, Aumont & Ramirez
This is an even greater travesty. Gillies and Aumont are borderline Top 100 guys, with respective ceilings of “league average center fielder” and “very good reliever,” while Ramirez is essentially a poor man’s Carlos Carrasco, with similar stuff but even less idea than Carrasco of how to use it. In exchange for that, the Phillies are giving up a 6+ WAR pitcher on a one-year deal for $9 million, along with the two draft picks that will come when he departs via free agency. In essence, Lee is about as valuable a one-year commodity as you can put on the market.
So you’re telling me that that is all you can get for Cliff Lee? I simply refuse to believe that. The Mets gave up more than that for the right to overpay Johan Santana $23 million per year. Even if Amaro is hell bent on doing this, surely he can get more than that for Lee on the open market.
In other words, the Phillies are losing out in both ends of this rumored deal. If this is really what the proposed deal is, then they need to pull the plug immediately.
Not exactly
Deal #2: 1 year of Lee, Carrasco, Knapp, Donald, Marson for Gillies, Aumont, Ramirez, and 3 months of Lee
by David S. Cohen on Dec 15, 2009 8:59 AM EST up reply actions
This trade is backwards. Going off the most recent reports, we are giving up Drabek, Taylor and D’Arnaud, plus Lee and getting back a top prospect or 2 from Seattle, who’s farm system isn’t as deep as ours?
Why not just trade Lee and Taylor to Toronto for Halladay? They get 2 draft picks when Lee leaves (I assume he’s Type A FA) and save $6.75M this year.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
Second thought
Less analytical this time around… but does anyone else feel like Amaro has his mind set on Halladay, and he’s letting Anthopoulos finagle more and more out of him because he figures, “Hey, whatever, we get Roy Halladay in this deal!”?
Think about it: the earliest iteration had Toronto just getting Mariners prospects. Then Anthopoulos insisted on getting d’Arnaud and one of the Phillies outfielders (which we urged to be Taylor instead of Brown). Then Anthopoulos insisted on Drabek instead of Aumont, and the Phillies caved there.
I swear that Amaro’s only line of demarcation is Brown, and that he’s willing to cave on anything short of that. All of this, by the way, while the Blue Jays have essentially no leverage. It would be completely laughable if I were a fan of any team but the Phillies.
mess
There’s so much misinformation out there right now that I just can’t bring myself to get worked up one way or the other about this deal, until there’s something finalized and the ink has dried.
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Dec 15, 2009 8:28 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
Very true. I think what’s frightening about the whole thing is that both Stark (who’s dialed in to the Phillies) and Rosenthal (who’s the best information guy in the business) are both reporting the same thing, presumably having independently confirmed the info.
That could obviously be an incorrect presumption, but it’s at least cause for concern.
The honeymoon is over bitch
Okay Ruben…the gloves are off. Say goodbye to all those wonderful ‘genius’ accolades you so arrogantly basked in last year. It’s time to account. Personally, I never thought you took enough grief for re-upping a 46 year old pitcher, giving a hefty contract to an aging 37 year old left fielder, or attempting to make a 35 year old Chan Ho Park a starter. But hey, we were coming off a championship and everyone was willing to give the front office the well deserved benefit of the doubt. The saving grace for you was the Cliff Lee trade. In hindsight, it was a masterful deal, propelling us to another pennant and run to the fall classic. But the best part of the Cleveland transaction is how you protected our best and brightest prospects like a one-armed inmate protects his plate. You earned our trust. What the hell are you doing now? Why does this feel like we’re about to be on the wrong end of a Herschel Walker trade. So much for the 4th best farm system in all of baseball. Getting Roy Halladay is a pyrrhic victory at best. If this trade goes through, you still should win executive of the year… for Seattle. And fuck you for making me miss Ed Wade for even a second.
At any rate if this is the base ground work of the trade it’s leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Giving up any of our young talent when we’re throwing Lee away to get more young talent to send north seems like a retarded move. We get possibly three young/talented players from Seattle and then send them to Toronto along with any of our top prospects for Halladay is just plain stupid.
In no way should we be giving up Drabek, Taylor or Brown if we’re loosing Lee for other prospects just to send north. Why are we trading Lee away if we’re going to strip mine our top talent to get Halladay in the first place?
Scar tissue is stronger than muscle tissue. Realize the strength, move on.
Stark on Mike & Mike
-Said that the deal is not “done” but looks like it’s headed in that direction
-thinks this is more a deal for the longrun in that the Phils get Doc at a discount and stick to their “no pitcher deal longer than 3-4 years”
-give up prospects, but get back “m’s #1 and 2 pitching prospects” so they feel it’s still not a net loss. (I’m hoping the phils know something about them that we do not)
I still think it’s Ruben being stubborn, but I guess 4 years of Roy at a discount is a pretty good deal I they weren’t going to keep Lee anyway. Still, we want a pitcher to win us another WS, and Cliff left some pretty big shoes to fill.
by PoorSports on Dec 15, 2009 8:46 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Take from the other side
From Bluebird banter: (thrilled)
If we get these 3, the Phillies number 2,3 and 4 prospects I’d be thrilled and I’d nominate Alex Anthopoulos GM of the year, even if the year hasn’t started yet. It would be pretty amazing to get 3 prospects like this without having any leverage at all.
http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2009/12/15/1201202/roy-halladay-trade-part-three
Couldn’t agree more. Anthopoulos has really impressed me with the turn this deal has taken, getting two Top 25 prospects from a position of no leverage whatsoever. It’s looking more and more like he played Ruben like a fiddle.
Which is reason number 1 why I continue to believe that we can’t believe a word we’re hearing/reading about this deal.
by David S. Cohen on Dec 15, 2009 9:21 AM EST up reply actions
Yep
this doesn’t make any sense. It’s a complete turnaround from last July.
Does.not.compute.
by Screen Name 20 on Dec 15, 2009 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
Seattle Fans are thrilled as well
Just check out the comments on USSMariner or LookoutLanding.
by uneasy rider on Dec 15, 2009 9:25 AM EST up reply actions
Why are we getting bent over
When we are the ones with the leverege?
-Halladay won’t re-sign with Toronto
-Halladay would sign extension with the Phillies (showing interest in Philly as a longterm destination)
-Said extension would be at a discount, so he’s really, truly about playing in Philly longterm.
-We have Cliff Lee for $9 mil this year.
-We have top 4 farm sytem in baseball
so why not wait and try for something midseason? Move Lee at midseason to clear up some money. Or get Halladay for cheaper at the deadline, then sign the extension and let Lee walk in 2011 for 2 draft picks. Or wait and let Lee leave for 2 prospects, then see if Halladay is willing to do a 3 year, $65 mil deal as a FA. If we lose picks in order to sign him, it balances out with the picks we get from Lee leaving.
Am I smarter than our GM? I can’t be…
by PoorSports on Dec 15, 2009 9:27 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
You know, this is the one point where you turn to your fans and say… “Hey, what do you think of this trade?”
by Phils 2036 World CH on Dec 15, 2009 9:28 AM EST reply actions
I am frustrated by the lack of sense this makes. It is stopping me from getting anything done.
Screw you Ruben.
totally agree i have a physics phinal in an hour and i cant think about anything else now.
by IndianEagle on Dec 15, 2009 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
Just turn off the computers and come back at lunch, folks
I give up.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Dec 15, 2009 9:44 AM EST reply actions
Seattle and Philadelphia are both expected to give up prospects in the deal, with the Mariners sending prospects to both the Phillies and Blue Jays. It is believed righthanded pitcher Phillipe Aumont, a Canadian, may be going to Toronto from Seattle. Other names discussed included Mariners athletic outfield prospect Michael Saunders and Phillies outfield prospect Michael Taylor. The Mariners were trying to hold onto top pitching prospect Brandon Morrow.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/12/14/phillies.halladay.lee/index.html?eref=sihp#ixzz0ZliwYBSk
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription
from SI.com
Even more confusing
You're praying Heyman is ahead of Rosenthal and Stark on a Phillies story?
I hope you’re right, but it is infinitely more likely he’s fifteen hours behind.
Hence “praying.” We need divine intervention here!
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
Comments from Lee's agent...
The columnists are already starting to imply that we had to do this because Cliff Lee insisted on testing free agency and we likely couldn’t re-sign him. But did you see his agent’s comments:
“We had taken a position at the end of Spring Training with the Indians that Cliff was going to play out the remainder of his contract and enter the free-agent market,” Braunecker said. “We’ve never had any of those conversations with the Phillies of any sort. That was exclusive to the situation with Cleveland.”
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20091214&content_id=7808166&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb
That sound like a guy who’s hell bent on leaving Philly?
Can someone tell us if the Mariners pitching prospects are really ‘2 of the top’ prospects in the Mariners organization, and is that because they’re good or because the Mariners pitching system isn’t that deep?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 9:54 AM EST reply actions
Put it this way
Our top prospects were top 20 prospects league-wide, according to Baseball America, etc. Theirs…are not.
Yup.
The Top 100 lists aren’t out yet, but best guesses put: Brown in the Top 20; Drabek in the Top 30; Taylor in the Top 40; and Gillies and Aumont somewhere in the 90 to 125 range.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:08 AM EST up reply actions
P.S.
This discussion could help: http://www.minorleagueball.com/2009/1/2/707625/seattle-mariners-top-20-pr
i really hope all these rumors are not even close to the deal. at this point it looks like we are getting assfucked by 2 different teams at the same time, when we are supposed to have all the leaverage
by IndianEagle on Dec 15, 2009 9:58 AM EST reply actions
see my post below
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
for what ever this is worth Buster Olney says the deal is done.
“Halladay’s negotiations with the Phillies are complete; deal in place. He’s taking a physical examination right now.”
but he doesnt say who we lose
by IndianEagle on Dec 15, 2009 10:03 AM EST reply actions
Yep saw that myself, can’t wait to see how badly we’re railed for Halladay.
Scar tissue is stronger than muscle tissue. Realize the strength, move on.
Great trade
Lets look at it for what it is
We Trade
Knapp – Great young arm, he throws 99 MPH and is only 19 (some arm problems)
Donalds- SS with declining value
Marson- C with declining value
Carrasco- P with declining value
We get- (I will not count Lee, I will only count the results of the Lee trade instead)
Aumont – Top P prospect (#11 pick in draft 2 years back)
Ramirez- Top P prospect
Gilles- Comparable to Michael Taylor
Ben Fransisco (as part of the origional Lee deal, I count him since he isn’t leaving)
Plus come cash
If this trade was made last year, it would have been a steal for us.
Now lets look at Halladay,
Last year Toronto wanted Drabek, Brown, Happ, Marson
But now we give up
Drabek- Top P prospect
Taylor- Five tool outfielder
We get
Halladay
That on its own is a steal. We pay far less for Halladay, than what was required from last year.
This is a great trade, I know no one wants to hear Drabek, but we are getting more than Halladay.
We lose Knapp, Carrasco, Donalds, Marson, Drabek, Taylor
We get Halladay, Ramirez, Aumont, Gilles, Fransico and cash.
We get two major league contributors in Hallady and Fransisco and have 3 new prospects. This is a tremendous trade for us. Make it happen Ruben.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
i dont know i really think Drabek is the real deal. why was he a deal breaker then and now we want to give him away to a team that is screwed if they dont trade halladay at all
by IndianEagle on Dec 15, 2009 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
if you look at the scouting reports on Aumont, Gilles and Ramerez, they are no where close to Drabek and Taylor.
That is the problem with this deal, we are giving up prospects and not taking in as good of prospects.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:06 AM EST up reply actions
heck if they substituted Gilles for Triunfel I would feel much better about this trade.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
seperate trades, not the same trade.
We traded
D’Arnaud, Drabek and Taylor for Halladay and cash. Thats a great deal
We traded Cliff Lee for
Aumond, Ramirez, Gilles etc.
Thats a good deal being we got Fransisco for Free and it only cost us
Knapp, Carrasco, Donalds, Marson, (the last 3 sucked butt man)
And we got Cliff Lee a playoff run for free, only to trade him for more than what we paid. Good job Ruben
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
D’Arnaud, Drabek and Taylor for Halladay and cash. Thats a great deal
No, it isn’t. I wouldn’t make that deal straight up if you dropped D’Arnaud. It’s a horrible trade, and you’re an idiot for not recognizing that.
We traded Cliff Lee for
Aumond, Ramirez, Gilles etc.
Thats a good deal being we got Fransisco for Free and it only cost us
Knapp, Carrasco, Donalds, Marson,
No, it isn’t. None of the three Mariners prospects is anywhere near as good as Taylor or Drabek. They’re closer to D’Arnaud than they are to those other two guys.
(the last 3 sucked butt man)
For two months in their major league debuts, and all are still prospects.
Just stop talking. Pretty much everything you’ve said on this thread has been wrong.
Sorry phillybro,
I agree with Taco on everything but the you need to stop talking part.
The phillies are giving up two of their best 3 prospects and not replacing them with players would even be in our top 5 if we hadn’t made any trades at all.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:25 AM EST up reply actions
The phillies are giving up two of their best 3 prospects and not replacing them with players would even be in our top 5 if we hadn’t made any trades at all.
wait that made no sense let me try again.
The phillies are trading away 2 of their top 3 prospects. The guys we are getting in return would not even be ranked in the top 5 of our system if we hadn’t made the trade for Lee or Halladay…Maybe not even top 10.
This trade is a disgrace as is…not to mention I don’t think 20 million is exactly a discount for Halladay…and giving out a contract like this virtually waves bye bye to Howard, Werth and Victorino. You are going to need Drabek and Taylor to replace them.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions
I say it again, I am going off of what the experts are saying.
We would have gotten NOTHING for Lee at the end of the season.
We traded essentially nothing for him. I don’t understand why you don’t understand that.
Carrasco sucked
Donald sucked
Marson sucked
They were all over valued, we were all patting Rubens back last year when he pulled that deal off.
Now we learn that Lee wasn’t staying, we were forced to trade him, and get what most experts beleive to be a good return.
So we essentially get back good prospects for the average prospects we traded for Lee. We got 1.25 on a dollar.
Now I don’t understand how you can say that Halladay and cash isn’t a good deal for Drabek Taylor and D’Arnaud.
Thats just silly bro. I usually read your post and respect what you say. But today you are talking out your rear end bro. You have to step back and look at the trades individually to appreciate it. And account for the fact that Lee wanted 23 Million a year and we aren’t going to pay Halladay as much, although Halladay is by far a better pitcher. Thats not my oppinion, rather again thats Jason Starks and Buster Olneys oppinion. So go right ahead and block quote me again, and tell me how wrong I am and how much you know more than the experts!!!
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:30 AM EST up reply actions
Carrasco, Donald, and Marson are still good prospects. You conveniently left Knapp off your list. Those four guys combined are better than Gillies + Aumont + Ramirez.
Carrasco, Donald, and Marson were not overvalued. If anything, Shapiro bought low on them. He never would have been able to get all three of them plus Knapp if the trade had been made earlier in the season.
Drabek and Taylor are two of the two 25 prospects in the entire sport. Halladay is an excellent pitcher, but he is 32, going on 33, and must be paid $20 million a year which could otherwise go toward other needs. Drabek and Taylor are close to the majors, both have very good odds of being successful major leaguers, and both would command minimal salaries for the first three years of their careers, followed by sub-market salaries for the next three years of their careers.
“Jason Starks” and Buster Olney are not experts on prospects. They are reporters. All of the experts on prospects disagree with you. I don’t know how much times people are going to have to repeat this to you before you get it through your thick skull.
I disagree with you. Thats it.
I’ve been following Carrasco and Donalds and Marsons carreer a little. I don’t beleive they were as good as we think they were. I remember Ruben kept on trying to change the origional Halladay deal to include those players, because he didn’t value them as highly as most fans.
I can respect peoples oppinions, you obviously have yours. I firmly disagree, I see the deal differently than you do. But I guess we are both entitled to our oppinions.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:38 AM EST up reply actions
Aumont – Top P prospect
Wrong.
Ramirez- Top P prospect
Wrong.
Gilles- Comparable to Michael Taylor
Wrong.
But other than that,
what did you think of his post?
I didn't know you were a scout.
I am only going of of what JASON STARKS says. Unless you know more than him! I don’t care how long you’ve been posting on this blog, I think Jason knows a little bit about baseball.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
Jayson Stark is a great reporter, but he would be the first to admit that he’s not a prospect expert. And all of the prospect experts out there (Kevin Goldstein, Keith Law, John Sickels, the guys from Baseball America, etc.) disagree with Stark’s assessment.
So in other words… taco pal is right. You’re wrong.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
I didn't know you were an authority either! Now I know to bow down next time I post in this site. Sorry I didn't show you or Taco salad your due respect!
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions
PF actually is an authority. He’s forgotten more about the Phillies farm system than you’ll ever know.
You guys are so condiscending here.
I am entitled to as much oppinion as anyone else here. Aren’t I.
I didn’t state anyting that wasn’t factual. I only said IMO I thought the trade was more than fair.
But others want to over ride oppinions. I don’t care if I am not a scout, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions
Yes you did state things that were not factual. You said that all the experts agreed with your take. They do not. You said that Gillies and Aumont are top prospects. They are not. You said that Carrasco, Donald, and Marson all suck. That is also incorrect – Carrasco sucked for six weeks last year in his major league debut, but he was 22 years old and is still a prospect.
Also, for crying out loud, “opinion” has only one “p” in it. I usually don’t complain about typos, but good grief.
Jason Starks said that we are receiving Seattles top 2 prospects.
I didn’t say that, he wrote that. I don’t know them from a can of paint.
I gave my oppinion on what I fealt Donalds, Carrasco, Marson. I don’t like them, you are entitled to like them if you choose.
Also, please don’t make this a spelling quiz, I’m tired of that. Thats kind of old and silly. I can type my arguements in spanish, it would make my oppinion any less valid.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:50 AM EST up reply actions
The Phillies have a really good farm, the Mariners do not. Their top 2 pitching prosepects are barely top 10 quality on our farm.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Just because they’re Seattle’s top two prospects doesn’t mean that they are top prospects. If Seattle’s farm system isn’t that good – and it isn’t – then you can be a top prospect for them even though you’re not that good compared to other team’s prospects.
thats different.
Now you are helping me out, I do know much about Seattles farm system.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
buster onley just tweeted this
Sentiment within some corners of NYY organization is that TOR got less talent than what they would’ve required from the Yankees in a deal.
Take it for what its worth.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
But outside of the yankees organization – do they have 3 prospects (even before the Granderson trade) that are as highly rated?
I thought the only people who over rated yankees prospects more than the yankees were ESPN
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
That’s probably true, but that’s the difference between trading within your division, and trading to the other league.
Also, keep in mind that that’s the opinion “within some corners of NYY organization.” So they’re implicitly biased towards their own prospects.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
Also, Onley is agreeing with you on the Lee deal
One veteran talent evaluator’s take: Only clear winner in the deal is Seattle. Prospects sent to Philly iffy, Blue Jays got OK haul.
So if true, I take back most of what I said on these guys. Like I said, I am reading conflicted opinions on this.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:58 AM EST up reply actions
But you’re not reading the respected opinions of the educated baseball fan, just the WIP baseball fan.
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 10:59 AM EST up reply actions
Nope, I am jumping from blog to blog.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
You’re only quoting ESPN heads – that’s kind of like using Howard Eskin as a source
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
I will kindly accept that correction, because its true.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 11:00 AM EST up reply actions
Dude, chill out. I’m not claiming to be an authority, as you would realize if you took 2 seconds to actually read my above post. All I said was: on one hand you have the opinion of Jayson Stark, who’s a major league baseball columnist, and on the other hand you have the opinions of a ton of respected prospect experts. I’ll side with the consensus of the latter every day of the week on prospect matters.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
I just didn't care for the Taco is right and I am wrong deal.
Other than that, I didn’t mean to offend you in any other way. I still respect your oppinion and Tacos oppinion. But lets be real. Its our oppinioin. No one should go putting addendums are other peoples thoughts.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
One uses facts that are supportable, one uses facts that are unsupportable.
One is right, one is wrong…if anyone who works for ESPN is your ONLY source, you should do a little more research.
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
After how highly ranked
Taylor and Drabek were i am really surprised they were included in this deal without Morrow going back to em. Since the Blanton trade I gotta give Gillick/Amaro credit though in that they have definitely gone balls to the wall in the short term. You guys got any inkling if the Halladay contract will have an impact on Howard, Werth and Vic?
by MetsKnicksRutgers on Dec 15, 2009 10:07 AM EST reply actions
According to MLBTR
9:02am: Halladay will agree to a three-year extension worth $60MM, according to Jon Heyman of SI.com. The deal will include two vesting options, so it could keep Halladay in Philly through 2015.
by IndianEagle on Dec 15, 2009 10:08 AM EST reply actions
a timeline of what this trade would mean for us
2010
We gain: The difference between Halladay and Lee (very small benefit)
We lose: A little bit of money
Balance: Small gain
2011
We gain: 34-year-old Halladay (probably still a great pitcher)
We lose: Drabek (minimal salary), Taylor (minimal salary), Two Draft Picks (Lee), the player(s) we would have been able to acquire with the $20 million we’re paying Halladay, the player(s) we won’t be able to acquire because we have to pay market salaries to the players taking the spots that otherwise would have been occupied by Drabek and Taylor
Balance: Wash at best
2012
We gain: 35-year-old Halladay (maybe a great pitcher, maybe not), Aumont (minimal salary), Gillies (minimal salary)
We lose: Drabek (minimal salary), Taylor (minimal salary), the player(s) we would have been able to acquire with the $20 million we’re paying Halladay, the player(s) we won’t be able to acquire because we have to pay market salaries to the players taking the spots that otherwise would have been occupied by Drabek and Taylor
Balance: We Lose
2013
We gain: 36-year-old Halladay (who knows if he’ll still a great pitcher now), Aumont (minimal salary), Gillies (minimal salary)
We lose: Drabek (minimal salary), Taylor (minimal salary), D’Arnaud (minimal salary), the player(s) we would have been able to acquire with the $20 million we’re paying Halladay, the player(s) we won’t be able to acquire because we have to pay market salaries to the players taking the spots that otherwise would have been occupied by Drabek, Taylor, and D’Arnaud
Balance: We Lose Big
2014
We gain: Aumont (minimal salary), Gillies (minimal salary) Two draft picks for Halladay? (but only if he was still good enough at age 36 for us to offer him arbitration and he declines)
We lose: Drabek (first arb year), Taylor (first arb year), D’Arnaud (minimal salary), the player(s) we would have been able to acquire with the $20 million we’re paying Halladay, the player(s) we won’t be able to acquire because we have to pay market salaries to the players taking the spots that otherwise would have been occupied by Drabek, Taylor, and D’Arnaud
Balance: We Lose Bigger
2015
We gain: Aumont (first arb year), Gillies (first arb year)
We lose: Drabek (second arb year), Taylor (second arb year), D’Arnaud (minimal salary), the player(s) we would have been able to acquire with the $20 million we’re paying Halladay, the player(s) we won’t be able to acquire because we have to pay market salaries to the players taking the spots that otherwise would have been occupied by Drabek, Taylor, and D’Arnaud
Balance: We Lose Really Big
by taco pal on Dec 15, 2009 10:08 AM EST reply actions 7 recs
Rec'd
The perfect way to show why the “But prospects are just prospects!” rationale is asinine.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:12 AM EST up reply actions
I think you’re probably kidding, but just to make it clear for others, Keynes would never have advocated throwing away the future for instant gratification. That quote is out of context and means something else.
Yowzers, taco pal is ON HIS GAME today!
;-)
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:23 AM EST up reply actions
well...
I don’t entirely disagree, but this is a bit disingenuous, because you don’t know what Aumont, Gillies and Ramirez will turn into.
Remember that Taylor wasn’t a very highly regarded prospect before 2008. Drabek was a big question mark until about a year ago. D’Arnaud I like a lot, but he’s fairly far away.
Maybe the Phils coaches can get more out of the three guys than it seems they have right now. They’re all young. If they turn into something more than “two relief pitchers and a fourth OF,” the deal is probably about a wash.
I wouldn’t have done it, and I don’t like it, but it seems presumptuous at the least to substitute our judgment and knowledge for that of the Phillies when it comes to these prospects.
I agree that it’s too early to pigeonhole the prospects we’ve gotten back, but I will say this much: Zduriencik made his bones as a prospect evaluator in the Milwaukee system, so I’d be willing to bet that he knows more about the prospects he’s dealing away than the Phillies do.
On the flip side of that, I guess we can be charitable and say that maybe the Phillies know more about their own guys than Toronto does.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
Yes there are question marks around all of these guys. Any of them are speculative commodities, all of them could turn out to be better or worse than we think. But when comparing their present values, the best, most unbiased information we can use is the most current information we have right now for each guy. Like pricing stock options. I think it would be a mistake to say, “Well, Gillies might get better and Taylor used to be worse, so maybe it’s actually an even trade.” That could be true, but it isn’t the middle of the bell curve. It could just as easily be the case that Taylor gets even better and Gillies gets even worse.
I don’t think I’m so much substituting my judgment for the Phillies’. I’m substituting the judgment of prospect writers like Sickels, BA, etc. for the Phillies’.
I get that. But go back two years and see what Sickels, to take him as an example, said about Taylor and Drabek. He wasn’t a fan. For that matter, nobody thought Utley and Howard would be particularly great major leaguers.
I read all these guys too. But they’re wrong—a lot.
As i said, I don’t like the deal. But I think a lot of it is emotional, and I’m trying to discount all that to some extent.
Looks like this thing is going to go through, now it’s just digging out the devil in the details. Nothing in stone but it’s pretty much stone solid that Doc is coming to Philly, we just need to see just how much we gave up for him.
Scar tissue is stronger than muscle tissue. Realize the strength, move on.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4744730
“The status of the other portions of a companion deal that would include the Seattle Mariners is uncertain at this point.”
As in…please let it not happen?
why cant we switch to the angels for the 3rd team, no way they havent already contacted the phillies, can we get their roy package?
My thoughts exactly…I would so much rather have their Roy package…
The Angels can’t possibly be sitting around twittling their thumbs as they lose their top 2 free agents.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun says the Angels have taken the lead in the Halladay sweepstakes, offering Joe Saunders, Erick Aybar, and outfield prospect Peter Bourjos to the Blue Jays for the Toronto ace.
If Ruben was fin smart he would call up the Angels and say…hey, Remember that package you offered for Halladay, but he didn’t want to play for you? How about you offer that package for Cliff Lee??? Yeah, thats right, he makes 9 million this year and can’t veto your god damn offer.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:33 AM EST up reply actions
sup dude,
Man, these guys here are cocky. Not like BGN where you can have an oppinion. People here like to call you wrong, with out giving valid reasons for saying that. I understand if somepeople disagree. But most here act like experts bro.
Good to hear from you bro.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
“We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts."
— Daniel Patrick Moynihan
I wasn't stating that other peoples oppinions were wrong.
Rather I only pointed out another way of viewing the deal. Most readers can decide to agree or disagree with me. But for other posters to block quote me and say I’m wrong is in fact them trying to stipulate a fact out of my oppinions. What I say isn’t gosple, only oppinion. But People want to assert their oppinion as fact in the same time disregarding others oppinions.
So you tell me who’s right and whos wrong.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 15, 2009 10:41 AM EST up reply actions
TGP and BGN are different because baseball and football are different.
Baseball fans know their prospects…and they like to let you know that they do.
Baseball is much more complicated than football, because all teams are not equal, and money is always part of the deal. Also, draft picks are worthless, so its not like you have a value chart like you do in football.
I like reading about prospects in baseball, just like I like the draft in football. I happen to agree with them, that the prospects we are supposedly training don’t match the ones we are receiving…so this deal is about money if the facts are true thus far.
Is 6 million dollars worth Drabek OR Taylor? I dunno?
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
You can also say “fag” as much as you want on BGN and the level of discussion is generally a half step above what I can find at my local dive bar. Favorably comparing BGN to TGP is like favorably comparing McDonalds to Le Bec Fin, bro.
by FuquaManuel on Dec 15, 2009 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
well, I guess that package isn’t prospects, but it still shows they were interested any they have Brandon Wood, who I wouldn’t mind having.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
Don't think they'd give up as much
since it’s guaranteed to only be for a year, but if it’s even close it should be worth looking into.
Shower Time
Keep me informed people, I’m counting you.
Scar tissue is stronger than muscle tissue. Realize the strength, move on.
Forget everything else for one second...
…because the rest of this day could really suck big time. But for now, Roy Halladay is a Phillie. In the midst of all the other nonsense, part of us should smile.
Very true. And by the old saying that “The team that wins the trade is the one that got the best player,” I guess we won this trade.
/scrambling for silver linings
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
(Unless Drabek turns out to be better. Which is unlikely, but possible. And there aren’t many guys you can say that about.)
Silver lining
Halladay/Hamels at the top of the rotation for the next three plus years. Brown joining the club in two, with May not far behind.
I’ve been as guilty of Chicken Little-ing as anyone, but if this really is the worst case scenario maybe it’ll be alright. It’s not like it’s the late 80’s, or 9 out of 10 years in the 90’s. Even if that’s where we’re headed, at least we get some good times until it’s over.
ESPN take
“If all of the names being bandied about wind up in this deal, the Phillies would get back what Baseball America rates as the Mariners’ top two pitching prospects, plus Gillies, an outfield prospect they view as being similar to Taylor. So although the Phillies would be giving up two of their most highly regarded prospects in Drabek and Taylor, they would look at this deal as not significantly depleting their system for the long haul.”
Link on that?
Or was that on sportscenter?
Olney
Also said they won’t finalize a Cliff Lee trade until Halladay has passed his physical, although that seems to be happening as we speak.
That feels like one of those formality issues doesn’t it?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
But where does the mariners system rank as a whole – if they stink then the prospects are weighted differently – where are those prospects in relation to the rest of the game.
And that means BA no longer considers Morrow a prospect I guess?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions
Could be wrong, but I think they’re in the middle of the pack. It’s not that Gillies and Aumont are bad prospects – they’re OK. But they’re just nowhere near as good as the guys we’d be giving up.
Aumont is ranked 33rd overall on mlb.com
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/minorleagues/prospects/y2009/profile.jsp?t=p_top&pid=518418
He’s a big dude. 6-7
by Phils 2036 World CH on Dec 15, 2009 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
How is he ranked at sites with more credibility than mlb.com at ranking prospects?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
He didn’t make BA’s midseason top 50, IIRC.
But, something to consider is that Aumont spent most of 2009 in A+ High Desert, which is a HARDCORE hitters’ heaven, arguably the biggest hitters’ paradise in the minors.
However, he was also pretty much permanently moved to a relief role in ‘09, with M’s brass fairly convinced that his ceiling is as a lights out, elite closer. He was used entirely in relief in ’09.
He’s definitely top 100, but where totally depends on how you quantify SP vs. RP.
"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West
That list also has Carlos Carrasco as the 28th best…it is old
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
That was from last year, before the elbow problems shifted Aumont to the bullpen, where his value is obviously much less.
MLB.com’s Top 50 list is a nice thing that they put out, but it’s far behind the Goldsteins, Callises, and Sickels of the world in credibility. And even then, there’s no way Aumont even sniffs this year’s Top 50 list.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Have BA and BP finished their minor league system evaluations yet or are they still working on them?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 10:56 AM EST up reply actions
Yup, and BP (Kevin Goldstein) is working his way through the AL but hasn’t gotten to the Mariners yet.
My guess for what grades Goldstein gives the guys: Gillies and Aumont 3 stars, Ramirez 2 stars (though maybe three due to the raw stuff). For comparison’s sake, I’m sure Drabek and Taylor will both be 4 stars (one may even snag a 5 star rating depending on reports), and d’Arnaud will be 3 stars.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
So the phillies prospects would advance to the semi finals of star search?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
Exactly. Someone said above (maybe it was you, taco) that Gillies and Aumont would be in the second tier of Phillies prospects with d’Arnaud, May and Gose, and that’s definitely accurate.
But the gulf between the first tier and the second tier is pretty substantial. It’s the thing that bears repeating: the Mariners don’t have a prospect who’s in the same ballpark as Drabek, Brown, and Taylor.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:52 AM EST up reply actions
If that’s how the Phillies feel, then they either see something that Jack Zduriencik and his staff don’t (which I highly doubt, since Jack Z is an excellent evaluator of minor league talent), or the prospectdom consensus on those guys is way, way off.
And the idea of Gillies “being similar to Taylor” is laughable. They’re nothing alike as players, and Taylor has far more present value because he’s proven himself at the upper levels.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
Gillies has good strike zone judgment at least. Plus his name rhymes with Phillies, maybe that’s also something Ruben’s looking at.
I liked this trade better when these canadians were heading to canada and we were keeping drabek
Oh the Boy’s in December are frightful
But to me it’s just delightful
Jerry will tell the coach to go
How they blow, how they blow, how they blow.
Read Buster and Heyman's tweets
Yanks were making a play for Halladay. But the Jays wanted Drabek. These are things we don’t think about (but Ruben has to). How would you feel if the Yankees gave up a huge haul for Halladay? Their farm might be depleted, but…they’d have Halladay. Just playing devil’s advocate.
The Yankees can do whatever the heck they want, as far as I’m concerned. Our priority should be to either negotiate a good trade for Halladay or not make it at all, not to prevent somebody else from getting Halladay.
Well
We’re not jumping in at the last second simply to prevent the Yanks from getting him. This isn’t schadenfreude. We obviously want Halladay. I’m just saying this could have been part of the calculus.
The yankees don’t have a fixed 140 million dollar budget, they can bust slot and easily fix holes with money that the phillies can’t – it’s comparing apples and oranges.
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:03 AM EST up reply actions
That's true
My only point is that Amaro might have thought: “If we don’t include Drabek, Halladay is going to the Yanks. And Cliff Lee won’t sign a long-term deal.” That’s my point – this might have been his line of thinking. Not saying it was right.
You may be right, but if it was part of Amaro’s line of reasoning, then he’s an idiot. The Yankees aren’t our rival, they’re not in our division, and we don’t compete with them. You make moves to make your own team better, not to one up a team in another league.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 11:06 AM EST up reply actions
True
But as the team is presently constituted, they’re the class of the NL. So they are probably thinking about winning the World Series. And they would probably have to be able to beat the Yankees to do that.
Again
Ruben’s imaginary rationale. I’m just teasing out what the thinking may be behind a trade we all dislike. Don’t hate me.
Don’t worry, I won’t shoot the messenger. I may be angry enough to take the safety off, but I promise I’ll restrain myself from pulling the trigger. ;-)
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
That thinking is up there with listening to the fan base…I didn’t like the polanco signing (way too many years, and again jumping the market on a second tier FA like Ibanez the year before is how I saw it), and Amaro gets too much ‘good will’ for the Lee violation and making the WS again mostly with guys who have been here a while…I personally think any good will he has earned goes out the window finally for the educated fan who realizes that while the phillies got the biggest name in the deal they got ‘double teamed’ by Seattle & Toronto…
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:07 AM EST up reply actions
Rob Neyer Says the mariners are pulling off a heist
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/1778/mariners-pulling-off-a-heist
I don’t think this was shared yet… I am starting to get depressed about this
Oh the Boy’s in December are frightful
But to me it’s just delightful
Jerry will tell the coach to go
How they blow, how they blow, how they blow.
this is consistent with my feelings all along: Seattle isn’t paying enough. Morrow, Saunders or Triunfel should be part of the deal
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 11:16 AM EST up reply actions
But even then, it’s still a loss for us. As naturally talented as Morrow is, it’s a crapshoot whether he’ll ever actually figure it out; Triunfel projects as a third baseman who hits for no power (he’s not sticking at short); and while Saunders is a nice enough prospect, he doesn’t come close to replacing Michael Taylor.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
HOW CAN THIS BE HAPPENING? WHY CAN’T ANYONE STOP IT? IS THERE NO ONE IN THE ORGANIZATION WHO CAN’T SEE WHAT EVERY INTELLIGENT OBSERVER HAS SEEN?
This is an organization that still listens to Dallas Green…
I honestly think their success is in spite of their stupidity not because of any intelligence in their organization
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
Over paying (years) for ibanez and polanco, getting shafted coming and going on the Lee/Halladay thing…doesn’t seem so does it? Looks more like the Lee deal was the aberration not the pattern?
The only way to break from the past is to bring someone new in and let them clean house…it’s a mistake the sixers made as well when the rat jumped ship, and they’re still paying for it.
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
No, what I’m saying that the organization was run well in the past. There have been some bad errors, but it’s highly unlikely that you will post nine 85+ win seasons out of ten purely on luck. Ruben may be a break from the past in that he might be a bad GM.
So what you’re saying is that the GM before Pat Gillick wasn’t a bad GM?
Cause if he was it’s not so long ago that the phillies had a bad GM.
They did have a good guy figuring out prospects, but he’s gone too
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:21 AM EST up reply actions
No, he wasn’t. He had his faults and he was dismissed at the right time, but he actually did a pretty good job while he was here. When he took over, the Phillies had nearly no talent either in the majors or minors. When he left, the Phillies were an 86-win team with several good young players.
Arbuckle’s reputation is overrated.
Arbuckle’s reputation is overrated.
Based on what?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
At least one person in the organization agrees with you…
talked to a member of the Phillies org. who doesn’t understand the trade – said Taylor is mlb ready right now
Unfortunately, I’m guessing it’s a janitor or something. Whatever he is, that guy should be promoted… hell, he can have Amaro’s job for all I care.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
While this trade sucks already, I really don’t like the line that keeps appearing on MLB Trade Rumors: The Mariners are getting Lee and possibly more. This is already a steal for them, why would the Phillies give up anything else? Oh well, I guess when you’ve already been royally reamed, one more thrust doesn’t make much difference.
Has anyone in the Philadelphia organization talked about Halladay being a work horse yet? I’m looking forward to that
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:12 AM EST reply actions
That’s nothing in comparison to the inevitable “Happy Halladays” headlines. And if you think those will end after the new year, just wait until J.A. Happ and Roy Halladay win consecutive games. I’m ready to murder every newspaper writer in the city just thinking about such headlines.
you actually made me laugh at loud. Because of LOLs over use, I needed to state it in words.
HAPPy HALLADAYs would be the worst line ever printed
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 15, 2009 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
I think Seattle’s the one throwing a bone, and I think you know where they’re throwing it.
by mattjg on Dec 15, 2009 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
How much of this I wonder is about appeasing the ‘average’ fan, the casual fan, the phillies make the big splash, get the big name, so it ‘seems’ like they’re better even if they pretty much moved laterally for next year…a way of creating buzz to maintain high ticket sales for the WIP (and less informed ‘casual’) baseball fans who only care about this season and this world series and have no long term view?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:15 AM EST reply actions
Maybe I'm misreading this . . .
. . . but are you claiming there are less informed fans out there than WIP Phillies fans?
Yeah, people who don’t care much about baseball but show up because the city has a winner…like laker games…many people show up because the lakers win, but know little to nothing about sports except that the team that scores more wins…the diehard fans tend to show up and support no matter what…all this ranting and raving probably won’t make a single person on this board attend less games next year if the phillies win or lose probably (dedicated fanatics as we are) but casual fans need a bit more motivation.
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
Ah, got ya. Yep, if I didn’t live in Pittsburgh, I’d probably go to the same 20-30 games I used to no matter how pissed off I was about the trade. I started to come around to Ruben’s side after the Lee trade, but if this trade goes down it will destroy any good will I had towards him. Will I still pay hundreds of dollars for Extra Innings or MLB.tv? Of course, because I’m a sucker like that.
I passed on the NBA League Pass this year partly because of dissatisfaction with the sixers and partly due to the need to be ‘smarter’ with money. I’m not sure what I’ll do about the EI package right now, which is complicated by living with a fan of the red sox
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
The Phillies have shown very little inclination to please those fans in the past. I think you just like to see you’re preferred narrative whether there’s evidence for it or not.
I think there are different subsets of fans, and whether you like to admit it or not, the ‘educated’ type fan of TGP is not the largest portion of the fanbase…the WIP and less educated fans make up larger portions I believe.
Hiring Larry Bowa was purely an appeal to those old school good old days people who didn’t care that Bowa sucked as a manager…
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah that was also ten years ago. If the Phillies really cared about all that (the way that, say, the Flyers clearly do), then you would see a consistent pattern of that sort of decision. But there is no pattern. You have some decisions that fit, others that don’t. The organization is, if anything, run more like the Eagles – until they won the WS, many fans complained about the Phillies’ arrogance, their frugality, their passionlessness, etc. etc. just like they’ve done with Lurie and Reid, if not with the same intensity.
In the abstract, it’s all well and good to rail on the stupid fans who care about scrappiness and all that, and when you start to see them around every corner, then you’re making this more about advocating your own philosophy about the world than about conducting an analysis of what’s actually happening.
Yup, I’m shipping off for a little bit too. Godspeed all.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
Yea at this point all the experts are pretty much doing what is going on here….Any bets yet on the finalized news break….3:37????
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
Anyway we can get the Lords to start this up…ala world series picks…pick a time and what the final deal is….
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 11:30 AM EST up reply actions
KLaw's take on the Seattle prospects
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/features/rumors#4030 (Insider only)
Basically, Aumont probably stuck as a reliever due to hip injury, also has makeup questions. Ramirez, great stuff, durability questions and didn’t miss many bats last year. Gillies, fastest man in baseball (Law’s words), lacks power.
Sorry if this was posted earlier.
That’s a really terrible analysis. So many logical flaws. I’m really disappointed, because I thought more highly of Martino than that.
Apparently it’s ok to trade Michael Taylor for whoever, because Dom Brown is better. What does that have to do with the price of tea?
Dave Cameron (Fangraphs) take on the deal.
Alright, I lied, I’m back for a quick minute. Here’s the link to Dave Cameron’s take on the deal. Key quotes…
I think Toroto and Seattle fans can feel comfortable that this was the best their team could have done. Philly fans, I don’t think you can feel that same way.
The Cliff Lee to Seattle portion of this trade just seems very light in return for the Phillies. They’re getting two power arms with a lot of questions marks and a speedy center fielder without a lot of power. None of these guys are top tier prospects. This is the best Philadelphia could have gotten for Lee? Really? A pu-pu platter of interesting, high-risk guys not really close to the majors for a Cy Young quality pitcher who is already well on his way to Type A free agency?
And, even if that’s true, why clear $8 million from the books by trading Lee? Surely, you could have moved Joe Blanton without eating any of his salary, even if you didn’t love the deals being offered. Or, how about this – don’t sign J.C. Romero, Brian Schneider, and Ross Gload, whose 2010 salaries are about equal to Lee’s. Replace those three reserves with league minimum guys and you’ve saved enough money to keep Lee around.
Halladay will help them, and the extension he signed is a great deal. But it just seems like they bent over backwards to make this particular deal, when there were so many other ways of going about it. It just seems to me that the Phillies could have had Halladay and Lee, and that reality would leave me pretty frustrated today if I was a Phillies fan.
Shameless plea: please Rec this comment.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 11:38 AM EST reply actions 12 recs
My only quibble with Cameron . . .
. . . is that I don’t think the Phillies bent over backwards to make this particular deal.
by mattjg on Dec 15, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I don’t know, that’s kind of the feeling I’ve been getting from the trade talk. The tenor of the trade talks seems rushed, impatient, and forced — all unfortunately at the expense of the Phils. I’m more on board with Cameron here.
Oh, I'm not saying the Phillies didn't bend over . . .
. . . I just don’t think it was backwards.
Wow I’m not sure to read Martino’s or Cameron’s…..pretty opposite views
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 11:40 AM EST up reply actions
You could choose: A gifted writer with a great amount of baseball knowledge who writes for (at least) two well-respected publications who may be slightly biased (but also might have greater insight) because he covers the team. Or a writer for the Inquirer. It’s up to you.
Correction
“Or a writer for the Inquirer who doesn’t want to make the only team he covers upset thus jeopardizing his opportunities to gain access to the team.”
wtf
this is what i get from not paying attention to baseball yesterday from 12 till now
why do we have to give up our prospects? can’t we just send the mariners prospects to toronto, or at least get to pick the ones we want to keep, why give up drabek & brown & etc. when we could’ve just done that anyway, & still had some of the prospects we sent to cleveland
"Leave Michael Alone!" - said like that Brittany Spears fan on youtube
And Murphy likes it too...
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/phillies/Arm-a-gettin_or_Armageddon_.html
Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised by this or Martino’s take.
I won’t know which side to take until I see Conlin’s take on Halladay’s gumption, chutzpah and ability to put up 20-win seasons.
by mattjg on Dec 15, 2009 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yeah
This prompts a question. If Halladay puts up monster numbers for the next three years, and we make it back to a WS, does this render moot what we gave up? (Assuming Drabek doesn’t turn into Halladay, etc.)
I mean...
…the point in getting Lee was getting back to the WS. We did that (except the winning part). That was the only thing we cared about at the time in the heat of the race. Whatever happens to those 4 prospects seems meaningless now considering 2009 is over.
I think we can safely assume
Drabek does not turn into Halladay.
By definition, someone will be the next dominant pitcher in MLB. Chances are slim for any given player. On the other hand, karma tells me that Drabek will be the next Walter Johnson, though.
Remember the Phitans
by RememberthePhitans on Dec 15, 2009 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
It is just frustrating that Ruben wouldn’t give up Drabek and a a couple of the other prospects this summer to just get Halladay then….I suppose it may be easier to sign Halladay now…(Maybe he was thinking more money/years this summer and is getting desperate?) Oh well
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
I think Ruben panicked when he (reportedly) couldn’t sign Lee to an extension and decided it was worth paying a premium to get Halladay + a deal in place. In hindsight, he probably should have insisted on negotiating an extension with Lee before the Indians trade even if it meant giving up another prospect (outside of the big three).
Yep.
I’d gladly give up Drabek, Taylor, Brown, D’Arnaud, Utley, and my grandmother if it guaranteed us another championship. However, I don’t think this trade increases our chances of winning one in the next seven or eight years. Sure it improves our chances short-term, but drastically reduces them long-term (especially since we have a lot of contracts up after 2011 and a lot of money tied up in Halladay).
Your own grandmother?
For shame. I think the Phillies think the long-term is insignificant, considering the players we have now and the contracts to which they are signed (i.e. 2012 will be a scary year for more reasons than the Mayans imagined). They are worried about now, and I guess the thinking is Halladay is better than Lee, and you’ll have him for that short-term “window of opportunity” whereas you wouldn’t with Lee.
If we hadn’t done the Lee trade in July and decided to give up these prospects for Halladay, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with this deal. However, while I agree that Halladay is a better pitcher than Lee, I don’t see the difference between the two being worth three of our top prospects (who we would have cheap after salary armageddon) minus some mid-level Mariners prospects.
That “window of opportunity” crap is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It damn sure will be a short-term window if we trade away two of the 25 best prospects in baseball.
The best comparison I can think of for this deal is the Sixers trading the #1 overall pick in the draft to get Roy Hinson in 1986. Halladay is better than Hinson, but it’s wrong for the exact same reason.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4744730
Well here is another “go” for the deal in that we keep Brown lose Taylor and get Gillies, lose Drabek but get Aumont and Ramirez. As far as losing the catching prospect oh well no biggie
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 11:55 AM EST reply actions
Before turning to Seattle, multiple sources say, the Phillies first attempted to complete a two-team deal with Toronto alone for Halladay. However, the Phillies refused — as they had last summer — to include both Drabek and top position-player prospect Domonic Brown in that trade. So they began looking for another team that could help them meet the Blue Jays’ price.
Amaro’s thought process here just absolutely kills me. “We’re unwilling to trade Brown and Drabek in order to get Halladay… so let’s trade Drabek, Taylor, and Cliff Lee to get him. Hey wait, that’s brilliant!”
The whole thing was ill-conceived from the start, but even within the context of making a deal where the Phils would be giving up a bit too much, Amaro appears to have had a thousand opportunities to lessen the blow to his club — and he blew them all.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
Amaro has lost all credibilty. What else can be said without going monosyllabic?
by Boundforbeach on Dec 15, 2009 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
so as the deal stands, 7 of BA's top 10 Phillies prospects from the beginning of 2009 will be on another team at the begining of 2010
a. yea the date’s old, but its just food for thought
something interesting (scary?) to think about
I wonder if 4 of the 10 could have gotten Halladay this summer
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
Why do we have to send Taylor to Toronto. Just give them Tyson Gillies from Seattle.
Toronto is apparently already getting d’Arnaud & Drabek. Id rather give up Jayson Werth than Michael Taylor.
1) Taylor is a significantly better prospect than Gillies, so I doubt they’d take him.
2) I’d rather send Werth too, but I’m not sure a rebuilding organization has room for a 30-something outfielder who stands to make a lot of money in 2011.
The Blue Jays aren't dumb.
If we’d prefer Michael Taylor to Mayberry and Francisco, it’s likely they would too. I don’t see Francisco ever being an All-Star (or even an above-average outfielder) and I’m not convinced Mayberry will ever be anything more than a fourth outfielder.
I would have tried to send Gillies, Aumont, Ramirez and maybe D’Arnaud and a mid-level prospect to Toronto. I could accept even losing one of the big three to Toronto and keeping Aumont or Ramirez in Philadelphia. But trading Taylor AND Drabek makes no sense to me.
Also, re: the $6 million that Toronto is sending to us...
If this is what’s inducing the Phillies to toss in Drabek, then this organization is pathetic. I’m not even saying ownership should approve a corresponding $6 million bump in payroll — I’m saying that Amaro could pretty easily have saved that $6 million somewhere else on the current roster.
Just wait: when the Phillies sign Fernando Rodney to a 2 year, $11 million deal in a couple of weeks, you’ll know that the Phillies traded Drabek to clear payroll space to sign a shitty set up man.
Plus
That Jamie Moyer deal is looking like a disaster. He’s due, what, $8M this year? And Cliff Lee is getting, what, 8.5M this year? Ugh…
Was that Amaro's doing as well?
Had to be, right, Gillick was done after the WS?
by Screen Name 20 on Dec 15, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
Here's hoping...
…the Blue Jays continue to suck for the 2010-2020 decade, and that the Mariners spend 2011 and beyond pining for that one great season Lee gave them before free agency. Schadenfreude will make this all better, right?
anyone else hoping halladay fails his physical?
"I tried to run him over but Eli had his big boy pads on and he kind of stopped me from getting in the end zone. The next time I’ll try to jump over his head.’’ - Asante Samuel
I would hope for that, but I don’t even think that would stop Amaro at this point…
“What’s that, doc? Oh, Doc has a torn labrum? Ahh, no biggie. Excuse me for a minute, I’m going to call the Blue Jays and tell ‘em we’ll toss in Anthony Gose too — they were holding out on us, not even telling us what a workhorse and a warrior Roy is!”
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
Weird
Olney says, “It’s all moving fast: As soon as Halladay deal is done, the Jays are going to trade Michael Taylor to Oakland for Brett Wallace.”
Was just going to post that.
I’m certainly still a believer that Beane’s among the best in the business, so for him to be so interested in Taylor… well, it just reinforces how much the Phils gave up here.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 15, 2009 12:21 PM EST up reply actions
Brett Wallace for Michael Taylor?
Good thing the Phillies have so much depth at 3rd base both in the major and minor leagues. That trade would have made no sense for us at all.
only a failed physical can save us now (or is that already done)
by Boundforbeach on Dec 15, 2009 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
I feel like Ed Wade is back in town.
Is there any way we can work Omar Daal and Bud Smith into this deal?
I was more referring to the utter dread and disappointment I felt every time the Phillies made a trade or signed a deal.
What is the rotation next year?
1. Halladay
2. Hamels
3. Blanton
4. Happ
5. Moyer / Kendrick / Pedro (if resigned)
Is that about right? (You could swap 3/4 depending on your preference)
number 5 starter does not look appetizing to me at the moment - or number 2 if hamels doesn't
turn it around from last year, either
by DeuceisLoose926 on Dec 15, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
And so much of Hamels ‘bad’ season last year depended on luck…
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
By most accounts
Hamels should be fine. If he’s a problem then it won’t really matter who lines up in the number one slot anyway.
Mostly agreed on the fifth starter bit, though I agree with Taco Pal that if #5 starter is your biggest worry you’re probably doing just fine.
In the end, it’s about how you view Halladay versus Lee. Halladay’s track record is better (speaking in total of ), but Lee has had half the innings put on him. Jays fans can’t understand why we’re unhappy, while Mariners fans are openly laughing about the whole thing.
In the end, I’m inclined to agree with taco pal on that, beyond acknowledging that at least we’d get Halladay for several years as opposed to one.
It’s also about how you view the future of the outfield and the lack of any organization depth at short and third…this trade isn’t just about halladay versus lee…ibanez is old, werth is a fa sooner rather than later, rollins is aging, polanco is a stop gap.
Prospects serve a purpose and sacrificing most of the good to great ones to get Roy Halladay may not work out for the long term overall success of your team…
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 12:50 PM EST up reply actions
I'd rather sit still and try and get Lee/Halladay in FA next year
1. Lee / Halladay
2. Hamels
3. Blanton
4. Happ
5. Drabek
by Screen Name 20 on Dec 15, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
never happen…phils can’t afford that kind of scratch for long term deals to lee and halladay
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
Well see…you let them get to the open market you have more competition.
Lee supposedly wants 6 years, the phillies ‘organization protocol’ on pitchers is not to offer them more than 3 (though I’m interested to see how hard Halladays vesting is going to be). Halladay ‘wants’ to come to Philadelphia.
In terms of signing now versus signing on the open market, I gotta think in that one area the phillies are being smart if they think Lee is fixed on his six years. Halladay would have gotten more than Lee on the open market I believe. Done it longer in the AL East…
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:05 PM EST up reply actions
I also don’t think Halladay ever hits the open market. Blue Jays will do everything they can to trade him before Spring Training, and whatever team he is traded to will negotiate a long-term deal with him before acquiring him. That leaves Lee, and I don’t see the Phillies winning a bidding war against the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets and whoever else decides to get involved.
I wouldn’t put the Mets, or Dodgers for that matter, into the big spender category any more, but the Angels would probably be in there (so why not negotiate now – don’t the angels have a highly rated prospect who they hate?) .
And that’s the thing though – why is it the blue jays are a ‘motivated seller’ of Halladay – yet it seems that they are bending the phillies over a barrell to get rid of him.
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:10 PM EST up reply actions
I also don’t think Halladay ever hits the open market. Blue Jays will do everything they can to trade him before Spring Training,
Tell that to Ruben, I’m not sure he’s aware.
by Screen Name 20 on Dec 15, 2009 1:12 PM EST up reply actions
I know you’re kidding, but his actions really don’t seem to reflect that he is aware of the ‘spring training mandate’ do they? I mean don’t pitchers and catchers report sometime in february?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
And assuming Halladay was serious about his “Must train in Florida” mandate, that cuts the number of possible destinations.
So Toronto has a limited time trade Halladay and a limited number of teams to which they can trade him, yet they are able to force the Phillies to overpay for him?
The more I look at this trade, the less sense it makes.
Didn’t someone check the geography yesterday though and determine that the phils and training camp isn’t that much closer to his Florida home than the jays training camp? I thought I read that in one of the threads, which makes them constantly beating the ‘closer to home’ thing kind of funny
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:24 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, it may not be much "closer to home" than the Jays
They should probably qualify it by saying “than other interested teams”.
by Screen Name 20 on Dec 15, 2009 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
Does anyone think it’s weird that spring training location is a factor in where a guy wants to play? I mean it’s only a couple months…
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
Yep
You would think we would have the upper hand in negotiations, but by all accounts, it doesn’t seem like we do.
by Screen Name 20 on Dec 15, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
http://ballhype.com/video/phillies-vs-dodgers-game-4-jimmy-rollins-hits-a-double/
Watch the link – it made me feel a little bit better, anyway
by DeuceisLoose926 on Dec 15, 2009 12:41 PM EST reply actions
The most annoying part of this deal
is that this improves the Phillies for 2010. I hated the Ibanez signing (still do) but when he got off to the hot start and played well most of the season, people hailed Ruben Amaro as a genius. Most fans don’t look beyond the current season. We’ll see what happens when the Phillies (former) prospects are in the majors and the Phillies have Ibanez’s $10 mil./year salary hanging around their neck. Hopefully the team figures something out and they keep on winning, but honestly I’m not hopeful.
is that this improves the Phillies for 2010.
A full season of Cliff Lee the way he pitched for Philadelphia versus a full season of Roy Halladay.
How much improved are the phillies really?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 12:51 PM EST up reply actions
So this deal is really about ‘past’ 2010 if you want to look at it as being good right? If the statements about Lee are to be believed (and I guess we have to believe them) this is about 2011 and 2012, and great they have halladay – but ibanez and rollins aren’t getting younger, and I don’t think Polanco is going to be great shakes offensively to make up for the defense, plus what do you do with Werth after 2010 or 11 (I forget when he expires)
It seems to me that the phillies have leveraged most of their high quality assets on one player for the next 3 seasons but ignored some upcoming issues – and with a fixed budget and a drafting method they’ve had in the past, can they solve those upcoming issues?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
Just curious as to which parts you don’t agree with…the concerns I have that aren’t dealt with and now have less ‘opportunity units’ to be dealt with are
1. Ibanez
2. Werth / long term deal?
3. Rollins aging
4. Polanco just not being that good
Oh yeah – when does Cole Hamels start qualifying for ‘big money’ arbitration hearings that will eat into the fixed 140 million budget?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Amaro’s basically acting like the investment bankers who made out like bandits five and ten years ago, then got out of the game before the consequences of their actions hit their companies. It seems like he’s aiming to benefit now (although not much) and who knows if he’ll even be around when the time comes for us to pay for it.
I would love it if the phillies backed out of the Seattle part of the deal. Lackey just got signed, teams are going to be interested in Lee. We have to be able to take in a better haul then we got.
Yea can we just not do this…I want to be a cranky old rich white man afraid of change
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
Lee would have to be willing to talk extension or you’re really only talking one year rental plus the type A compensation…and if Lee were willing to talk extension, the phils wouldn’t need to trade him, right?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions
Seeing what is happening now do you think Ruben was short-sighted in giving what he did for Lee then now turning around and giving more players for Halladay? Wouldn’t he of been better off just giving up a mixture of both deals for Halladay last year? I hate to look back but gotta learn from mistakes…
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
I don’t think he was short sighted in trading for Lee, it’s 1 1/2 seasons and then if he leaves you get some picks.
I’m trying to disconnect the two.
The problem is the players he was ‘standing firm’ on when it came to Halladay less than a year ago he seems to be just tossing away.
And Lee is being traded to save salary room more than anything else…
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions
Yea it is probably more constructive to separate the two. It is the sudden change in which players he was willing to give up that seems fishy. I just took a MBA class on negotiations, yea I know big joke right. It is weird to change your stance but Ruben is “expanding the pie” by including Drabek/Taylor/Catching Prospect all of a sudden as well as finding Seattle as a third party. But doing that is risky considering the “Halladay=white whale” aspect that has been brought up.
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 1:11 PM EST up reply actions
If you are a ‘connecting the dots’ person, what possibly happened is that the phillies were so focused on ‘this season’ when they obtained Cliff Lee that they didn’t even bring up the ‘what would it take to make you a phillie long term’ question. Then last week or so (according to reports) they found out he wanted 6 years and that’s a violation of the organizational philosophy of the phillies, so now they panic and say ‘we have to get halladay NOW, because there’s no way we can keep Cliff Lee and that’s unacceptable’, so now they’re willing to over pay for Halladay because there’s no ‘second option’ like there was when they got Cliff Lee.
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
Sounds about right to me. Long run I’m confident Halladay will be as good/better than Lee (hoping). Also, when the time comes to pay some of the most important players I hope they push that strict payroll number up a little bit. Anybody know what the luxury tax level is?? (I can’t believe I’m asking that)
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions
2010 – $170m
2011 – $178m
Think thats right
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 1:19 PM EST up reply actions
Could Amaro have been playing a game this whole time? HE has had time to officially talk with Halladay that will not have been tampering because the Jays gave permission. He knows his demands and what it will take to get an extension done. Now he can sit and wait. He knows he can extend Halladay if/when the deal is made. Now he should sit, wait, and squeeze the Jays to the point they have to take whatever we offer.
The only part of my conspiracy that doesn’t make a lot of sense is shopping Lee…
So you hope that Amaro negotiated in bad faith and then screws over both the Blue Jays and Mariners?
How many times do you think Amaro would get hung up on in the near future if he pulled that?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
Two Things
1. Here is one Blue Jays beat reporter who does not like the deal. Maybe this will make you feel better.
2. Maybe Amaro, in regards to the Cliff Lee deal, is letting it be known how weak the prospects are which we are intending to get back. Maybe Anaheim gets on the phone and says, “Hey we can beat that…” I know this is not true (otherwise Amaro is a super genius), but I just wanted to write it anyways.
Later guys.
2 would be nice, but I just don’t think that’s what’s happening…I think the fact that the third team in this trade is a ‘pat gillick’ team is significant – that’s my conspiracy thought :)
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
Time to go study for my exam tomorrow.
I really dislike this trade, but I think groupthink is starting to set in. While the prospects the Phillies lost are some of the top in baseball, Halladay is an established ace. I’d rather have him and Lee, and I think we could have done better than Lee, but that’s what Indians fans thought too. Maybe he just isn’t that valued around Major League Baseball.
Bad trade? Yes. Will it leave this team in ruins? Not in the next two years, and really, probably not ever. It would have been nice to hold on to those prospects, but at the end of the day the Phillies are still the best team in the National League and still have a pretty good farm system.
Cheers to that man I gotta get work done/finish a take home final… Damn you Ruben can’t wait till Thursday to take over my attention
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Dec 15, 2009 1:33 PM EST up reply actions
I believe groupthink has settled in as well.
This isn’t a bad trade and never will be a bad one. Only in time will we ever find out if it was a great trade.
Those prospects are highly regarded, but really they’ve done nothing.
by Phils 2036 World CH on Dec 15, 2009 2:20 PM EST up reply actions
I feel like I should have a blurb saved somewhere for every time someone says “prospects are just prospects, they haven’t done anything.”
I could get into a detailed discussion about baseball’s arbitration process, the value of paying above-average regulars a minimum salary, etc., but I’ll just say this: very good prospects like Drabek and Taylor are very, very valuable commodities, even if we assume that one of the two of them flames out.
It’s always been one of the most popular arguments on talk radio, where the precise formulation goes something like: “Prospects are just that: prospects.” And then everyone grunts approval as if a truly insightful point has been made.
Another popular argument on talk radio is: “You worry about the future in the future.”
They’re just prospects. Get over it.
Enyoy the Halladay.
by Phils 2036 World CH on Dec 15, 2009 4:46 PM EST up reply actions
Ryan Howard
Chase Utley
Jimmy ROllins
Cole Hamels
Shane Victorino
At one point they were all ‘just prospects’ – and victorino was cut loose by two different organizations I think…
at one point roy halladay was a ‘prospect’ so was derek jeter, alex rodriguez, josh beckett, joe mauer.
At one point or another, every baseball player is just a prospect, and you build winning teams with prospects especially if you’re on a budget – that second marlins world series – prospects – the tampa bay world series team – mostly prospects.
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, on victorino it wasn’t cut loose, but i’m almost sure he went through rule V twice? Hell if I recall correctly the phillies offered to ‘sell him’ back to the dodgers and they passed on him didn’t they?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
Well here’s hoping rolllins and ibanez don’t age and polanco pans out better than some people think.
Aside from that, right on
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
ESPN has added A's into the trade
On Tuesday, sources said the Blue Jays would take Taylor and trade him to Oakland for Brett Wallace, the corner infielder and former No. 1 pick whom the Athletics got in the Matt Holliday trade in July.
For what it is worth...
ESPN Sportscenter is still reporting that both Seattle and Philly will send top prospects to Toronto.
So as it sits now, we’re trading away:
Cliff Lee (to Seattle)
Kyle Drabek (to Toronto)
Michael Taylor (to Oakland via Toronto)
Travis d’Arnaud (to Toronto)
And in return the Phils recieve:
RHSP Roy Halladay (from Toronto)
RHRP Phillippe Aumont (from Seattle)
OF Tyson Gillies (from Seattle)
RHSP Juan Ramiriez (from Seattle)
Not quite sure if the Phils receive any draft picks or not. As much as I like getting Halladay, I’d rather not give up Taylor, Drabek & d’Arnaud. I feel like Seattle should give up more to Toronto. Maybe send Aumont &or Gillies to Toronto rather than the Phils giving up so many top prospects to Toronto.
You can't trade draft picks
They’d be losing out on the two they’d get for (assuredly) losing Lee, but getting Halladay for a few years is infinitely more important than that.
And there’s a reason those prospects aren’t going to Toronto – it wouldn’t be enough to move Halladay.
More brilliant strategery from Amaro!
Zolecki is reporting the Phillies next targets are “believed to be” Fernando Rodney (ok for the right place) and John Smoltz (ok for the right decade). I guess we need a geriatric pitcher in case Moyer can’t go this season.
Would’ve rather had Rafael Soriano from Atlanta, but he’s on the Rays now. Rodney is an upgrade over Myers + Condrey. How much are they going to pay another hard throwing right handed reliever?
As others have already said, I’d rather tell Rodney to take a hike and use some low-paid no-name in middle relief this year instead, then use the $5 million to pay all of Halladay’s 2010 salary instead of only part of it, so that we can pull back at least one of the prospects that are supposed to go to Toronto.
573% agreed.
And not trying to say I told you so, but…
Just wait: when the Phillies sign Fernando Rodney to a 2 year, $11 million deal in a couple of weeks, you’ll know that the Phillies traded Drabek to clear payroll space to sign a shitty set up man.
Shameless self-quoting there, but I think it’s warranted.
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head there. If paying the extra $5-6 million would let us keep, say, Michael Taylor, doesn’t that mean we’re basically trading Taylor for Rodney? Would anyone in the world do that if it was actually labeled a trade? To my ears, that sounds suspiciously like Jeff Bagwell for Larry Andersen.
Especially because, after looking at the FA class of OF’ers for 2010, it’s pretty clear Werth is going to get paid (if he even comes close to replicating last year’s numbers). Having Taylor to step in immediately as a RHB would have been quite a luxury. Considering Toronto doesn’t even seem to like Taylor, I think it makes more sense for the Phils to eat the money now, rather than next year when they have to fork over funds for a FA OF’er. Pay the entire $15MM and keep Taylor. Toronto really wants Drabek and D’Arnaud anyway.
What are the chances that Brown is ready by 2011 – how fast would he have to advance?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 5:29 PM EST up reply actions
He played the second half in AA last year, so he would have to advance a little bit faster than normal but not too much. Brown is a LH bat though. Also we’ll have to replace Ibanez by the following year at the latest.
Doesn’t Brown project as middle of the order type bat? I see him as a replacement for Raul. Taylor would have been a nice replacement for Werth. Werth and Crawford are going to be the 2 best OFer/bats on the market in 2010.
We probably won’t be able to afford either, not that I think a long term contract for either one is a smart move anyway.
WHY?!?!
Why is this even being called a 3-team trade? As far as I can tell, this is 2 separate deals by the Phillies.
And I have no idea why Lee is going to Seattle, other than for money reasons. And if its money, just dump Blanton and do something with Moyer, like cut him. The Phils could go with Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Happ, and run Tiger’s 15th mistress out there as a 5th starter and still be favorites to dominate the NL.
Seems to me something is wrong here. Either Amaro has completely jumped the shark or something is wrong with Lee (physical or mental… as in bad in the clubhouse). I can’t believe Amaro would move Lee now just because he doesn’t think he can sign him in 2011.
Even if you cut Moyer, you’re still paying him 8 million for the season and it still comes out of the budget.
Now if Moyer could somehow restructure his contract to 8yrs/800,000k… we’d have have Lee, Halladay, and Hamels going 1-2-3.
by Phils 2036 World CH on Dec 15, 2009 4:45 PM EST up reply actions
i just threw up
after realizing that this trade really IS going to happen. i’m in disbelief. after hearing about this last night i figured that it made no sense and that by the end of today everything would be straightened out and everything would be good again. i was shocked and saddened to see that i was wrong. cut this deal anyway you want to, for the good or the bad, but the bottom line is this: the phillies aquired roy halladay for three premium prospects, and then, instead of going into the year with a sick rotation, send lee out in a salary dump. yea, they got three decent prospects back, but they’re all worse then the guys we sent out. would paying lee for one more year, winning the ws, and then getting two draft picks be all that bad? Now, my second point. If Amaro was willing to send three premium prospects to toronto for roy why the hell didnt he do it at the trade deadline? at least then we could have won the ws, which we would have, and then traded lee after resigning halladay…evaluate this as two separate deals for a second-the phillies-toronto deal seems pretty even. we send three top young players for an ace who we sign to an extension. fair on both sides. but then, amaro trades lee, who is at a cheap price for 2010, for what seems to be one very good prospect and two average prospects. how can you justify that? the phillies did what they’ve been doing to us for the past twenty years-being CHEAP. they didnt wanna pay lee his 9 mill so they dumped him for fifty cents on the dollar. I’m sorry, i know im rambling but the net result of these deals is atrocious. all the faith i had in the phillies from the past two years is completely gone
It’s a bad decision, but cheapness has nothing to do with it. If the Phillies were cheap, they wouldn’t have thrown money at Chad Durbin and Ross Gload and potentially Fernando Rodney, for no reason.
I think the ‘fixed budget’ thing kind of bothers me.
How much extra money in terms of ancillary income for next season and beyond does another world series win buy? Is 149 million for one year as opposed to your 140 million dollar budget really that much, it’s not even 7% over the assigned budget…i’m not asking them to go crazy, but one year of lee halladay hamels – come on that’s worth going over the budget by 9 million dollars ain’t it?
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
I think so too, but I also understand the counterargument that you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise someone will always say “what not just a little bit higher?” The main point is that it doesn’t even matter – even if the Phillies had a fixed budget, they could have gotten under it by saving money elsewhere. This is primarily an act of foolishness, not an act of cheapness.
I really think what happened is that they didn’t talk to lee about an extension until just recently and hear his reported testing free agency, 6 year thing, and then I think Amaro panicked, and combined with his ‘white whale’ – this is the outcome
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
if we got either marrow or saunders from the M’s i think this would be alright
by IndianEagle on Dec 15, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
chill guys.....
halladay is a prime pitcher he’ll be good for the next 3 years, taylor is good, drabek could be like a brett myers type of guy. i trust amaro on this one. The most important thing is that we kept our man dominic brown
eff you we winning anyway
, drabek could be like a brett myers type of guy,
Is there any actual evidence to indicate that drabek is a ‘bretty myers’ type of guy – cause I gotta think if there was the blue jays wouldn’t be very interested in him
by jemagee on Dec 15, 2009 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
its hard to tell, brett was supposed to be a star to..... and look what happened to him
eff you we winning anyway
is there even conformation that this deal went through? i havent seen or heard anything for a while now about lee
by IndianEagle on Dec 15, 2009 8:57 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Next Game
Philadelphia Phillies
@
Washington Nationals
Sunday, Aug 1, 2010, 1:35 PM EDT
Nationals Park
Partly cloudy,rain. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-10 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 85.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
