• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Sources: Jays, Phils talk Halladay-Lee blockbuster

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Um, they'd rather just trade Lee and bring in Halladay, two guys who are pretty much a wash in terms of comparison? Clearly they are not bothered by the fact that they gave away prospects for a couple months of Lee. I am going to dog that trade until somebody proves to me that those cats will be All Stars, and that means I will be dogging it for a very long time. All you guys who thought we got an incredible package for a Cy Young winner, well, your case certainly isn't helped by the fact that Philly pretty much just shrugged, traded Lee to Seattle, and took Halladay. If they really wanted Lee so badly and thought they gave up a ton to get him, they'd make sure he extended.


And you think that has more to do with Lee than it does being able to bring in Halladay and sign him for three more years?

That's crazy.

I assume you're going to dog any trade that involves prospects because your favorite player probably just got traded away, but that's the nature of the game.

It doesn't seem as though the market is ANY better now than it was in July, so it seems Shapiro played the market guessing game quite well.

I can tell you for a fact there were other teams involved in talks for Carlos Carrasco and Jason Donald, to say nothing of the other two players we got in the deal.


I'm really not banking on them becoming future All-Stars, but if we get 2-3 quality major league players out of Lee it was more than worth it if the alternative was gaining two first round draft picks.



It seems the only argument people have against the players in the deal was that "if they were so good Phili wouldn't have traded them away," which is just a horrible argument considering the Indians have a knack for turning the "WTF who is that" prospect in the trade into a high level players.


And the example is Cliff Lee.
 
And you think that has more to do with Lee than it does being able to bring in Halladay and sign him for three more years?

That's crazy.

I assume you're going to dog any trade that involves prospects because your favorite player probably just got traded away, but that's the nature of the game.

It doesn't seem as though the market is ANY better now than it was in July, so it seems Shapiro played the market guessing game quite well.

I can tell you for a fact there were other teams involved in talks for Carlos Carrasco and Jason Donald, to say nothing of the other two players we got in the deal.


I'm really not banking on them becoming future All-Stars, but if we get 2-3 quality major league players out of Lee it was more than worth it if the alternative was gaining two first round draft picks.



It seems the only argument people have against the players in the deal was that "if they were so good Phili wouldn't have traded them away," which is just a horrible argument considering the Indians have a knack for turning the "WTF who is that" prospect in the trade into a high level players.


And the example is Cliff Lee.

If you say so.

You and I will always differ on this issue, I guess. Not getting better prospects from the Phillies will always be seen as a failure on the Indians' part, unless those players (ie Drabek) turn out to be duds. Then Shapiro will be off the hook.

I also guess I don't see the huge difference between Halladay and Lee. Sure, Halladay has done it longer than Lee, but if anyone thinks Lee is a fluke at this point I have to point them in the direction of the nearest mental health institution. Furthermore, Halladay has never sniffed the playoffs. Lee has, and has dominated in them.

That is why I say it's a wash. But, if Philly has a hard on for Halladay, more power to them. Whatever. They aren't my team, so I shouldn't care, but I still think it's a pointless move.

And FTR...Cliff Lee was never my favorite player, in fact I don't even think I liked him at all until the tail end of his career in Cleveland, i.e. 2009, shortly before he got traded.
 
They made the move because they could lock up Halladay while Lee is set on becoming a free agent, not because they like one more than the other.

Not that hard to figure out.


FWIW, Knapp is right up there with Drabek in terms of projection...not sure why everyone has a hard on for the latter, maybe he famous father?
 
I think folks are reading this whole situation wrong. This wasn't Cliff Lee for Roy Halladay- none of the 'prospects' acquired for Lee are going to the Jays. This was two separate deals worked out at the same time. Which begs the question: why the hell did Amaro deal Lee?

Getting Halladay is a no-brainer here: I know some folks are blinded by Clifton Phifer love, but Halladay is the superior hurler here. He has a much longer track record (he is one year older than Cliff and has doubled his career #s), throws harder, has a better arsenal of stuff, and somehow has better control than Clifton. This isn't knocking Lee, this is just to remind some of y'all how badass Halladay is. If he had spent his career in NY or Boston, his HOF bust would already have been crafted and be on display in the concourse. He just put up a superior regular season to Lee and I have never seen anything from Roy Halladay that would insinuate he would have difficulty being equally dominant in th postseason. He is a guy who simply hasn't gotten a shot at the postseason, tis all- just like Cliff after Cliff shit his drawers the one year prior that he could have pitched in the posteason.

I can also see why the Phils would prefer to go with Halladay long-term- Halladay is willing to sign a contract extension while Lee isn't. The Phils have deep pockets, but if Halladay hits the open market the Phils instantly have to deal with a club that time and again shows that they have no problem smoking any other outrageous offer, the Yanks. Lee is wise to test FA, I don't blame him, but what he was saying wasn't so much 'it will take 23M to sign me' but 'I know I can get my agent to get the Yanks crazy-stupid when I hit FA w/o Halladay on the market.' Also, as I stated before, if the question is which pitcher to sign longterm, Halladay wins.

What DOESN'T make sense is why the Phils traded Lee for what they did. Here, to me, is the failure. Let's be blunt here- the Ms got a bargain on Lee. Aumont is a future reliever, Gillies is a speedy OBP machine with a little pop, and Ramirez has a terrific arm but so-so production for a 22 year old. Two of them are still in A ball. Is Amaro that enamored with Aumont as Lidge's future relacement? That is all I can guess.

I just don't see the return garnered for Lee being worth more than what he meant to the Phils as the bookend to Halladay and Hamels. You mean to tell me Amaro couldn't have flipped Blanton for Aumont? I think Amaro made a wonderful trade for Halladay, getting him far cheaper than it would have cost him back in July, but he really dropped the ball in dealing Cliff Lee. Amaro just tossed away a triumvirate of Halladay, Hamels, and Lee over 8m and 3 solid but not great prospects.

The Phillies came out & said that they wouldn't have been able to afford both Halladay & Lee. Lee is going to be a FA after this season & wants $23 M per season (and already told Philly he wasn't giving them a discount). Halladay obviously got his 3 year, $60 M extension from Philly.
 
Well thats a gross micharacterization. Let's compare what we got for Lee to what the Phillies got for Lee. The Phillies got 3 players, none who have played AA yet. The Indians got 3 guys who were ready to contribute in 2010, all of whom were top 100 prospects coming into 2009. They lost some shine, but these are still good young players. The Indians almost certainly got more for Lee than the Phillies did, as being closer to the majors is a very important factor for prospects. Meanwhile, the Phillies got a chance to negotiate an extension with Halladay, something that wasn't part of the deal for Lee. 4 years of Halladay > almost 1.5 of Lee. This isn't that hard, people.


You are mischaracterizing the fact that Halladay is indeed a part of the deal for Lee. You can't look at it as though it was Lee for 3 low minor leaguers, and then prospects for Halladay. The Phillies don't pull the trigger if Halladay is not coming their way. It's a 3 team deal... not 2 separate deals.
 
You are mischaracterizing the fact that Halladay is indeed a part of the deal for Lee. You can't look at it as though it was Lee for 3 low minor leaguers, and then prospects for Halladay. The Phillies don't pull the trigger if Halladay is not coming their way. It's a 3 team deal... not 2 separate deals.

I dont think a single player is going from the Ms to the blue jays or from the blue jays to the M's in which case, its two separate deals. you can very much break it down as the halladay going to the phillies with phillies prosects going to the blue jays. then lee is being traded to the M's for prospects. while everything may have been triggered all at once if im philly I would have rather just held on to lee and halladay.
 
I dont think a single player is going from the Ms to the blue jays or from the blue jays to the M's in which case, its two separate deals. you can very much break it down as the halladay going to the phillies with phillies prosects going to the blue jays. then lee is being traded to the M's for prospects. while everything may have been triggered all at once if im philly I would have rather just held on to lee and halladay.

Yeah I stand corrected... the source I was reading from originally said three way deal with prospects from both seattle and philly going toronto's way. But its been updated since.
 
Here is a pretty good explanation of the deal...


Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Halladay, Lee blockbuster change complexion of three teams
Posted by Evan Brunell
In one fell swoop, the Philadelphia Phillies handed the Seattle Mariners the A.L. West title while giving the Toronto Blue Jays the kick in the pants their rebuilding phase needed.

The particulars first: Philadelphia receives SP Roy Halladay and $6 million from Toronto in exchange for prospects in P Kyle Drabek, OF Michael Taylor and C Travis D'Arnaud. Seattle takes Cliff Lee from the Phillies for RP Phillippe Aumont, OF Tyson Gillies, P Juan Ramirez, all prospects. The Jays then flipped Taylor to the Oakland Athletics for 3B Brett Wallace.

Yankees vs. Jays
On Philadelphia's end, I completely understand the logic behind the deal. The Phillies were able to get the pitcher they originally wanted and immediately lock him up through 2014 (three years, $60 million is the reported figure along with two club/vesting options). Halladay is an absolute workhorse who should carve up National League hitters, and is a better bet to hold up down the line than Cliff Lee is. Of course, if Lee was willing to sign a three-year extension like Halladay was, this blockbuster likely never happens. It's the three-year deal -- very club-friendly -- that makes this a significant upgrade from Lee when isolated in a vacuum. Sure, the upgrade could be neutral in 2010, but you've got to be forward-thinking in your deals, and the odds that Lee left Philadelphia after 2010 were looking rather high.

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.

The Seattle Mariners made a tremendous move acquiring Cliff Lee for three prospects that don't rank as even guaranteed future major leaguers. Any time you can get a top five pitcher in that scenario, you have to strike. Lee is also very affordable for 2010, as he will pull in $9 million. Of course, he's a free agent the following year and is reportedly looking for a deal around $20 million annually. I'd be surprised if he gets it, but $18 million should be a lock. I do wonder about Lee's long-term potential: after all, it was only 2007 that he was demoted to the minor leagues.

What transformed Lee from a midrotation starter to one of the best pitchers in the game was an increased ground ball rate, improved command and a couple of ticks on his fastball velocity. When Lee signs his eventual long-term contract, I'll worry about deteriorating command and a fall-off from his fastball. It remains to be seen if Seattle will be that team to commit five or more years to Lee.

Philadelphia's Cliff Lee pitches against Los Angeles during game three of the NLCS in Philadelphia
Putting aside any long-term valuation of Lee, this deal is still tremendous when looking through the lens of 2010. Lee will be a Cy Young candidate... acquired without giving up any of their top three prospects.

Onto Toronto. Toronto had no chance of holding onto Halladay long-term and even through all their blustering, I don't think anyone (at least, anyone not a Blue Jays fan) truly felt the team was being serious about letting Halladay play the string out. They had to deal him this year -- even with the two compensatory draft picks they could have gained, having prospects with minor league track records is much more valuable.

If former GM JP Ricciardi had been willing to allow Roy Halladay to talk contract extension with the Phillies this past July, I bet they could have gotten an extra piece out of the Phillies. Other than that, it wouldn't surprise me if this was the exact trade that would have gone down in July. Toronto made out extremely well, netting a high-upside pitcher in Kyle Drabek that they don't have anywhere in the system. Toronto has solid rotation depth, especially in the major leagues, but no one you can give the ball to on Opening Day and expect to win. Drabek can be that guy.

Travis D'Arnaud has been coveted by Toronto ever since he was selected a pick ahead of the Jays in 2007. The Blue Jays have J.P. Arencibia in their farm system, but there are questions about his ability to stay behind the plate, and D'Arnaud is the better value anyways. Michael Taylor was a Blue Jay for only the briefest of moments, as he was immediately shipped to Oakland for Brett Wallace.

While Taylor might evolve into a 20/20 player and provide good overall value out of the outfield, Wallace is the type of hitter Toronto needs in its next wave of youngsters. Toronto absolutely needs the upside that Wallace brings with the bat and can afford to worry about defense later. Assuming Wallace can't stick at third (which is not a done deal just yet), he has the options of moving to first or designated hitter, with no one blocking him at either position.

Toronto has put themselves in great position to field a young, competitive club as soon as 2012. That's all they could have asked for in a trade of Halladay. Seattle has two aces atop their rotation, but put themselves in a tough financial position in terms of extending both aces. Philadelphia remain the favorites to win the NL pennant in 2010, although their settling of prospects from Seattle's end could greatly compromise their long-term future.


http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/b...blockbuster-change-complexion-of-three-teams/
 
I dont think a single player is going from the Ms to the blue jays or from the blue jays to the M's in which case, its two separate deals. you can very much break it down as the halladay going to the phillies with phillies prosects going to the blue jays. then lee is being traded to the M's for prospects. while everything may have been triggered all at once if im philly I would have rather just held on to lee and halladay.

Why? They were going to lose one in Free Agency anyway. They already stated they couldn't afford both.

Halladay signed the extension w/ Philly already & Lee is commanding $23 M per year & already told Philly he won't give them a discount.

Besides, with this, they replace the prospects they gave up for Halladay.
 
The Phillies came out & said that they wouldn't have been able to afford both Halladay & Lee. Lee is going to be a FA after this season & wants $23 M per season (and already told Philly he wasn't giving them a discount). Halladay obviously got his 3 year, $60 M extension from Philly.

The Phillies just got done giving 3 yrs/15M to Placido Polanco. It isn't about being able to afford both Lee and Halladay longterm, it is about having a staff to compete next year. Halladay, Lee, and Hamels would have given the Phillies probably the best 1-2-3 in baseball.

And if Amaro was really that hamstrung salarywise for 2010, then it wasn't about not having money for Lee but because he chose to usethat salary instead on guys like Raul Ibanez, Placido Polanco, and Joe Blanton. Amaro could have held onto Lee and kept shopping him, looking for a better package, or he could have dangled Joe Blanton, who is for arby (and a raise to the Lee range of 7-8M) and a guy who hits FA himself next offseason. There are contenders in need of starting pitching who would have paid a prospect price to get Blanton. If that really the best Amaro could do for Lee?

Amaro apparently feels that a Halladay, Hamels, Happ, Blanton rotation will win more games than a Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Happ one. We will see if he knew what he was doing.
 
I don't know who the M's new GM is, but this man is a freaking genius.

Traded Carlos Silva for Milton Bradley.

Despite Bradley not being very good, Silva is a HORRIBLE pitcher...
 
I don't know who the M's new GM is, but this man is a freaking genius.

Traded Carlos Silva for Milton Bradley.

Despite Bradley not being very good, Silva is a HORRIBLE pitcher...

Of course, he just traded away three of his top prospects for one year of Cliff Lee in which they can't beat the Angels anyway....so he's got a long way to go IMO.
 
Of course, he just traded away three of his top prospects for one year of Cliff Lee in which they can't beat the Angels anyway....so he's got a long way to go IMO.

I think the M's are better than the Angels simply because their pitching and defense are far superior to the Angels.

Adding Bradley to their lineup is going to help, even if a little bit.
 
The Phillies just got done giving 3 yrs/15M to Placido Polanco. It isn't about being able to afford both Lee and Halladay longterm, it is about having a staff to compete next year. Halladay, Lee, and Hamels would have given the Phillies probably the best 1-2-3 in baseball.

And if Amaro was really that hamstrung salarywise for 2010, then it wasn't about not having money for Lee but because he chose to usethat salary instead on guys like Raul Ibanez, Placido Polanco, and Joe Blanton. Amaro could have held onto Lee and kept shopping him, looking for a better package, or he could have dangled Joe Blanton, who is for arby (and a raise to the Lee range of 7-8M) and a guy who hits FA himself next offseason. There are contenders in need of starting pitching who would have paid a prospect price to get Blanton. If that really the best Amaro could do for Lee?

Amaro apparently feels that a Halladay, Hamels, Happ, Blanton rotation will win more games than a Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Happ one. We will see if he knew what he was doing.

If they keep Lee, 1 of the following would have happened:

-He gets out to another hot start, the Phillies trade him, but get TREMENDOUS backlash for breaking up a Halladay-Lee tandem.

-He's not as good as last season, and the Phills try to trade him, but end up trading him for less than they would have in this deal.

-He's not as good as last season, and the Phills try to trade him, but end up keeping him due to not getting an offer as good as this past one. Then, lose him for nothing in Free Agency.

At least now they can say they received Halladay, a better pitcher, as a replacement for losing Lee.

Say what you want, but you have to think this way. They traded Lee, who they knew they wouldn't be able to keep at $23 M per year and got Halladay, a better pitcher, for less money.

They don't have to have any backlash, as they received a better pitcher out of it. They don't have to have any backlash, because of a star for prospects trade. They don't have to have any backlash for it due to losing Lee for nothing.
 
I don't think you understand what I am saying, MoFlo- I am advocating keeping Lee and dealing Blanton. Both are FAs after this year, both are going to be making 8M+ this upcoming season, and both stand a good chance of getting big offers in FA. Blanton would command a couple solid prospects in return himself. The thing is, only one of them is coming off back-to-back excellent years and one of the best playoff runs by a pitcher in the history of baseball, while the other is coming off being pushed back in the rotation by a 41 year old Pedro Martinez. Now you tell me, which one would you rather have for one year? I think the choice is obvious: Cliff Lee.

Phillly has 108M tied up for 2011 in 8 players: Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Halladay, Ibanez, Rollins, Hamels, Lidge, and Polanco. This doesn't even factor in the last arbitration year of Shane Victorino or the contracts of JC Romero and Ryan Madson. The Phllies' payroll this past season was 113M. So the Phils stand a chance of getting nothing for Blanton, too. Ruben has misjudged his window to contend with the club he has, as he stands to either have no money to add guys in 2011, the loss of Blanton/Victorino/Werth or is faced with a fire sale so he can keep those 3. 2010 is the Phillies' time, and Amaro clearly chose one year of Joe Blanton over one year of Cliff Lee. I think this was a critical error and I in a division with a revitalized Braves I think he may have missed his window.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top