Phillies

Transactions & Such

Winter leagues

Part of CSNPhilly.com


« Phillies once discussed trading for Franklin Gutierrez | Main | Tuesday: Phils express ‘moderate’ interest in Lowry »

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Comments

awh prefers Mahay to Embree. YOu can never tell with relievers, but every time awh has seen Embree pitch he's been pretty lousy. I saw him pitch a lot when he was with the Bosox. Color me 'not impressed'.

I'm looking forward to the day when we finally know what level of players all these kids will become.

The more I read the more I'm skeptical that Amaro didn't throw away the later half of this decade on the Halladay/Lee trades.

Can I blame Hamels for the downfall of the farm system? if he performed last year like a WS MVP would they have been pressed to acquire a Lee or Halladay? Would Drabek, Taylor, Carrasco, Marson, Donald, d'Arnoud, and Knapp still be the future (in some combination)?

Isn't it a little reckless of Amaro to acquire two Cy Young pitchers in one year especially when you trade away one of them? And if you trade away Lee shouldn't you be damn sure to acuire that orginization's elite kids (consider me overreacting to Keith Law's minor league analysis)?

I know I know this has been beaten to death but there is not football and pitchers and catchers haven't reported yet.

PHIinBK: it seems like most prospect gurus think the haul received for Lee is equal to or better than what they gave up. When you add in Ben Francisco I think the Phillies trading for Lee is pretty hard to find fault with. If you think trading for Halladay was not worth what they gave up, that is one thing, but you can't discount the guys they received from Seattle just because you aren't as familiar with them.

"Dubes"

Once again, let's not forget Cliffie beating the Yankees twice in the World Series. Service time is important.

Anybody hear anything about Noah Lowry recently? It would be great to have him around when he rebounds.

A lot of the scouting reports I read after the trade had the same feelings about J.C. Ramirez. This could be a breakout year for him.

At least Reading should be interesting this year....all 3 SEA prospects should be there among some other lesser prospects.

"Can I blame Hamels for the downfall of the farm system? if he performed last year like a WS MVP would they have been pressed to acquire a Lee or Halladay?"

That's a little much. Even supposing Hamels had a grizzled countenance and was therefore good at baseball, the pre-Lee rotation was nevertheless extremely thin. Myers was hurt and Moyer "washed up". Blanton pitched very well in the first half, less so in the second, and is a tick above league average regardless. Happ looked good, but largely because he was stranding runners at a very much above league-average rate.

Not much, in other words, to hang one's hat on, last season or currently, if a WFC is the goal.

"Blanton pitched very well in the first half, less so in the second"
You have it backwards, Blanton was worse than Adam Eaton in April and May but really turned it around after that.

I think you can sense some authenticity in Amaro's comments about Ramirez, i.e. not just "propoganda," as some would call it.

It's not like he said "we really love Ramirez." He basically said Looper turns in to a school girl when talking about him.

Too bad Steven Register never played with Dave Cash.

"Too bad Steven Register never played with Dave Cash."
And Don Money

We're gonna miss d'Arnaud. He was one of those guys that looked like a men among boys in the minors. Rare to see that at his age.

Maybe the B Jays could sign back up catcher Kevin Cash so he could call Steven Register's games!

Is it me, or Rube saying Happ's spot "was his to lose", not exactly the biggest ringing endorsement? Maybe I am just reading too much into that quote.

And how long will the Aumont starting pitcher audition last? That guy has short-reliever written all over him. Granted the top-end of the organization's starting pitching has been weakened, but I don't see Aumont being a fit as a starter.

Well, Aumont needs to prove he can't be a starter first. It won't hurt him to start in AA this season and work on his secondary pitches. Throwing 97 is great but it won't get you outs against advanced hitters if that's all he has.

Watching the 2008 World Series Blu Ray never gets old. Never ever gets old.


When do pitchers and catchers report???

Our group of six who split up a 4-seat season ticket plan is holding the ticket 'draft' this week. This event always gets me super revved up for the season.
The early 'drafted' games will be Boston, bobbleheads, fireworks, alumni weekend. Also, Mets, Dodgers, Braves.

Can't wait.

denny - I think 2nd base is Utley's to lose as well. If he starts hitting .095 he'd be replaced. What RAJ is saying is as long as Happ remains effective the job is his. It's just like Moyer last year, the starter job was his until he couldn't do it anymore.

I think you're reading too much into it.

Can we declare this a Keith Law-free zone? At least for awhile?

Brody Colvin arrested in La. for the customary Phillies pitching prospect drunk and disorderly. No broken bones or bruises reported.

I was worried about Colvin's potential before...now I'm convinced he's a budding star.

Woohoo!!!

Should we all hold a draft for what day of the season he'll break a bone in his pitching hand/arm in a bar fight?

Man, this is one long, cold winter. Are those pitchers and catchers ever going to report or is it a mirage?

If Hamels was performing up to task then RAJ wouldn't have had to go out and get an ace let alone a cy young winner (or two) he could have zeroed in on less pricey option. Just a thought.

Once RAJ mortgaged the future by trading Halladay you can no longer compare the Lee trade on the basis of what they gave up vs what they got back bc the "purpose" of the Lee trade was to re-stock the farm. And so far it seems to me what they gave away for Halladay far exceeds what they got back. At least in theory, and i'm just anxious for the theory to graduate to reality

"Can we declare this a Keith Law-free zone? At least for awhile?"

Fine with me. AAMOF I don't know why he even gets mentioned here.

WTF has Law ever done except get fired by the BJs for sucking at his job?

Does anyone even track his ranking of prospects to see hwo accurate his predictions are? As he's never mentioned among the top prognistigators/scouts, I suspect that in the end his rankings haven't amounted to much.

"And so far it seems to me what they gave away for Halladay far exceeds what they got back."


Assuming Halladay lives up to his advance billing, the above has to be among the silliest comments I've ever read on the site.


PHIinBK, are you saying that Drabek is going to be the best pitcher in the game in a few years?

Because that's what it's going to take for your statement to make sense.

Drabek will have to become the best pitcher in the game, and Taylor and D'Arnaud will have to become solid MLB contributors for the three of them to "far exceed" what the Phils got back.


Have Drabek, Taylor or D'Arnaud played even ONE game at the MLB level?

NEPP: "it won't hurt him to start in AA this season."

That's exactly the point. He's had elbow and hip injuries and some scouts think starting him will increase chances of it happening again. It has nothing to do with "secondary pitches."

If he can't handle starting in the regimented conditions of AA where his innings and pitch counts will likely be strictly watched, then he'll never be an MLB player anyway and its much ado about nothing.

As it stands right now, he's a guy that can throw a good fastball and very little else. The secondary pitches are all hit or miss...sometimes they're on (vs. Wright in the WBC) and sometimes he gets hammered (like in the AFL last fall).
Its kinda hard to develop secondary pitches in 1 inning spurts.

Here's what we can accurately say about Brody Colvin: He's 19 and throws hard. He's thrown 2 innings as a pro. He was a 7th rounder because he had a scholarship to LSU, but Phils busted slot to get him. At this point not enough to project whether he'll make it all the way, but he's a top 20 prospect. I think Keith Law likes him.

NEPP: So you're saying he will either be a SP or he'll never make the majors?

Interesting.

I can see where you're coming from though, because there's never in history been a setup man or closer who just had a great fastball and not much else.

awh: I DON'T think what PHIinbk is saying is that we didn't get an even return from the Blue Jays. That, as you point out, would be ridiculous.

What I think he's saying is that what we got for Lee from Seattle doesn't match what we gave up to Toronto. I certainly don't disagree with that.

But that's not the way to look at these trades. The way to look at it is what we gave up to get Lee and what we got for Lee when we dealt him. And I think we got more than we gave up.

Lee and Halladay were never going to be teammates because of financial reasons. It had nothing to do with Hamels or restocking the farm system or Lee rejecting an extension (which he and his agent deny). It had everything to do with Money.

This whole Lee and Halladay scenario will go on forever on BLer. Even if we win the WS this season in 6 games, afterwards the discussion next December will be, "Yea, but if we had Lee AND Halladay we could have won in 4".

Please put this to rest. What happened happened. I don't see the point in matching prospects returned in each trade non-stop for a month now because none of us have even seen these guys play in our system yet let alone know if they can be productive in the MLB.

Besides last time I checked the point is to get better and the 2010 Phillies are going to be better than the 2009 Phillies. So isn't that all that truly matters? (Unless your name is Billy Beane that is of course and you just try to build a team of prospects for as cheap as possible.)

"Lee and Halladay were never going to be teammates because of financial reasons. It had nothing to do with Hamels or restocking the farm system or Lee rejecting an extension (which he and his agent deny). It had everything to do with Money."

Come on clout. I know you are trying to drive up the post counts for your boy but surely by now you understand that is not true.

It was about BOTH money AND prospects. You know how we know? Because they tried trading Blanton but got no good offers.

If "It had everything to do with Money" as you say, then why didn't they just give Blanton away? Oh, that's right because they wanted quality prospects in return as well.

This blog really does know how to beat a dead horse.....

"Too bad Steven Register never played with Dave Cash.
And Don Money"

I say thank goodness that never happened -- the announcer would be Joe Buck.

mvptommy: Were you in the room? You have no clue how hard they tried to trade Blanton. I recently posted a clip from one of the national writers who quoted an official from another team saying he would've been interested in Blanton.

In any event, your whole premise is bogus. Getting rid of one year of Blanton wouldn't have solved the problem. Lee was traded because the Phillies concluded they could not afford to sign both him and Halladay to long-term contracts even if Lee had agreed to the kind of discount Halladay took. And they didn't want to keep Lee for one year and let him walk.

Why rubes like you continue to swallow the "it was a baseball decision" is beyond me.

clout, you honestly think that they'll push Aumont very hard?

Do you think that the Phillies training staff knows more about his physical condition or the blogosphere which has been kicking around one report of a hip problem from 2 years ago and saying he's got a degenerative condition despite denials of it from Seattle, Philly and Aumont himself. Do you honestly think Rube would have demanded him in the trade if there was that much of an issue?

He's pitched 106 innings in 2 years and he was a raw prep prospect at his time of draft. He NEEDS innings, a lot of them to refine his pitching.

NEPP: You omitted the elbow injury that shut his season down. BTW, if this is so obvious why did Seattle move him to the bullpen? They must really be dopes huh? I guess they don't know a thing about prospects. But you're right, the Phillies staff knows best. I can't ever remember a young Phillies pitcher having arm problems.

BTW, just to be clear, I am NOT opposed to the Phils testing Aumont as a starter. Obviously he has more value that way. But I think it is a risky move and not the slam dunk that NEPP and others here think it is.

"I recently posted a clip from one of the national writers who quoted an official from another team saying he would've been interested in Blanton."

No, the official said he would have given the Phils a B-level prospect for Blanton. Which, as was proven then, is a ridiculous basis for your argument that "nobody knew" that Blanton was available and the Phils just floated that rumor to pacify the fanbase.

What his quote meant was that he wasn't willing to pay the price the Phils wanted, and the Phils weren't willing to sell at his price. That's like me walking into a store and seeing that they have an XBox selling for $299. I offer them $50 for it, and they say no, that doesn't mean the XBox wasn't for sale. It was, just not at a price that everyone could agree on.

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.

"I recently posted a clip from one of the national writers who quoted an official from another team saying he would've been interested in Blanton"

Yes, no kidding. Big deal. Rube said that there were "interested" teams. That is my point, the teams that were "interested" didn't want to part with any quality prospects. So instead of giving Blanton away for nothing, they traded Lee for quality prospects because as you said 1.) they couldn't sign him, 2.) they needed to cut eithier his or Blanton's salary.

Also for the record, I never said it "was a baseball decision". I said it was both( baseball and money). But thanks for putting words in my mouth once again.

Olney's whole point in that column was that if it WAS JUST A MONEY DECISION, the Phils could have kept Lee and found a taker for Blanton...which kind of PROVES the point that it wasn't just a money decision.

I'm amazed that some people still don't understand this...

****You omitted the elbow injury that shut his season down. BTW, if this is so obvious why did Seattle move him to the bullpen? They must really be dopes huh?****

Well, their statement at the time was so that they could FAST TRACK him to the Majors ala another Joba Chamberlain.

All pitching prospects are risky moves, regardless of how they use hom. More often than not, pitching prospects bomb out due to arm injuries. To point at a system and say "See, there are other guys that got injured, they're trainers aren't perfect!!!" is misguiding in the least. Throwing a baseball 95 mph is an unnatural act...doing it a couple hundred times in a row every couple days is gonna lead to issues with a person's arm, hips, core, shoulder, etc.

They'll probably change his delivery just like they did with Drabek and like what they were working on with Knapp.

Developing a guy as a reliever at the AA and lower level is a pretty new thing in baseball. It used to be that guys converted after proving they couldn't hack it as a starter...but they still got at 150 IP per season in the minors. For example, Mo Rivera started 68 games in the minors and came up as a starter before going to the BP and so did hundreds of other guys.

I'm sure they'll be regimenting his starts, pitches per inning, etc. I'm sure we'll see a lot of 5 inning starts out of him and maybe 130 IP max before they shut him down...same as they did with Drabek (who was shut down at 140-150 IIRC)

Didn't the Mariners switch Aumont to the bullpen to move him through the minors faster?

"I'm amazed that some people still don't understand this... "

Chris, don't get stressed over it. It is only clout. His sole purpose here is to start arguments to drive up post counts and to criticize others (mostly in cases where it is unwarrented or even when he is wrong) in order to make himself feel more important.

Mo Rivera, Billy Wagner, Brad Lidge, Trevor Hoffman, Joe Nathan, Tom Gordon, Ryan Madson, Jon Papelbon were all starters in the Minors.

re: last 3-4 headlines

Great job JW - you've got better stuff these past few days than any of the beat writers have had since the halladay and lee trades.

On that Register team...would you play Ernie Banks at short or first?

I don't understand the reason why some folks want to end discussion on the Lee trade.
On BL the Abreau trade is still a hot button issue , & we were even trying to figure out why the Phils traded Ashburn ,at the end of his career, a few weeks ago.

No reason to stop talking about Lee, he was a great Phillie for a very short time , and we cover our feelings of loss by blaming the front office. Baseball 101.

awh: you completely misunderstood what i said. I meant the prospects that left for Halladay seem to be rated much higher than the prospects that came back for Lee. But I appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt.

let me make this clear - I know we have no idea if this is infact the case. That is why i'm looking forward to finding out one day IN THE DISTANT FUTURE whether this concern was warranted.

Personally, I have yet to get over Ferguson Jenkins.

"Too bad Steven Register never played with Dave Cash.
And Don Money"

I say thank goodness that never happened -- the announcer would be Joe Buck.

Brad Penny would be the 1st starter.

"Brad Penny would be the 1st starter."

As long as its not Doug Nickle...

"we cover our feelings of loss by blaming the front office. Baseball 101"

That is all well and good but please:

1.) Give the FO a little credit for 3 straight division titles, 2 straight pennants and 1 WS title in the past 3 years.

2) They traded Lee who had a 3.39 ERA and 125 ERA+ as a Phillie for the BEST pitcher in Baseball in Halladay that had a 2.79 ERA and a 155 ERA+ in 2009 in the American League with the Yankees AND Red Sox in his division. All this worrying over prospects and acting they are the deal breaker is a bunch of nonsense. They were crucial in getting to add depth to the MiL system, but comparing them like whoever get the better group wins the trade is ridiculous.

3.) They signed Halladay to a extension for UNDER market value.

I really can not wait for next offseason when Lee signs a 7 yr/ 160 million deal and everyone then realizes what Rube did. Paired with coming off (hopefully) another NL pennant and WS win.

ChrisinVT: So failure to trade Blanton forced them to trade Lee? You really believe this?

Not Phillies related but apparently the Mauer extension talks are going very well. I like this because I like it when the face of a team is there for most of his career (Bagwell in Houston, Jeter in NY, Michael Jack in Philly...hopefully Utley in Philly, etc).

I also like it if he doesn't go to the Yankees.

My guess on his final deal...7 or 8 years and $140-160 million. $160 million in Minnesota is like $200 million in NY...besides he's a god in Minnesota and he's from there.

NEPP: Very True cocerning Mauer. But all my Yankees friends have been saying lately is that they can't wait for next offseason when they sign both Lee & Werth.

Yeah, I can see them getting those two. Though if they sign Crawford (reportedly the guy they really covet) they very well might pass on Werth.

PHIinBK, what you posted is what I responded to. Re-read your own post. Had you mentioned "for Lee" at the end of the sentence I would not have reponded as I did.


"And so far it seems to me what they gave away for Halladay far exceeds what they got back."

Now, if you sentence had read thus:

"And so far it seems to me what they gave away for Halladay far exceeds what they got back [for Lee]."


I would have agreed with you. :)

"As long as its not Doug Nickle..."

Yeah, and if you wanted to do some currency trading the team could include Hunter Pence.

clout: I think the Phillies tried to trade Blanton and didn't get an offer they liked. I know what you posted from the national writer as well though. however, isn't it possible that the GM who commented that he would've liked Blanton is from a team that the Phillies had no interest in trading with. Perhaps they didn't see anyone in the system they felt would help them.

Also, it is completely possible it was both a financial and a baseball decision. That's where I lie in all this. They were looking to save some cash but also get back prospects they felt would lessen the blow in what they traded to the Blue Jays

"3.) They signed Halladay to a extension for UNDER market value."


tommy, iwould say WAY under market value.

I was thinking about it the other day, trying to guess what Doc would have gotten if he became an FA.

At the age of 33 going into his 34th year, IMO he could have gotten 4-5 yrs.

4/100?

5/120?

I'm thinking that we have to add David Price and Barry (or Bobby) Bonds to the team.

Looks like we might have another Brett Myers down in the minors - Brody Colvin was arrested early Sunday morning down in Louisiana.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/sports/20100201_Phillies_prospect_arrested_in_Louisiana.html

Million Dollar Arm ($900K actuall) - ten cent head looks like.

Cole: Hey, Heidi, now they're blaming my poor season on all these trades that Mr. Amaro made giving away prospects to get better starting pitching. Wa-a-a-a! Why do they keep picking on me?

Heidi: Man up, Cole. Get the lease and take Trixie outside. Don't forget the pooper scooper.

Cole: Wa-a-a-a! Do I have to? It's cold outside.

Heidi: Man up, Cole. You'll be is Florida in no time.

tommy, teams that, after this season, will need an outfielder, or be able/willing to move a contract to make room for Werth:

Yankees
Boston (could trade Cameron)
LAD (Manny gone)
Cubbies (Nady gone)
Mets (could move Frenchy)

just to name a few. Werth, because of his versatility, could be attractive to a lot more teams.

The question is: "Who will spend the money?"

LF, you never told us what you sent Heidi and Cole for Xmas.


???

Another interesting question for the board:

Potentially, Prince Fielder, Adrian Gonzalez and Ryan Howard could all be free agents at the same time (so could Pujols, but I expect that the Redbirds will extend him before that happens).

Out of the first three, assuming they could all be signed for approximately the same money and years, who would you choose to sign?

Gonzalez.

Gonzalez by a mile. It's not even close.

Prince- by a yard. its close

I would go Gonzalez too, but I don't think it's a landslide. His numbers have been depressed by Petco, but even his career road numbers aren't fantastic-- .935 OPS. For comparison, Howard has a .955 OPS for his career on the road.

However, Gonzalez is younger than Howard, and much better defensively than both Howard and Fielder, and has gotten better every year offensively. Put him outside of Petco, in the peak of his career the next few years, and I think he's a beast.

To me, it comes down to Gonzalez and Fielder (the youngest of the group), and I just can't get over my fear that Fielder is still going to eat away his productivity. I would rate them Gonzo, Prince, Howard, but I think they're all relatively close. Howard gets knocked down because of his age and comparatively low OBP the last couple years, and Fielder because of his physical condition and lack of defense (compared to Gonzo).

Jack: I agree with pretty much everythig you said. I agree that for me I rank them Gonzo (very slightly), Howard and Prince.

The only thing that stands out to me is Howard's clutchness. Without Howard's ridiculous September in 2008, we don't make the playoffs. And without his NLDS, we most likely may have lost that series as well.

Ryan is 2 years older than Gonzo, but he has usually around 140+ RBI's and 45 HR's a season. Howard is the more dynamic player, but numbers tell you Gonzo.

This is the classic age old debate of Scouting (eyes) vs. Stats

Well considering they all could be had at the same money and years, it would depend what the years are.

I agree with Jack if you're signing a 8 yr deal, but if its only a 4-5yr deal, than there isn't much reason to discount Ryno's age.

Also, not only does Gonzalez play in a huge ballpark, but he is surrounded by one of the worst offenses in majors - for pretty much his entire career.

Fielder is probably the best pure hitter of the bunch. He put up a 168 OPS+ season at Age 25.

Though he's not exactly the best fielder...nor does he look like he'll age well.

He's like 5'11" 275, isn't he?

"ChrisinVT: So failure to trade Blanton forced them to trade Lee? You really believe this?"

I believe that if they could have traded Blanton for a package of players similar to the Aumont/Gillies/Ramirez package, Lee would still be a Phillie.

It's also obvious that their belief that they could lock Blanton up long-term and they couldn't lock Lee up long-term made a difference as well.

It's obvious to anyone who's paying attention that the decision was based on both baseball and financial reasons. I don't see what the argument is.

Howard for the reasons NEPP stated above on Mauer:
"because I like it when the face of a team is there for most of his career (Bagwell in Houston, Jeter in NY, Michael Jack in Philly...hopefully Utley in Philly, etc)."

Joe Mauer reaches Prelim extension agreement on a 10-yr. extension.

Even though he is only 26 years old, 10 year extension for anyone, let alone a catcher. Seems a bit too much to me.

Am I the only one that would be reserved to offer such a deal?

Chris in VT: Let me break it down for you.

1. When the Phillies learned they could land Halladay and extend him, they immediately decided they did not want to spend what it would take to sign both him and Lee long term. That is a money decision.

2. Then the decision became: Do we keep Lee for a season and go for all the marbles or do we deal him to restock the minor leagues? That is a baseball decision.

One decision was money, the other baseball.

NEPP - Why do you have Yankee fans for friends?

clout: For a guy that prides himeself on thinking you know the game and prospects. You are somewhat clueless.

That is NOT what happened.....Your scenarios above have huge gaps in them that as usual you twist and squeeze into trying to prove your point.

Another try to explain this for you. I am going to use bullet points in order the events happened. Maybe you can't read full paragraphs to well.

- Phillies tendered Blanton's contract
- Phillies find out Halladay is available
- Phillies decide since they have Moyer under contract for 8.5 million this year, they can not keep Halladay, Blanton AND Lee.
- They try to shop Blanton, but aren't going to receive any quality prospects in return.
- Phillies offer Lee SAME EXACT extension Halladay eventually agrees to.
- Lee declines
- Phillies shop Lee
- Mariners are takers and Phillies like their offer
- Phillies trade for Halladay
- Phillies extend Halladay for SAME EXACT extension Lee declined.

That is ACTUALLY what happened. Not your twisted and version that is full of spin above in response to Chris from VT.

Then earlier today you said it was a " It had everything to do with Money.", now you say this "One decision was money, the other baseball.". So now you admit you were wrong and there WAS ACTUALLY a baseball decision involved? Can you please just say you were wrong? Because in the matter of hours you completely changed your opinion from the past month.

I suspect the Phillies knew Halladay was available the whole time. They only didn't know what it would take to get him.

In fact, he'd been available last season except that Ricciardi wanted the world for him.

This was a baseball decision in that Rube wanted Halladay more than he wanted Lee. It was a money decision in that he knew he didn't want to move enough salary to have two guys (Doc and Lee) each making about 20 mil per season in the rotation for the next four or so years.

This all becomes a non-issue of Rube gets back the Hamels of old, then makes sure he stays a Phillie for the next half dozen or so years. And it becomes even less of an issue if 2 of the three players obtained for Lee turn out to be outstanding major leaguers.

And that's what we're all hoping for.

Tommy: How do you assert all of those as clear facts?

I mean, they'd been looking at Halladay for a while (at least since the trading deadline this year, probably before). Why should we assume that they only found out he was available AFTER they tendered Blanton's contract?

I'm not saying all of what you claim is wrong. I merely find it funny that you attack Clout for not getting things right, but you then merely assert your take on what happened as incontravertable fact. None of us know, nor will ever know, exactly what happened. It's all conjecture.

Unless you are Ruben Amaro, Jr? That would explain some things, actually.

"Why should we assume that they only found out he was available AFTER they tendered Blanton's contract"

Simple. Because they tried trading Blanton exactly a week or two after tendering him a contract. Now it is time for a little common sense. Why would the Phillies tender a guy that they would want to trade a week later? Why not just let him walk?

Answer: Because Toronto informs the Phillies that Halladay is still on the market. So the Phillies have to scramble to clear salary to take on Halladay's contract. In the process they want prospects back in return. And again they can't keep all 3 because they have Moyer's pesky contract they have to deal with. And if they kept all 3 there wouldn't be a spot for Moyer.

Jack: I am "attacking" him because I find it funny that clout thinks he knows it all about baseball and calls people out for ridiculous things. Then switches his opinion and tries to switch things to cover his tracks. As I posted above.

clout @ 9:36 AM on Feb. 1 :"It had everything to do with Money"

clout @ 4:20 PM on Feb. 1: "One decision was money, the other baseball."

Nice fantasy scenario, Tommy. Or should I say Ruben?

mvptommy: Most of what you list as "fact" is speculation on your part. Lee and his agent have flatly denied that any extension was offered to him, just to note one obvious flaw in your scenario. Also, there is zero evidence that the Phillies had a deal in place for Lee before they traded for Halladay.

I'm glad you feel so passionate about your fantasy, though, that's what being a fan is all about. But it's still fantasy.

Also to correct your lie about my position: What I said was about money was the decision NOT to extend both Lee and Halladay. That is what I said this morning and that is what I said this afternoon.

mvptommythetroll: "Why would the Phillies tender a guy that they would want to trade a week later? Why not just let him walk?"

Um, because they wanted to keep him? Because he would be a lot cheaper to extend than Lee? Because they offer all kinds of guys for trade just to see what the market is? Because your fantasy that the Phils had to deal Lee because they couldn't trade Blanton is a fantasy, not reality?


Relief on Register's team may include Wes Stock.. Are these guys all "Money Ballers?"

To reiterate what I thought was the key point of view on the Halladay/Lee scenario (which I'm paraphrasing from something Sophist posted 1 day after the deal):

The Phillies FO saw having Halladay, Lee, Hamels, etc. as a luxury, in that it would not greatly increase their chances of making the playoffs. Basically, to put it in financial terminology, the additional cost would not be equivalent to the incremental change in probability of making the playoffs. Is there some risk in this approach? Absolutely, in that a major injury could happen to a couple of starters, and then having Lee on the staff would not be a luxury. But all else being equal, the pitching staff as now comprised is good enough to make the playoffs.

From the fan's perspective, the hole in this is the apparent advantage that a staff of Halladay/Lee/Hamels would give in the playoffs, dramatically increasing the likelihood of a WFC (in the mind of the fan). However, as has been stated many times on here, the playoffs are a crap shoot anyway. What would people have thought if we had that rotation, but lost in the first round? It would have been a massive disappointment, and the team would be out the additional cost of paying for a year of Lee's salary.

From a financial responsibility perspective, I have no problem with trading Lee. My issue is that I believe that the prospects we received do not seem to be equal in value to getting Lee, but the jury will be out on that one for a few years.

Wow, interesting debate being carried on.

Getting lost, I think, inall the Lee/Halladay debate is the undeniable fact of who the better pitcher is between the two. Based on past performance it's not even close - Halladay is clearly the better pitcher. Also getting lost is the fact that Cole Hamels' lifetime ERA+ is higher than that of Cliff Lee - and that's not a knock on Cliff. It's merely pounting out that id Hamels rebounds he could be a good as Lee in 2010 anyway.

I, for one, am happy to watch the 2010 season, one where Cliff Lee is going to try to show the world that the Phillies traded the wrong guy, Roy Halladay is going to try to prove that they kept the right guy, and Cole Hamels is going to try to prove to fams with short memories that he belongs being mentioned in the same sentence.

Smokey, you bring up an interesting point: fair value in return.

I wonder, hasthere ever been ANY trade where a pitcher of either Halladay or Lee's ability has been traded - when in the prime of their career - and the team that traded that pitcher wound up getting fair value in return?

"Lee and Halladay were never going to be teammates because of financial reasons. It had nothing to do with Hamels or restocking the farm system or Lee rejecting an extension (which he and his agent deny). It had everything to do with Money."

"2. Then the decision became: Do we keep Lee for a season and go for all the marbles or do we deal him to restock the minor leagues? That is a baseball decision."

These statements are clearly contradictory. They would have been teammates for one year were it not for the baseball decision. There is no shame in modifying an argument when you realize you weren't exactly right, Clout. But it is disingenuous to change your stance and pretend that you didn't.

AWH- Josh Beckett?

I love the stories coming out already about Halladay's workout routine at the Carpenter complex in Clearwater. Apparently, he's already been there for several weeks (it helps to live just 10 minutes away), shows up at about 7:00 in the morning, and puts in some insane workouts. Some guys are just so easy to root for. I've always liked him, and now he plays for my team. As we get closer to the season, I become more excited at that realization, and the disappointment of losing Lee fades away.

Good call Jonesman. I was thinking the same thing. The real interesting thing about that trade was the fact that the Marlins made Boston take Lowell in order to lose the salary, but then he got healthy and productive again and became a valuable contributor to the Sox.

Jonesman: "They would have been teammates for one year were it not for the baseball decision."

That is correct. I should've been more precise. Lee and Halladay were never BOTH going to be extended. The decision not to build a rotation around them was a financial decision. The decision on when to dump Lee, now or at season's end, was a baseball decision. Clearly, decision number 1 was a far bigger decision.

BTW, anyone remember who else Florida got in the Beckett deal besides Hanley? Was it Maybin?

SmokyJoe: I concur with your Halladay/Lee analysis.

Endless posts on the Lee trade. Spring training can't start fast enough to have equally meaningless posts that obsess and endlessly debate every KK appearance and reporting every minutiae that happens with Romero/Lidge.

The comments to this entry are closed.

EST. 2005

Top Stories

HardballTalk

Rotoworld News

SHOP CSN


Advertisements


Follow on Twitter

Follow on Facebook

Contact Weitzel

CSG