Does Anyone Like the Phillies' Lee Trade?
by David S. Cohen on Dec 18, 2009 9:24 AM EST
108 comments
This is an honest question. Outside Phillies reporters (or ex-reporters) who rely on access to the team in order to put food on their table each day, are there any analysts who like what the Phillies did with Cliff Lee?
Obviously I can only read a small portion of what's out there, but what I've read isn't pretty. (And I agree with it.) Below is my sampling. In the comments, please post links to what you've seen from other analysts about the Lee trade. And if you find someone saying the Phillies did the right thing here, I'd in particular like to see that.
Matt Swartz, Baseball Prospectus: "The only team that does not necessarily come out ahead in this is the Phillies. The team really made two separate trades—three prospects for Roy Halladay conditional on an awesome extension, and Cliff Lee for three inferior prospects. The former will turn out to be a success and the latter will not. . . . The issue I take is that they could have non-tendered Joe Blanton (or, better yet, traded him for some inferior prospects) and Chad Durbin and won two or three more games in 2010 at the same $9 million salary. I say that even as someone who believes Blanton is vastly underrated, but they could have gotten better value by doing that. If Blanton was worth nothing on the trade market (which I am skeptical about), then the Phillies were foolish to offer him arbitration—clearly no one else would have even offered him his arbitration estimate on the free-agent market, so why pay him that much? Figure out what other teams would pay him and offer him that and a cookie."
Joe Sheehan, Baseball Prospectus: "This, in fact, gets to my biggest problem with the sequence: Roy Halladay just left $60 million on the table to come to Philadelphia. The Phillies couldn’t leave $9 million on it in pursuit of putting him on the best team in baseball? . . . The Phillies play in a taxpayer-funded ballpark, have been to back-to-back World Series—with all the direct revenue that generates—and will no doubt pack Citizens Bank Ballpark again in 2010 with another three million people paying even higher ticket, parking, concession, and souvenir prices. To trade away Cliff Lee in a blatant money move is utterly ridiculous under those circumstances, and worse still, turns the Roy Halladay trade into little more than a minor upgrade."
Christina Kahrl, Baseball Prospectus: "Less certain is the necessity of coupling this trade with the deal that put Lee in Seattle. Even if you accept for the sake of argument the suggestion that Amaro had to work within a budget, and that he had to have one or the other, this seems to suggest that the Phillies just blew it by being active early and, true to form, acted fast. If payroll's a problem, then the money spent on Placido Polanco or Ross Gload or Juan Castro or Brian Schneider—in short, the entire pack of elective add-ons, these veteran talents barely above the free-talent alternatives or players making close to the minimum—deserves to be seen collectively as needlessly spent money on players who don't significantly alter the Phillies' chances at a third pennant, not nearly so much as having a rotation with Doc and Cliff Lee and Cole Hamels gives you a rotation that might have been able to handily beat the best the AL might throw at you, and start a case for elevating the Phillies to dynastydom."
Dave Cameron, FanGraphs: "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."
Evan Burnell, Hardball Times: "The Phillies overextended themselves financially last year and are trying to keep payroll steady (the $6 million they're receiving in the deal helps tremendously). In addition, the prospects back to Philadelphia help to replenish a farm system gutted by the Lee and Halladay trades. Unfortunately for Philadelphia, I don't think they're receiving anything more than midlevel prospects who are a long shot to have long-term value in town. They all look like eventual major leaguers, but are they anything more than replacement level? We can't answer that definitively. I do credit GM Ruben Amaro, however, for recognizing the need to replenish the farm system. [On the other hand,] the Seattle Mariners made a tremendous move acquiring Cliff Lee for three prospects that don't rank as even guaranteed future major leaguers."
0 recs |
108 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
This will end up being just a minor footnote, and my not even hold any actual import now, but I found the interview ESPN conducted with Cliff Lee interesting. According to him, he was in the process of negotiating an extension – in fact, he had submitted an extension counteroffer to the organization prior to going out on a hunting trip – only to find out from his wife that he had been traded to Seattle. According to him, he never said he was absolutely set on testing free agency, and he had begun to think he might end his career in Philadelphia.
Is it just me who thought this, or was Cliff Lee’s unsignability one of the main assumptions this entire set of deals was predicated upon?
This isn’t nearly as infuriating to me as the details of the deals themselves, how we chose bench players and Joe Blanton above having the best rotation in baseball, how we sold Kyle Drabek for $6 mil. Nevertheless, this still rankles.
I’m actually believing Lee’s sign in the arguement. He knows we would have given him a great deal and when Lackey was closing in with the Red Sox that elimated him from consideration and as for the Yankees, I don’t see them adding another 80 million + pitcher contract next year unless its for a bat (maybe Berkman as a Yankee in 2 years)
Halladay deal alone = Good
Rushing to get rid of Lee to make sure we had no hopes = Horrible
No other way to spin it, the trade for Lee straight up was horrible. You knew you were going to do this at some point, why didn’t you have a better suitor… what do the Astros have in the minors (very surprised we didn’t look there)
Two pieces that may soften the blow.
First, Dave Cameron followed up the above piece by asking a question that may seem crazy at first glance: is Cliff Lee’s trade value really all that high?
So, our options here are believe that two General Managers are lazy/incompetent and failed to extract the best return possible for their team when trading him, or that the market for Cliff Lee is just not very good. Let’s just agree to reject option A out of hand, as neither Shapiro or Amaro are lazy or stupid. That leaves the second option – that this really was the best both teams could do…
The only thing that makes sense to me is that teams are still a bit skeptical of Lee’s rapid rise to greatness. And while we’re the first ones to point out that you want to make decisions on large samples, Lee’s thrown 450 innings over the last two years and racked up +13.8 wins in that time. You can’t fluke your way into that kind of performance.
It will be interesting to see what happens when Lee hits free agency next year. He is clearly expecting to get paid like a top tier starting pitcher, but major league GMs apparently do not see him as one. They should. He is.
That makes some sense. I was skeptical of Lee myself headed into 2009, but as Eric Seidman pointed out in this BP article from 2008, Lee didn’t just start getting lucky — he essentially changed the type of pitcher he was, becoming incredibly stingy with the free pass and inducing more grounders than fly balls. Still, the failure of both Shapiro and Amaro to extract what seems to be fair value for Lee should give us pause, and lends credence to Cameron’s positing here .
The second piece is one by Frankie Piliere, a former scout for the Rangers, on MLB Fanhouse. Frankie analyzes the prospects in the deal, and concludes that he likes Aumont the best on raw stuff, and he’s not really a huge d’Arnaud fan. This may be against the consensus, but he’s scouted all these guys, so his opinion certainly merits some weight in the discussion.
What I wonder about are the what-ifs here. Let’s say Lee goes out and has what for him might be a mediocre or career average season. What to make of him this time next year? Nothing other than by dumping him the way we did (and even giving the new guy his old number), even THEN there’s no way in hell we’ll have a shot at him. I mean, this seems like breakup behavior more in line with ’tood problems like Brett Myers, absent perhaps throwing the dog poop on his shoes. Perhaps.
On the flipside, I was wondering about the absurdity of the other might-have-been: the Phillies would have been in an interesting spot on Opening Day, in that the guy who would start would NOT have been the guy who just carried your club into the playoffs and won two World Series games for you.
by Wet Luzinski on Dec 18, 2009 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
Lee still is a bit of a question mark because it can be inconsitent in the past and has only been strong the last two years. Issue is with the way hes pitched the last two years (and seeing the 10 million someone like Wolf got) you don’t think $9 million for a guy that can pitch in the low 3.00, turning into a workhorse and can pitch in pressure doesn’t have a high value? I mean especially in this market, I’d take a $9 million Lee over paying those $15 million plus deals to Burnett and Lackey.
I understand Lee changed his stuff but still got to put together more than 2 yrs to be an ace. I have heard the yanks will make a push for him & can afford another 80 mil contract. We were not going to beat the yanks out for him, plus we got a better pitcher for less money. As always when prospects are traded one has to wait 5 yrs to truly analyze the trade.
by fantasybc88 on Dec 18, 2009 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
You don’t have to wait 5 years to analyze the trade – see PhillyFriar’s point (somewhere in the 2000 comments from the past 4 days) that prospect trades are always about dealing in potentialities. In another school of thought, it doesn’t really matter if Kyle Drabek has another TJ surgery in a year and Michael Taylor hits .240 as a 4th outfielder in Oakland. In this other way of thinking about it, you aren’t trading players, but potential players – and these are some very good potential players. If none of these guys succeed in the next 7 years, we can feel better about getting rid of them, but it won’t change the fact that we gave up too much value in this particular trade.
I understand Lee changed his stuff but still got to put together more than 2 yrs to be an ace…
This is exactly the mindset that most GMs are taking, and I agree with Cameron that it’s dead wrong. Two dominant seasons in a row — seasons where the peripherals were every bit as impressive as the results, meaning this isn’t success based on fluky BABIP or strand rate — are a large enough sample size to conclude, definitively, that Cliff Lee is an ace.
by PhillyFriar on Dec 18, 2009 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Agree. But this kick to the curb was so bad, I’m saying that even if lightning strikes Lee with Lidgeitis and is worth next to nothing next year, how can he ever resign with the Phils, even on a flier? And 16 years from now, if he hangs on like Jamie Moyer?
Most GMs have to think that way because most GMs cannot and won’t be able to afford him.
by Wet Luzinski on Dec 18, 2009 5:24 PM EST up reply actions
The thing is, I don’t mind Carrasco, Donald, Marson, and Knapp for Ramirez, Francisco, Gillies, and Aumonte at all. The three-month Lee stint and the pennant are a nice bonus.
The question is do I like Gillies, Aumonte, and Ramirez better than I like having a ridiculous top end of the rotation for a year and two picks? I can’t say “yes” to that.
Of course, the Phils still have a chance to win the Series in their current form. They almost did it with a half-year-ace, a struggling ace, the worst year in the histroy of closers, and an off year for their leadoff man. If any 2 of the last 3 improve they’re still in good shape.
Amaro's point of view?
Somehow what you describe in the first paragraph is how I imagine the Phillies front office sees it. Prospects out, prospects plus Francisco in, and we brought everybody another trip to the Series. And the main event is we got Roy Halladay, lined up for the next four years at a reasonable price, for three top prospects but we get to keep the guy we think is the best of all.
As much as Cliff Lee did for the Phillies I have to wonder if he was really ready to commit to a long-term deal with Philadelphia in time to make the Halladay deal work. If not, then 2010 with the two aces does become a bit of a gamble for the front office. I would have loved having that great one-two combo, but there could have come a point where an unsigned Cliff Lee could have backfired: he gets injured and the team gets nothing for him; he has a bad period on the mound and the team gets criticized for not moving him earlier; or, more likely in my opinion, he does fine along with Halladay and the entire season plays out with the underlying question “How can we let this guy go?” until it becomes a major distraction when the playoffs start. If they failed in October with Lee and Halladay the finger-pointing could have become disastrous.
by phillyinportland on Dec 19, 2009 2:13 AM EST up reply actions
oh, and MattS gets a thumbs up for mentioning the words “Blanton” and “cookie” in the same sentence. We all see what you did there, MattS.
I don’t know, I was a little disappointed in his lack of effort. Can’t we explore what kind of contract discount he might endure for, say, a Tastycake sponsorship? Giving him market value AND a cookie just smells like giving in to me…
ooh, speaking of Tastykakes, I’ve got to update the Where-Will-Brett Myers-Sign Watch speculation. This was the first thing I’ve seen in a few weeks on our old pal.
Hmm—-that extreme FB righty throwing against the Phils lineup 4-5 times per year might make for some tasty kakes indeed.
by Wet Luzinski on Dec 18, 2009 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
If true
that means I would get the tasty cakes. I like butter cream cupcakes.
by SmilingJPhilsPhan on Dec 20, 2009 5:43 AM EST up reply actions
Agreed, WL
I loved that ending to the piece.
by David S. Cohen on Dec 18, 2009 10:54 AM EST up reply actions
This was a point a I made before, no one agreed with me then. But I will stick with my story.
Jason Starks Twitted this recently
Yosehb Aumont & Gillies have higher ceiling than Donald, Marson or Carrasco. In fact, scout told me today he likes Aumont more than Drabek
I look at the Phillies trade as 2 seperate trades, not 1 giant trade.
We essentially gave up
Knapp, Carrasco, Donald, Marson.
We essentially got in return
Aumont, JC Ramirez, Gillies, Francisco
and rented Cliff Lee for a third a season and a playoff run.
Remember what we were willing to give up just to get Sabathia for just the third a season and playoff run before. With out any hope of resigning him.
I would say we got back a good return on what we invested. And we got a pitcher to pitch for us and help us last year when we really, really needed it.
Now lets look at the Drabek Trade
The origionally wanted,
Drabek, Happ, Brown, Marson
We gave origionally offered
Carrasco, Marson, Donald, Taylor (They found this offer offensive)
We actually traded
Drabek, Taylor, D’aunard
We rec’vd
Halladay and cash.
We payed less than what we would have paid last year. Only to get the pitcher we always wanted, and have him agree to a undermarket long term deal. And have his team throw in 6 million dollars in the deal.
I don’t know how we were able to get Halladay with out giving up Happ as well. That was a great job on Rubens part.
Ruben essentially Pawned minor league players, Borrowed Cliff Lee, returned Cliff Lee and rec’vd his full money back (actually getting back more than what he paid).
Only to buy Halladay @ a 33 percent discount.
I know people wanted both pitchers. But we would have killed Ruben for trading away the future to have have a chance for 1 season. As we would have traded 7 of out top 10 prospects for a superteam for 1 year. Only to have a barren farm system after that.
It was never the Phillies intentions of keeping both, this isn’t fantasy baseball. They found a way to get the guy the always wanted.
Cheer up guys. We just got the best pitcher in baseball. Lets show Roy some love.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 18, 2009 12:06 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
And yet they have LESS upside than Taylor Drabek and probably D’arnaud
So you got 9 or so prospects coming and going to philadephia but you have a lesser system than you did before you started it.
by jemagee on Dec 18, 2009 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
Please see my reply below for you. I meant it for this post
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 18, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
you're such a hater
No shit they’re going to have less value than the players we traded for the better pitcher for the long term contract. We gave up less than what we were originally going to have to give up to get him for at least 4 years of Roy. We got better value for Lee than we gave up for him. That’s the point. Of course the players we give up for Roy are going to be better because we’re getting him for basically 9mil this year (replacing Lee’s contract) and getting him for 20 mil the next three years. The swap of prospects between us, cleavland, and seattle has nothing to do with the prospects we traded for Roy Halladay. If you want to compare prospects for Halladay, compare what prospects we kept (while renting Lee and getting better value back for him) by making the trade now rather than last July.
“show Roy some love”… that’s a given. I haven’t seen a single post in the last three days remotely critical of Roy. He’s going to be warmly embraced here. And he deserves our gratitude for taking a discounted deal.
But that’s not the issue. There seems to be two arguments being raised again and again:
(1) The we should have kept both Roy and Lee. I’m not in this camp because our farm system really would have taken a tremendous blow, but the appeal is obvious given the rotation we could have had;
(2) That we didn’t get enough for Lee. I think this is what upsets most people, at least on this blog. IMO, I think we failed miserably in this regard, and I don’t agree with you that we reaped a “good return” on this trade.
by Boundforbeach on Dec 18, 2009 12:19 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, I agree with you.
There was no way we were getting both. If so, we would not be able to sign any other free agents. We are currently looking at Macdougle and other releivers.
We definately needed to replenish that farm system. What if we need to pull a deal at the deadline. We need some cash and talent to do it.
But answer me this.
Which is better
Knapp, Carrasco, Marson, Donald
or
Aumont, Gillies, Rivera, Francisco and Lee for a playoff run?
Be honest in your answer. Thats how you determine your return. Not including the Halladay deal at all.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 18, 2009 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
just because we stole Lee from Cleveland doesn’t justify us turning around and letting Seattle steal him from us. He’s a Cy Young winner and was freakishly good in the postseason this year. I’ll never believe we couldn’t have created a bidding war and bettered our take had we shopped him around. Do you honestly believe we maximized value in the trade to Seattle? No one does.
by Boundforbeach on Dec 18, 2009 12:34 PM EST up reply actions
Best agruement so far.
I think they traded them simultaneously because of the fans. The joy of getting Halladay softened the blow of trading Lee.
If we had held Lee for a day after trading for Halladay, we would have ripped Ruben for that. So he set it up as a giant blockbuster. Its was actually pretty creative how he did it.
Imagine the response if he would have publicly shoped Lee while having Halladay. Ruben would have gotten crushed by the fans bigtime.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 18, 2009 12:39 PM EST up reply actions
maybe since he was in his last year of and expecting a 5 to 7 year deal at around 22 or so would have lowered his value.
Maybe we got what we were gonna get for him.
There had to be a reason we got him so cheap to begin with.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 18, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions
Anaheim just lost lackey and wasn’t getting halladay – plus they have more money than seattle and possibly better prospects and don’t want him in seattle – waiting even a week or two to build a ‘frenzy’ would have been the smart move…
by jemagee on Dec 18, 2009 12:49 PM EST up reply actions
I’m not sure if “Anaheim has more money than Seattle” is necessarily a true statement.
Last years payroll was what, $15 mil different? Admittedly a fairly substantial difference, but the recent noise Seattle has made on the market may mean Nintendo is ponying up a bit more cash.
Not to say I disagree with the sentiment that we may have been better served by sitting on Lee for longer.
Are they ‘spending’ money this off season or reallocating the beltre money from last year? If they give Lee and extension (and felix) then i’ll start thinking they’re going to spend more then per usual.
by jemagee on Dec 18, 2009 1:02 PM EST up reply actions
seattle has a lot of money
all of their games are telecasted in japan and in china. Lots of TV revenue from Ichiro
compare Aumont to Knapp, they were both associated to Lee.
Unfair to compare to Drabek, since he was traded for Halladay.
We could compare the two, only if we traded Drabek for Aumont. But that wasn’t the case.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
But Drabek v. Aumont is a legitimate comparison, because the goal of the Lee trade was essentially to replace the prospects we shipped out. Obviously, we didn’t do that.
And even if you compare Aumont to Knapp, I’m taking Knapp, because he’s got a much better chance of sticking as a starter.
I don't know why people are so down on Aumont.
Honestly, people said Curt Schilling would never be a starter.
There must be something about Aumont that Ruben likes. Maybe he see it different that most. He obviously has more information to work with than most if not all of us.
I trust his decisions in the past, and he’s proven to be correct. He asks us to trust him now. And I will. Because the man has delivered.
I just don’t understand why people are so down on the prospects, when the truth is most are going by what we read on other blogs and what someone else is telling them. Ruben knows more than me, I have to trust he isn’t an idiot and liked what he saw from this kid.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
Did Curt Schilling have elbow and hip problems as a 19-year old, along with mechanics that put a serious strain on his arm? Not to be flippant, but that’s why people are down on Aumont.
And you know who has more information to work with than Ruben Amaro? Jack Zduriencik.
I guess we differ on this, but I respect your take on it.
I will reserve judgement for now.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
Agreed. Drabek may have had problems, but tall pitchers with bad mechanics is a bad combination and that is Aumont. His mechanics (from watching several videos) are inconsistent and somewhat sloppy. He’s young and may be able to clean them up, but if injuries get to him first, that won’t add up to much.
Tim Lincicum has bad mechanics. A player is a player regardless to mechanics.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
by yophillybro on Dec 22, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
He has UNUSUAL mechanics, but he’s a dominant pitcher and they don’t seem to bother him, so ‘regardless OF mechanics’ whatever you say, his mechanics work very well for him.
Hence why he’s the freak
by jemagee on Dec 22, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions
Tim Lincecum has Perfect Mechanics
His timing is excellent, his release is almost identical for every pitch he throws, he doesn’t flare his glove when throwing off speed stuff. His stride is long and his glove arm stays straight for most of his release, but both items increase his speed and actually take strain off his pitching arm by providing the leverage for his 95mph+ fastball.
Never saw that article, but interesting, that’s why i went with the ‘unusual’ comment because his mechanics seem to work pretty damn well for him and i haven’t hard much about him being injured.
by jemagee on Dec 22, 2009 6:06 PM EST up reply actions
Truth is, pitching is one of the most violent activities in pro sports. Even guys with great mechanics can suffer injuries. Ultimately, until a guy suffers an injury I usually just note them as having bad mechanics, but not as a major issue.
Aumont though has 2 injuries which affect his pitching, so poor mechanics are a major issue as they add stress to already recovering tendons and muscles.
You really should compare Drabek to Aumont. Compare him to Knapp.
We traded
Knapp, Marson, Donald, Carrasco
Got back
Aumont, Rivera, Gillies, Francisco
So the fair comparison for Aumont would be Knapp, not Drabek. Since Aumont was trade to substitute talent we origional gave up for Lee. It was in essence a return exchange. Aumont was a return on Knapp not Drabek.
Drabek was traded for Halladay. I think Halladay is a fair return on that investment.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
I think most people understand the logic for the trade. It’s just that many don’t agree with it or like it at all (myself included).
- Doc and Lee as a tandem, could’ve been nasty.
Not necessarily. Thats just what the Rube says.
Our farm system doesn’t really look that awful without Ramirez, Aumont and Gillies, especially considering the 2 picks we would get next off season, assuming Lee departed.
Dealing in absolutes like this is a dangerous thing… getting those three guys, none of whom are considered top-level talent, doesn’t shift the trade from ‘mortgaging the future’ to ‘fully replenishing the system.’
some consider Aumont as a good prospect, and Gillies as decent.
I would say we got nothing in return.
I say its a good deal if they always like Aumont. Lets face it, none of us know nothing about this kid. He could be good. Maybe they wanted him in the past and could draft him because he went to high. In that case, they are going with what they know.
Its silly to expect Ruben Amaro to keep Both Lee and Halladay. You can argue the talent we got in return till you are blue in the face. Ruben himself said you never know what you got in return. But I haven’t read any scouts call Aumont a bad prospect. Rather most agreed he had potential and wasn’t as far along as Drabek, but is younger than Drabek and will develope more in years to come. Most say his potential is sky high. But we heard that about Floyd, Duckworth, Coggin, Figueroa etc. We can go back to Pat Combs and Jason Grimsley. You just never know.
Remember, we traded Jason Grimsley (our Drabek of the time) away for Curt Schilling, a prospect at that time. Look how that worked out. Curt was a closer when he arrived, he struck out his first 3 betters. I remember, he worked releif for a few weeks, then they tried him as a starter. And the rest is history.
You just never know who you are trading, and who you are getting. Lets reserve judgement untill we see this kid. Ruben rated him as a top prospect, and so did his scouts. They have been on the money so far, and deserve our trust in this one. I for one trust their ability to identify talent.
Ruben is the guy who insisted we trade Jason Michaels and sold us on the idea that Shane Victorino was a starter. But we complained at that time as well.
They also traded Michael Borne and tried to sell us on the idea that Jason Worth was a full time OF, and we crushed him them. He was right about that one as well.
Lets face it, Ruben and Gillent haven’t made to many bad calls. Pat Gillick is still an advisor to the team. If the trade was bad, he would let Ruben know. But it wasn’t. Lets waite and see. If Aumont is a bust, then we can crush Ruben.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
Pat Gillick is still an advisor to the team. If the trade was bad, he would let Ruben know. But it wasn’t. Lets waite and see. If Aumont is a bust, then we can crush Ruben.
why? He was also GM for the Jays and the Mariners. What makes his ties here the strongest?
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 18, 2009 2:29 PM EST up reply actions
Never thought of that, I would guess the Phillies is his loyalty.
He just working those contacts, if you know what I’m saying. I’m telling you. He must know something we don’t about Aumont. That kid must be a beast or something. He could be a bum, who knows. I trust Ruben.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
And actually – that’s the thing that digs at me a little about this trade, all 3 teams are ‘pat gillick teams’…was there some sort of ‘wink wink’ behind the scenes work done by him that ruben somehow ‘had’ to make the deal with seattle?
by jemagee on Dec 18, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah i know it’s purely conspiracy theory nonsense but the whole ‘rush to trade lee’ when the 9 million could wait for a couple weeks is just aggravating :)
by jemagee on Dec 18, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions
Believe me, I know.
This whole trade, although I can see the positive and think it might work out aggravates me because I think we could have done better.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 18, 2009 3:14 PM EST up reply actions
agree 100 percent.
I’m telling you, Pat must have told him it was a good deal. Unless just has a man crush on Aumont. Maybe he had him on the board and got him first chance available.
Kind of like when Andy Reid traded for Lorenzo Booker. Andy really liked him, didn’t draft him, but traded for him first chance possible, since he already like him before.
But Andy was wrong on that one. But the situation may not be to different.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
good comparison
but definitely hope for different results
by worldphuckinchamps on Dec 19, 2009 12:22 AM EST up reply actions
I just noticed how much the above comment is based on bulls—t. If you really heard that Duckworth, Coggin, or Figueroa had “sky high potential,” which I doubt, then that’s your own fault for listening to nitwits. (I mean, come on, Figueroa? Not even the dumbest talk radio host would have been stupid enough to think that about Figueroa, who was seen at the time we acquired him from Arizona as the worst of the four guys we were getting. He was already 27 at the time of the trade, and he had originally been drafted out of college in the 30th round! There’s no way you ever heard anyone refer to him as a top prospect. That’s just a flat-out lie by you, isn’t it?)
Not one of those guys ever even broke the Top 100 Prospects list in Baseball America. (Link here.) The list doesn’t go back to the 1980s, but I’m pretty sure Grimsley was never that highly thought of either. The only guy you name whom you’re anywhere close to being right about is Combs.
And you think these guys are comparable to Top 25 prospects like Drabek and Taylor? If you honestly believe that, then that just proves once again that you have no idea what you’re talking about. (Surprise!)
By the way, Floyd turned out to be a pretty decent pitcher and we got shafted in the trade where we let him go. I don’t know where you’ve been for the last two years, but it’s true.
Here’s an interesting little tidbit. According to that link above, since 1992 (and not counting the informal midseason rankings that came out last year) Baseball America has only ranked four Phillies prospects in the Top 25 in baseball. Their names? Scott Rolen (1997), Pat Burrell (1999-00), Gavin Floyd (2003), and Cole Hamels (2004). That’s the caliber of prospect we just gave up, twice, in the Halladay deal. Don’t try to compare these guys to Brandon Duckworth and Nelson Figueroa. Please.
I compare crying over Cliff Lee leaving is comparable to
Crying over losing Sandra Bullock, only to get with Adrianna Lima.
Lets face it guys, you can’t have both. Take a cold shower, gather yourselves, and get over it.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
where did sandra bullock come from? many other broads could’ve validated your analogy better.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
I couldn't think of anyone on the fly. Just insert a Hottie, as long as she isn't as hot as Adrianna Lima.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
There is absolutely no reason we couldn’t have had both. I think it is safe to say that both Aumont and Gillies are close to as valuable as 1 first round pick. If we would have held on to Lee, and instead dumped Blanton’s salary for Ramirez, or dare I say even a more value prospect like Aumont or Gilles, we easily could have done better for ourselves, and improved are team this year.
Who knows, maybe if we won another WS Lee would have taken a discount to pitch alongside Halladay for 3 years at 18 mil per or so. Lee seems like a competitor to me as well.
I just think there were so many options, and Ruben jumped on this deal way way to early. Especially considering there were rumors of Lackey signing in Boston the same day this leaked. The Phillies were in the drivers seat and they acted desperate to get this deal done.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 18, 2009 2:25 PM EST up reply actions
You can't have your steak and lobster bro.
Would you have prefered he keep Lee and not obtaine Halladay? Just curious.
We know it was never their intention to get both, as we would have done that last year and won 3 WS in a row.
RU in any of the BGN fantasy teams? I joined Broadstreets this year. NPK is a lucky dude man, beat me 2 X by 1 point each game.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
Its called surf and turf bro
sometimes you can have your cake and eat it to. I think we could have without gutting the farm in this instance, and Blanton does have value, despite his 7.5 mil paycheck this year.
And I was in the BGN fantasy league but couldnt make the draft. Didn’t really pay attention after that I am sorry to say.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 18, 2009 2:38 PM EST up reply actions
lol, I hear you.
Surf and turf…. Classic.
Dude, I’m mad hungry now.
Bleed green, or don't bleed at all!
FWIW
On MLB Network, Mitch Williams and Leiter (not sure) absolutely loved the trade and called the Phillies the clear winners.
Go figure… Two former Phillies approve of the trade… again, how is it that no one outside of individuals with current or former connections to the franchise like this trade?
"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
Al Leiter is the one on MLB, his brother Mark is the one who pitched for the Phils. Al Leiter beat the Phils in the ’93 WS as a Blue Jay (Ironically). I said FWIW, as they are likely only looking at the trade on the Major League level and I was thought of Mitch Williams as being about as deep as an ashtray in terms of analysis (though he oddly does a great job of breaking down pitching mechanics on the network).
Close observers of Mitch Williams know him to be a high priest in the Order of the Proven Veteran Clubhouse Presence.
by Wet Luzinski on Dec 18, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Harry Leroy Halladay III
In case anyone didn’t know Roy’s real name and misses Clifton Pheifer (but Leroy is good)
leroy
is my new name for doc. i’ll call him that from here til infinity.
thanks for that.
One Man's Speculation
I think that Ruben was intent on getting Halladay, the best pitcher in baseball, and had the prospects to get it done. Knowing this, Ruben never gave much thought to extending Lee.
If Ruben ever were serious about extending Lee, he would have had frank conversations with Lee and his agent and at least tried to reach early agreement on some parameters such as length of contract. After all, everybody in baseball knows that the Phillies do not like to guarantee more than three years to pitchers.
What Ruben tells us is that he had a feeling or heard through the grapevine that the Phils could not sign Lee. This doesn’t pass the smell test. When you’re talking about one of the team’s most valuable assets, you don’t make decisions on the basis of hearsay.
Once the Halladay deal was in place, the relationship between the Phils and Lee would become quite awkward. Rather than have the strained relationship linger throughout the 2010 season, the Phils preferred to move Lee immediately.
Strained relationship
That’s a good way of putting it. I was trying to think of how the Halladay-Lee duo might fare even if both pitched for the Phillies in 2010. None of us can know what the impact on Lee would have been if he’d pretty much been told his hopes for a big contract would not happen with the Phillies. He may have done great, been the true professional, and not lost anything on the mound. But it’s also possible his performance would have suffered and the juggernaut we all expected might not have materialized. Unless I am mistaken, almost everybody who criticizes trading Lee seems to be thinking World Series championship in 2010 if both Lee and Halladay were on the Phillies. The expectation on Lee (and the entire team) would have been tremendous. When you look at that possibility, the immediate move makes more sense.
by phillyinportland on Dec 19, 2009 2:33 AM EST up reply actions
My first reaction was that we gave away Lee but
I read this today on Scott Lauber’s column:
“Before he joined the Phillies last season, assistant GM Benny Looper worked for Seattle. He helped identify pitchers Phillippe Aumont and J.C. Ramirez and outfielder Tyson Gillies as three attractive prospects worth acquiring for Lee.”
Maybe we need to put some trust in our GM as he has done a great job so far. I remember reading last year how bad the Raul signing was and he is one of the reasons we made it to the World Series last year. We would not have signed him based upon the way they both played in 2009.
But, who knows. Time will tell…….
I’m still under the notion the Raul over performed in the beginning of the season, then played shitty to bring his numbers closer to where they should have been.
And you can say that he got injured…but 38 years olds tend to do that.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 21, 2009 8:15 AM EST up reply actions
If i recall correctly, Ibanez pretty much performed to his career averages except in SLG / HR, and that may continue because of the no longer ‘vast’ home park he plays in but he’s getting older so who knows
by jemagee on Dec 21, 2009 9:51 AM EST up reply actions
So we agree with each other?
well…ok then.
I still liked your V avatar better. It has a certain snobbish I think I am a genius aura that I am just not getting from your knew one.
by Clyde Simmons on Dec 21, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions
The Yankees just did it correctly
in trading for Vazquez, giving up top prospects for a second tier pitcher in Javy, knowing that after 2010, Javy can walk and the yanks will get 2 draft picks for him, thus helping them replenish their farm system.
So the yankees understand that the minor league players are there to feed your major league roster, not the other way around. Can Ruben take lessons from Cashman?
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
Wrong. The Yankees did not trade top prospects for Vazquez. They traded Melky Cabrera, Mike Dunn, and Arodys Vizcaino. Dunn and Vizcaino had good years last year, but Dunn is a 24-year-old reliever who spent most of the season in AA, and Vizcaino was still playing short-season ball.
The primary purpose of minor league players is to be developed so that they can turn into cost-controlled major league talent, not to be traded away for short-term needs.
you’re right about Dunn and Vicaino. i thought they were ranked higher.
The primary purpose of the minors is exactly what you stated in most cases. when you have an opening to win now, with a roster of aging players or players getting too expensive, you need to strike now.
and you shouldn’t trade a top starter to re-stock your minors. the minors feeds the majors with cheap, controlled talent, it’s not that the majors should sell off players for prospects when they have the chance to win it all. it’d be different if we were like the d-backs or the pirates who understand they have very little chance to contend in 2010. but with a team like the phils, keeping the ace and re-stocking the minors when he walks is the way to go.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
When you have a roster of aging players, that’s just as much of a reason to hold onto your prospects and not trade them away. Drawing a dichotomy between “win now” and “win later” is wrongheaded and will lead you to make serious mistakes. The goal is to win now and later and for all time. The goal of every trade is to get back equal or greater value than you give up. Whether you’re doing that by giving up prospects or receiving prospects is irrelevant.
I was not in favor of the Halladay/Lee trades, but I would have been if we had gotten more in return for Lee and/or we had given up less for Halladay.
The ultimate goal should be to win now, later and forever, but its really not feasible. We have seen teams ebb and flow throughout history. All great teams are not great forever, and all terrible teams aren’t always terrible. Why not win now, cement a dynasty and keep drafting as you are now, (which has been a strong suit over the last few years), along with the 2 picks from Type A Lee, and start building the next influx of talent.
And if the opportunity arises to bring in another player to put you over the top, do it. And if the worst happens and we fall from contention in any of the next few years, we can consider bringing in some already established prospects(oxymoron) to help bring us back to the top once again.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
Well, for one thing, there’s no such thing as “cementing a dynasty” in baseball. At most, you can increase your chances of winning a title in a given year by a few percentage points, but because of the crapshoot of short serieses that are the MLB postseason among other things, there are diminishing returns on that. Trading top prospects to turn your already-very-good team into a great team is almost always a bad investment, even if we were to stipuiate that it’s impossible to win both now and later.
And there is no reason to so stipulate. One of the reasons why relatively few franchises have been able to sustain success for long periods of time is precisely because they buy into your philosophy that it’s impossible to do so, which becomes a self-fulfilling prospects. Your “window of opportunity” damn sure will be shortened if you trade away two of the top twenty-five prospects in baseball. But teams that don’t buy into that old-school conventional wisdom (and who aren’t small-market teams) don’t have to accept that as an inevitability.
The Red Sox, for instance, have now been in playoff contention for twelve consecutive seasons, winning 90+ games in nine of those twelve seasons. And that has nothing to do with payroll. The Red Sox are richer than the Phillies, but the margin by which the Red Sox fall short of their main competition financially is actually much wider than the margin by which the Phillies fall short of their main competition financially. The Braves had a similar run and have continued to be a good team even after the end of the division-winning streak. There is absolutely reason why it can’t be done here unless we give up before we even try.
Keeping Lee for a year and trading Halladay for drabek, taylor and d’arnaud is the main thing I wanted to focus on. I agree, deadline deals or last minute additions of big names for prospects does barely work out, but so does the percentage of prospects in those deals considered can’t miss that miss and never fulfill their potential. It works both ways. And with keeping Lee and Halladay, along with Hamels, Happ and you or I pitching, the team would have been the odds on favorite to get back to the WS. Then we let Lee leave, take the 2 picks, draft some guys in hopes that they will be able to play corner OF and corner IF, when we can’t resign Howard, and/or need someone to fill in for Werth.
And I agree with the Red Sox being one of the few to be able to stay prominent for so long, but for every Boston, I’ll show you the Orioles, Mets, Pirates, Blue Jays, Twins, Angels, etc. as teams that were or currently are the the top of baseball, but soon saw themselves in the middle to bottom of it.
Chase Utley is so good that on one pitch he stole second, third and the shortstop's hat.
The yankees have an unlimited budget pretty much for signing free agents AND replenishing their minor league system.
Comparing the phillies to the yankees is like comparing the lakers to any other team in the NBA – the lakers have such an obnoxiously dedicated fan base willing to pay 10K per seat per game, that they don’t even care about the luxury tax.
by jemagee on Dec 22, 2009 4:53 PM EST up reply actions
Anyone just see Marrow from Seattle just got traded to the Jays for a crappy 26 year old reliever with a 4.50+ era…. explain that one to me….
I guess they also got this prospect, who had a decent season in low-A at age 20 last year. Maybe he’s a Franklin Gutierrez-type fielder, who knows.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on The Good Phight
Related FanShots on The Good Phight
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.
