Report: Halladay Dealt to Phillies (Cliff to Seattle)
No details yet, other than Halladay to Philadelphia and Lee to Seattle.
about 2 years ago
Ryan
216 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
What am I missing about this from Phillie’s side? Aren’t they planning to continue contending? What does SEA have they might want?
The thinking is that Halladay would be willing to sign an extension with them, and Cliff would not be willing.
What does SEA have they might want?
No idea.
Just found the other thread. I suppose if what Philly believes is accurate, it makes sense.
So what is Seattle giving up? Interesting.
As Rosenthal wrote in the link I posted below, in order to trade for Halladay the Phillies would have to sign him to an extension (because that’s the only way he can waive his no-trade clause). Evidently, Lee didn’t want to resign with the Phillies this winter so they decided to trade one year of him for multiple years of Halladay.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 14, 2009 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
The possibility of Lee not wanting to sign an extension just fuels my irrational hope that he really just wants to come back here once he hits FA.
Yes, Lee secretly does want to come back. But he’s timing it up with Sabathia, who will use his “out” clause in NY after year three in 2011. Thome is going to hang around for two more years elsewhere. Manny is going to go year-to-year until then as well.
Then, in 2012, Lee, Sabathia, Manny, and Thome will reconvene. Nagy and Sandy Alomar are already in place. Also, note that Lofton refused to accept employment in 2008 with the Rays, giving him five full seasons to rest before rejoining the Indians in 2012.
Manny Acta’s contract will then expire, paving the way for Omar Vizquel and Travis Fryman to arm-wrestle for who gets to be player manager. If it’s a tie, then-GM Luis Issac will decide.
by xrickx on Dec 14, 2009 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 14 recs
…only to be beaten by Eric Wedge and his world champion Washington Nationals!
by The Grimace on Dec 14, 2009 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
REC for the greatest showing of optimism known to man.
Columbus til I die, Columbus til I die. I know I am, I swear I am, Columbus til I die!
FKA BLAZER_FAN_199. Now an author for THE Jackets Cannon!
by Andrew Tolliver on Dec 15, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
then-GM Luis Issac
This is what really does it for me.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 15, 2009 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
The report is that Halladay would sign an extension through 2013.
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Dec 14, 2009 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
That’s why he’s the best in the business. If he really fashioned this scenario off the top of his head and without a leak, that’s damn impressive.
Yeah that’s really impressive. He even got the third team correct.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 14, 2009 6:01 PM EST up reply actions
RHP Phillippe Aumont and OF Michael Taylor are rumored to be going to Toronto.
In unrelated news Cleveland.com already ranting that we didn’t hold out and pick up JA Happ for Lee. Oh well
Aumont looked good for CAN’s WBC team, didn’t he?
by JulioBernazard on Dec 14, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions
misread this as a comment from Jay, which was confusing once I read his actual comment below.
by Logodaedalus on Dec 15, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions
Aumont scouts well, I realize that.
But statistically, and maybe I’m just already being touchy about the cle.com reaction to this vs. the Lee deal, Aumont is really just a reliever with no success above High-A at age 20. That’s just not that valuable.
The twitterati say it’s Mike Saunders, Aumont and Morrow.
I was under the impression that it was two of those three, with someone else from the Phils, but I stopped following this too closely a couple of hours ago.
I can’t argue with you on Aumont, but he really did look good in the WBC.
Steel Nick
It’s kind of amazing how dense the greater baseball world — not just “our” doofuses, but seemingly everyone — is being about the (Indians’) Lee trade. I wonder if the problem doesn’t stem from that instinctual reaction to idiot stats that Jay mentions from time to time. We see 20 HR from a minor leaguer — Taylor — and the part of our brain that says “23-year-old batting-average-dependent left fielder” goes on holiday.
People seem to prefer the unblemished-but-less-impressive record to the impressive-but-blemished record. There’s an acne joke to be made here, if anyone’s interested. Meanwhile, it’s stupid; I’d rather acquire a real major leaguer whose deficiencies I understand than acquire the delusion that I’ve got the next Stan Musial — because guess what, Dominic Brown is not the next Stan Musial.
Oh, and I will argue this particular point with anybody: Carlos Carrasco is a better prospect than Kyle Drabek.
by fleerdon on Dec 14, 2009 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
Always. I’d add — experience over the relevant time.
Carlos Carrasco has made 129 professional starts; Kyle Drabek, 47. And, as you’re so fond of pointing out, they’re separated by just 8 months.
by fleerdon on Dec 14, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
I found another really good one of those age nuggets the other day but I’ve forgotten it now. It’s incredible how people just forget to check.
I remember someone around the time the Lee trade went down (probably Castrovince or even Jay the night he was on “Smoke Signals”) say something about how the Indians were more interested in Carrasco because there was a lot bigger track record to go by compared to Drabeks, as well as potential upside and his age.
Average Cleveland fans spin: Shapiro took their first offer.
No, really; he wasn’t. I might make a tri-fold poster, science fair style.
by fleerdon on Dec 14, 2009 11:30 PM EST up reply actions
That kid is just so pro-vampire.
Wait 'til next millennium!
by emd2k3 on Dec 15, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I don’t know anything about Drabek but I’m a little down on Carrasco. From what I’ve seen of him, which is only a handful of major league starts and a AAA start, he seems to get hit pretty hard. His minor league HR totals give support to this. Last year, he gave up .96 per game which is almost exactly his career rate, .97. His career HR/FB ratio is 9.3%.
However, Carrasco has consistently performed well in the other fielding independent stats so hopefully he can offset his hr deficiency to be a quality major leaguer, but I am not that optimistic.
I would be more concerned about the home runs if it weren’t for his consistently excellent strikeout and walk rates, and the apparent quality of his secondary stuff. Given his age and advanced status, I tend to believe that getting dinged a bit is an acceptable flaw — and maybe preferable to higher walk rates.
As I suppose I’ve already said too many times, it seems to me that the bad news about CarCar is pretty good news, after a fashion — everybody agrees he’s got the tools, it’s just that he hasn’t put them all together yet. My reaction to that is, great, he’s got all the tools!
by fleerdon on Dec 15, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions
Toronto’s MLB reporter on Twitter says it’s Aumont and Dominic Brown.
I’ve also learned that some people think Aumont is still a major league starter but had to go to the pen with elbow pain. Good luck with that.
I’m relieved if this is true. It’s, in my purview, a very similar package if focusing on different things.
One reporter mentioned JA Happ and/or Joe Blanton going to Toronto. Happ at least is cheap for a couple years.
No…it’s going to be bodies from Seattle. They can’t acquire Cliff Lee and give up just Aumont. I bet it’s Saunders and Morrow.
That would seem to imbalance things again — unless the Phillies are giving away Blanton to clear salary.
Phillies get: Halladay
Phillies lose: Brown, Lee
Marines get: Lee
Mariners lose: Aumont, Morrow?, Saunders?
Toronto gets: Aumont, Morrow, Saunders, Brown
Toronto loses: Halladay
Seems about even. Throwing Blanton in there to Toronto gives them a hell of a lot unless even more pieces are involved.
raw deal for Seattle if they give up three guys and Cliff goes off to join the military…
by Logodaedalus on Dec 15, 2009 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Additionally, I am glad that we targeted the most important pieces as starting pitchers. I realize Brown is a highly-rated prospect, but the Indians needs are pretty clear. While pitchers carry a lot more risk, it was essential that we gambled on guys that the front office think can become starters in the league.
And now I see somebody has quoted Stark as saying that Travis D’Arnaud is going to Toronto as well?
Yawnish.
And there’s a lot of rumbling that Tyson Gillies is involved?
This whole “prospects for vets” thing became more boring when people realized how valuable prospects were.
Well, now that’s a risk inherent in any contract. But Halladay at four years, $75M? I’ll take it. Most teams can afford that, if not all. Pure big picture, that’s what Sabathia rejected from the Indians one year prior to free agency.
For Carlos Zambrano or Barry Zito, no. But every team can afford C.C. Sabathia or Roy Halladay at that price.
Marlins? Their 2009 team salary was $35.7 million. They were pocketing blood money from the Yankees, Dodgers and Red Sox, but that would represent a huge increase.
So we’re to believe some guys are just extension guys and some aren’t, right? Is there any rhyme or reason here outside of their personalities?
I think you’re right. I think it’s an ego thing. Some guys need to make news (Sabathia, Lee, Zito). Other guys are content being very very well paid, but don’t need to go down as the highest contract ever (Peavy, Oswalt, Zambrano, and, if this is true, Halladay).
Are you trying to say that left handers have bigger ego’s….
Makes sense. Scott Boras is demanding a 3 year deal for Rick Ankiel.
or that their agents think they can get more by becoming FAs.
I lose a little respect for anyone who has Boras as his agent. I’ll let LaPorta pass, I guess.
I can’t believe this is actually a trade made by real GMs. Bargains abound for Seattle and phily. Look at what I miss while studying for and taking a Final exam.
by westbrook on Dec 14, 2009 7:01 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Robothal reporting now that Red Sox and Mike Cameron in “serious talks” on a two-year deal.
Can the Yanks, Red Sox, Mariners, and Phillies employ all 260 free agents? We’re about to find out.
I suppose it’s worth throwing this out again, since I haven’t seen it posted lately
by cleveland teamer on Dec 14, 2009 7:33 PM EST up reply actions
What changed the Jays mind on getting big talent in return for Halladay? From what I saw on ESPN they will be recieving 2 prospects and another possible one, which in my opinion is no better than what we got in return for Lee. Did they finally decide that they wanted to get rid of the big contract and were willing to part with less talent coming back to them in return? The only thing I don’t know is how talented the prospects are. Also on Phillies side, why would they trade Lee, whom they rode through the playoffs in return for a pitcher who may be better than Lee but isn’t going to win that many more games than Lee would have.
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Dec 14, 2009 7:57 PM EST reply actions
The Blue Jays have a new GM. Notice that the last GM, among other things, failed to trade Roy Halladay.
I just didn’t realize that changed their stance on what kind of talent they wanted back. Just last week I was watching Hot Stove on ESPN and they said that it would take a lot to pry Halladay from Toronto so when I heard it was for two maybe three prospects, I was shocked.
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Dec 14, 2009 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
But we know that their demands before weren’t reasonable. That’s why Halladay was never traded. And that’s partly why JP is no longer in Toronto.
And I bet they get more than two bodies. They’ll probably land between three and five. And for one year of Roy Halladay, three good prospects is a big haul. The Indians got four prospects for Cliff, and that was with 1.5 years left. The Orioles got five for Bedard, but that was with 2 years left and with Bavasi on the other side of the table.
If a deal was going to happen, we all know the kind of return that was going to exchange hands.
CC29, I think you’re looking at this the wrong way strictly by focusing on the involved players’ talents.
Did they finally decide that they wanted to get rid of the big contract and were willing to part with less talent coming back to them in return?
I’ll give you the question you should really be asking: What’s the single biggest difference between the mid-season Lee trade and the off-season Lee/Halladay trade?
why would they trade Lee, whom they rode through the playoffs in return for a pitcher who may be better than Lee but isn’t going to win that many more games than Lee would have
I’ll give you the question you should really be asking: What’s the single biggest difference between Lee, mid-season 2009, and Lee, off-season 2009-2010?
by fleerdon on Dec 14, 2009 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
No, I am not just looking at strictly talent. In fact I am thinking about much more than that thus being the practicality. I just don’t see why the Phillies would trade for Halladay while giving up a prospect and Lee in the trade and not getting any prospects in return. The only reason I see this trade being useful is that Philly plans on signing Halladay to an extension up to 2013 which would definately bolster their rotation for the next several years.
by ClevelandCrazy29 on Dec 14, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions
I’d like to point out that the Mariners were outscored by 52 runs last year.
And that includes getting a career year from Branyan , a breakout offensive year from Franklin (who could easily slide back down), breakout pitching from Aardsma (can he do that again?) and Kelly (60 innings of 2.80ERA ball out of thenpen with a 20BB/28K ratio?), 22 flukey-good starts from Washburn and 15 equally as good starts from Bedard before his injury.
Who on that team can reasonably be expected to improve? Who on that team can reasonably expected to just to maintain? A lot went right for them last year, and they were a .500 team.
It seems like the Mariners have been this position for a very long time now — seemingly contenders, but not really.
I agree with you that getting Cliff Lee is in no way a guarantee for them to have a much better season, since, as you pointed out, they’d have to banking on things going exactly the way they went last year, which probably won’t happen.
On Lookout Landing, they’re crowing about how the Angels are getting aced out of everything, and how could they possibly contend with all their deficiencies and … and it seems to me we’ve been saying that for a while now.
by fleerdon on Dec 14, 2009 8:19 PM EST up reply actions
The fanbase thinks it’s playing with a stacked deck. Part of it’s that Jack Z is good, part of it is the aftershock of Bavasi and part of it is the same nonsense we spouted about Shapiro. Beating the game, yadda yadda.
The Angels will be okay if Weaver, Santana, and Kazmir are healthy. And that lets Saunders roll to the back-end of the rotation, where he belongs (he could be, perhaps, the most overrated starter in the AL). And they have the cash to sign somebody like Sheets or Duchscherer or Bedard. I still like their pitching. And on offense, it’s still a nice crew all around the field, spare 3B.
Pettitte gets way more love than he should because he’s a Yankee icon, but Pettite has been an above average pitcher for 14 out of 14 seasons if you discount his injury-filled 2004 in which he threw only 83 innings. The only year he’s had an ERA+ under 100 was 2008, when he was at 98 (with a 4.54 actual). He’ll walk some guys, but he’ll strike out his fair share and he’ll throw 200 innings.
Saunders had a flukey-low ERA (and a 17-7 record, which is where he gets most of his hype) in 2008 based on an low BABIP. He regressed last year, his walks went up, his strikeouts down, and his homeruns up. He’s not ace material. He’s not top of the rotation material. And it’s crazy to think that anybody took serious a package by the Angels which included Saunders as the pitcher being sent to Tornoto for Halladay. Of course that didn’t get the deal done (if that was an actual offer). He’s just not that good.
Figgins should be solid in terms of getting on base. To me though, the M’s still on paper have one of the worst offenses in the league.
Figgins is at least the right player for them to target. Just like Shapiro, Z recognizes the weaknesses and tries to address them.
Also, just like Shapiro, he has to get very lucky.
It’s true. If the M’s think they’ve got double-barrel aces and that makes them a sure shot (nailed not mixing my metaphors there), I’d invite them to study our recent history.
Anyway, call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think the M’s hit enough. You cannot pitching-and-defense a baserunner across home plate.
by fleerdon on Dec 14, 2009 8:37 PM EST up reply actions
They are eerily similar to the Indians in that way. Hadn’t noticed.
I applaud them for at least focusing on one thing: run prevention. Shapiro tried to hedge his bets across the board and create a team with pitching and hitting, most notable in the Hafner extension. Maybe it’s too much to ask-get cheap defenders and good pitchers and hope might be a better strategy than “get a good team.”
If the M’s think they’ve got double-barrel aces and that makes them a sure shot (nailed not mixing my metaphors there), I’d invite them to study our recent history.
Or, invite them to study their own recent history, when Felix and Bedard were going to make up the greatest 1-2 in baseball.
Steel Nick
Now it’s being reported by Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun that Kyle Drabek is in fact part of the deal.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Got me, but at the same time why does anyone want Carlos Carrasco? Drabek has been dubbed “untouchable” that must mean it’s only a good deal if he’s traded….right?
Carrasco hit AAA at 21. That’s a big deal.
I’m too hard on Drabek but he’s just never been anywhere near good enough to warrant any hype except that, again, I guess he scouts well.
I understand, let it be known I am very happy that Carlos Carrasco is an Indian, a lot of potential to be a solid ML starter, no different than Drabek.
I didn’t want my posting that Drabek was included in the deal as a knock on Carlos, it’s just odd to me that they wouldn’t deal him last year, but now they wlil.
Of course now, Doc’s signing an extention right away and their rumored to also be getting Phillippe Aumont as well. Not bad Phillies.
What on earth are you talking about. You do realize he was 21 last year right?
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
I’m saying Drabek’s numbers were very good considering his level. I don’t know what Carrasco has to do with any of this.
LGT's resident moderate Yankee hating fan.
Drabek has pitched 158 innings above rookie ball and, frankly, I’m not impressed. He blew away A+, which he should’ve at 21, and then looked good in AA though not great: a 2.45 K:BB is not exactly blowing me away.
He’s a good prospect, one I’d love to have. But I don’t get the idea that he’s “untouchable” or that he represents some huge upgrade over a guy like Carrasco, who’s in the discussion because so many people howled that we got Carrasco and not Drabek.
You covered all of the bases. After I read it, I said to myself that there was nothing more to be said about the topic.
Grady has to be somewhat thankful for the Tiger scandal.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 15, 2009 10:27 AM EST up reply actions
We should be happy that something has gone down to completely eclipse a big free-agent signing by Boston.
Steel Nick
ESPN says that Toronto is getting Taylor, Drabek, and d’Arnaud, Seattle is getting Lee, and Philadelphia is getting Halladay, Gillies and Aumont.
Meh. It’s a mega deal but it doesn’t really do it for me. I’m surprised Philadelphia got prospects out of Seattle. I think Aumont must be considered a bullpen guy.
Lost in all this is that the Mariners are getting Cliff Lee for almost nothing. We could have theoretically gotten Lee from Philly for Gomez and Fedroff.
If Philly loses Drabek as well, my buddies at work are gonna crap themselves with anger. I made them love Cliff Lee and they are still feeling the love.
Welcome back, Sandy! ATALECG...
I’m guessing Cliff Lee did more of the heavy lifting as far as making your work buddies love him.
No, not you. Your helmet!
by PatBordersHelmet on Dec 15, 2009 9:19 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So…the M’s get a year of Lee for a 20-year-old Aumont (never pitched above High-A), a 21-year-old Gillies (never played above High-A) and a 21-year-old Ramirez (never pitched above High-A). Whether or not any of those guys actually pan out for the Phils or Blue Jays, it’s going to take about 2 to 3 years to find out AND Ramirez just got added to the 40-man, so his clock is already ticking.
Throw the other prospect names involved in the deal if you want, but that’s what the M’s gave up for a year of Lee. Suddenly, any complaints about the haul we got from Philly lose a lot of steam, particularly when you consider how young and how advanced Carrasco is compared to those two arms departing Seattle.
Seems like some serious over-valuing of pitchers in the low-minors. At least with our deals last year, all but a couple of the 11-odd pitchers we acquired were at least on the cusp of Double-A.
Exactly.
Hopefully it means that the lesson has been learned on the idea that A LOT can go wrong between Kinston and Cleveland (or even Akron and Cleveland), particularly for pitchers.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 15, 2009 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
You think this is a shift for the Indians? I’m not sure they’ve ever placed much value (at least in trades) on pitchers in the low minors, i.e., who couldn’t possibly contribute next year.
You know, you do have to step up for the Indians’ drafting here: Stevens, Gaub, and Archer became two major league — potentially elite — relievers.
by fleerdon on Dec 15, 2009 3:55 PM EST up reply actions
See, what he is doing is referring to the multiple Stevens drafted by the Tribe, who have drafted 22 different Stevens. Well, it’s really only 21 Stevens, but Steven Van Deren was drafted twice.
by FredOx on Dec 15, 2009 4:33 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Haven’t the slightest, now that I think about it. Is he Canadian? Stand by.
by fleerdon on Dec 15, 2009 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
So wait, it was really Brandon Phillips + Archer + Gaub for Perez + Todd? That deal blows.
This is an excellent time for me to point out — to readers here, and also to my immediate family, and to my girlfriend — if you ask me what I’m thinking about, and I say, “Nothing,” I really mean it.
by fleerdon on Dec 15, 2009 5:43 PM EST up reply actions
No, we had never really targeted any arms (of great worth) before the Lee and Martinez deals this year.
My reference was more to the point that there was a time that some assumed (OK., maybe it was just me) that Miller and Lofgren and other arms would just continue to mature and develop, without hiccups, through the Minors and ascend to the parent club to fill holes in a nice orderly fashion.
The overwhelming amount of arms recently added (to go on top of what was there) seems to project this strategy of sheer quantity, with guys that are hopefully further along or at least at different levels to offset the attrition rate as much as possible. That quantity simply didn’t exist before and when something went wrong for one of the younger guys between Kinston and Cleveland, the net effect on the organization was debilitating.
by The DiaTriber on Dec 15, 2009 4:52 PM EST up reply actions
Photoshop Huff and Sowers into the picture, then get back to me.
by fleerdon on Dec 15, 2009 10:12 PM EST up reply actions
It seems that the Blue Jays got a pretty good return on, what was to them, one year of Halladay. So the Phillies paid a premium to work on an contract with Halladay without letting the Yankees or Sox bid up the cost?
Don’t forget that the Phillies also managed to hang on to Ben Francisco throughout all of this.
by Deep South Ken on Dec 15, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
Meanwhile, the White Sox maintain a tradition of outfielder mediocrity.
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/news/story?id=4744955
'If I'm not here, 'I'll be somewhere else.'' Andy Marte
I think people seriously mistake and undervalue having a ChiSox team run by Kenny Williams to help maintain mediocrity in the Central.
I just wanted to believe.
Whoops. Missed those three starts.
With them out of contention, I thought they’d hold him back till this year.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 15, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
In the last 5 years, the White Sox have won a world series, won 90 games (missed postseason), been completely irrelevant, won 89 games (winning division), and finished a couple of games under .500. He’s done with an average payroll of about $100 mill.
I think he’s holding his own and gets about what he deserves.
Given the fact that Chicago is the 3rd largest market in the US, I’d think they’d learn to capitalize on that and make some additional money, raise their payroll and walk away with the division. My point is he has basically played even in a division that is usually listed as winnable year in and out.
I just wanted to believe.
Yes, the White Sox will always be the “other” team, but of the other “other” teams, the Angels are consistently successful and the Mets’ problems have nothing to do with lack of payroll.
The Angels, like the White Sox, are in a position to dominate within their own division. I think both clubs have done quite well for themselves, and while Chicago seems to play in the weaker division, I think you can make the case that Williams has to compete with far better GMs than Reagan does.
Big money is very tough to spend wisely in baseball — just ask the Tigers — so in the absence of totally obscene disparity, the more effective organization is going to beat the richer organization more often than not.
I’m operating under the assumption that Williams doesn’t have a ton of lattitude on how much he is able to spend on payroll so whether they could or should spend more isn’t really on him. Given that, I think you can argue that by winning the Series in ’05, he was allowed to increase payroll.
The reality is that the White Sox have been matched in terms of payroll by the Tigers. The Tigers have yet to win the Central, though they did win the wild card in ’06.
I think it’s a little at odds to shower Terry Ryan/Bill Smith and Mark Shapiro with praise (justifiably so) while at the same time run down the guy that is getting the better of them (The WS gives Williams the nod over Ryan/Smith), even if he is working with a 35-40% payroll advatange.
Various tweets that a minor leaguer in the deal has failed his physical, and DrunkJaysFans updating an official announcement post throughout the day.
Rumored to be Drabek, although sources aren’t credited.
You are reading my signature.
Well, I’m sure they can just substitute one of their other great pitchers for Drabek. Knapp isn’t that different from Drabek, and Carrasco is just as young and closer to the majors, so I’m sure the Phillies can just send one of those guys instead.
oh, wait ..
by Jay on Dec 16, 2009 3:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Something I don’t get, if I’m Philadelphia, and I’ve accepted that I’m emptying the vault for 2010 and 2011 … why not just dig deeper and make the trade without Seattle, and go into 2010 with both Lee and Halladay? Could they really not afford both of those starters in the same year? Are they just that attached to Dominic Brown?
by fleerdon on Dec 16, 2009 6:38 PM EST reply actions
Are a bunch of people asking this? I’m not doing a great job of extra-curricular reading these days.
by fleerdon on Dec 16, 2009 7:15 PM EST up reply actions
I’ve seen it brought up and dismissed primarily as a payroll concern.
It’s very difficult for me to tell what the wiggle room is at the top of a team’s budget.
I might link it to that point you made the other day-there’s diminishing returns on run prevention and their rotation is solid without Lee. Clear the money, spend it on Polanco (wouldn’t have been my first choice), and get some prospects in the deal.
Someone on ESPN (Olney or Kurkjin I think) said that keeping both Lee and Halladay would put the Phillies’ payroll in the $160 million territory and they couldn’t afford to go there.
by Buckeye Brad on Dec 16, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
Much obliged. Guess I shouldn’t impute Yankee-esque what-the-hell-ism to every large market team.
by fleerdon on Dec 16, 2009 7:57 PM EST up reply actions
Amplifying other responses, you’ll note that the cash the Blue Jays are sending the Phillies in the deal is exactly the difference between the 2010 salaries of Lee and Halladay, so essentially, the Phillies are insisting that the swap has zero impact on their 2010 payroll.
Beyond that, they don’t want to give up the prospects, i.e., if they have to give up some prospect talent, they want to get equal prospect talent back. They have an immensely talented core locked up through 2012 or so, but it’s an expensive one. They will need some farm system support in those years, because they won’t have the money to fill in many holes through free agency.
Amaro pointed out the prospect reason in the Halladay press conference. He said that keeping Lee and acquiring Halladay would have amounted to trading 7 of their top 10 prospects, totally depleting the minors. Marson, Donald, and Carrasco are three players that the Phillies could really use over the next few seasons.
This deal keeps getting more bizarre: Ruben Amaro, Jr. has been sent to the Pac NW.
by JulioBernazard on Dec 17, 2009 11:11 AM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
