Lee-Halladay-Mariners

Wow! I m impressed with what the Mariners have been able to do. Suddenly, it looks a much better team, with Felix and Lee in the rotation.

The Jays did pretty well, getting Drabek, Taylor (who it appears they are flipping for Wallace) and Travis D'Arnaud (brother of Chase D'Arnaud, high A SS/IF for the Buccos), thanks to the Halladay extension

Is anyone else surprised that the Phillies let Lee go? Seems like a pure salary issue, since the Jays got/are getting prospects from the Phils only. They could have tried to unload Blanton for peanuts as salary relief (since he makes just 2M less than Lee).

And I m sure the thought crossed the Phillies FO's minds. Maybe that says something about the market and willingness of teams to take on salary (with the whole Matt Capps unloading we've been arguing about).

Still seems like the Phils passed up a golden opportunity though to have a Lee-Halladay one-two. Let's see what Halladay can do.

8 months ago BurgherKing 18 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

The interesting thing is that the deal isn’t really a 3 way trade at all. The Mariners and Blue Jays have nothing to do with each other in the trade. For that reason I really don’t understand the Lee part of the deal from the Phillies perspective. I’m sure there were quite a few teams interested in a year of Cliff Lee at $8 million, so I have to wonder if what they got from the Mariners was really the best deal available. They really didn’t get a premier talent in the deal, all of the players have their own question marks. There have definitely been better prospects traded for lesser players with worse deals that Lee.

by ElDuce on Dec 15, 2009 4:56 PM EST reply actions

yeah

i was surprised that the Phils were kinda desperate to unload Lee, since it clearly wasnt important to getting Halladay.

Also, they would have gotten 2 first round picks most likely if Lee walked- and I doubt any of the prospects coming back are that good.

So they gave up 1 year of Lee, Drabek, Taylor and D’Arnaud for 4 years of Halladay plus B prospects. Probably worth it for the extra years, but since the Jays didn’t need Lee, I dont know what the thinking was.

by BurgherKing on Dec 15, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not going to unload on the Phils...

…until I know exactly what they got back for Lee.

by Vlad on Dec 15, 2009 6:09 PM EST up reply actions

What I don't get...

is how the Phils can afford to pay Joe Blanton $6M and JC Romero $3M this year, but can’t afford to pay Cliff Lee $9M. That doesn’t compute for me.

by maguro on Dec 15, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions

what really surprised me (and shouldn’t because i’ve read moneyball) is the way the A’s snuck in on this one at the last minute and made off with michael taylor. well played billy beane.

by johnnycuff on Dec 16, 2009 10:25 AM EST reply actions

It's a very interesting challenge trade.

Of the two, I’d probably rather have Taylor, but it’s close.

by Vlad on Dec 16, 2009 10:34 AM EST up reply actions

The Blue Jays seemed to be desperate for a 3B right now since they traded Rolen towards the end of last year, so that’s why they paid a premium for Wallace

by Adam Reynolds on Dec 16, 2009 11:20 AM EST up reply actions

The question there...

…is whether (and if so, how long) Wallace is able to handle 3B. Right now, he’s kind of in the Pedro Zone.

by Vlad on Dec 16, 2009 11:34 AM EST up reply actions

All I Read

Says Wallace will end up at 1b, no question.

The Jays drafted Wallace out of HS and he didn’t sign, and intended to take him in 2008, but the Cardinals took him 2 places earlier, so the Jays have liked Wallace for quite a while now.

by God Loves on Dec 16, 2009 4:30 PM EST up reply actions

looks like

the Jays are public in that they expect Wallace to be a 1B

by BurgherKing on Dec 16, 2009 5:15 PM EST up reply actions

No way is Wallace a 3B.

1B at best but most likely will be a DH. His D is that bad. The A’s just acquired Fox who is basically the same player. I think this deal worked out well for both teams because I believe Wallace has a higher offensive ceiling.

by Slick1 on Dec 16, 2009 5:07 PM EST up reply actions

And I will add one more time...

I don’t like, or understand, this deal for the Phillies. They aren’t that much better this year than before the trade and they just cleared out three of their top prospects. I think they should have kept Lee and made a run at another series. Surely they could have traded Blanton even if the return was minimal.

by Slick1 on Dec 16, 2009 5:09 PM EST reply actions

You don't think upgrading from Lee to Halladay...

…is conducive to winning another Series?

by Vlad on Dec 17, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions

the most bizarre part in this deal

is that there were 3 2-team deals made with 4 teams involved, which is probably the simplest way to handle a 4-team deal, but extremely unusual, I would think.

by BurgherKing on Dec 16, 2009 5:25 PM EST reply actions

No, not IMO.

Halladay may be the best pitcher in baseball but he isn’t that much of an upgrade over Lee that you can pencil the Phillies in as a world champions. Lee was worth 7.2 and 6.6 WAR in 08 and 09 respectively while Halladay was 7.4 and 7.3. Besides, Halladay will win you what, 2 games in the World Series. After Halladay, I see nothing but a bunch of average pitchers on the Phillies. Well Hammels is above average but he is not in Lee category. Now a Lee and Halladay combo with Hammels as your three starter would have been amazing. The return on investment would have been under one season IMO.

Now what I don’t get is that Ammarro Jr said he made the trade because he didn’t want to empty out his farm system. So he in essence, acuired a half season of Lee for 4 of the Phillies top 10 prospects in 2008. Then he turns around and trades a full season of Lee for 3 Mariner prospects, only one of which was in the Seattle top 10. That doesn’t make sense. I wouldn’t exactly describe that as a replenishment. Besides, the Phillies are a deep system and would have acquired to draft picks for Lee next year and they could have “replenished” their system that way/ I think he should have kept Lee and tried to clear payroll some other way. I personally wouldn’t have given that much money to Polanco but that is a different post altogether. I just don’t get this from the Phillies perspective.

by Slick1 on Dec 17, 2009 5:38 PM EST reply actions

I think the general perception of the Indians-Phils trade is that each of the four prospects the Phils gave up came with pretty decent question marks. The other thing to think about is that Roy’s been doing his work in the big-boy league. I agree with you though: if they wanted to have both of them (and they could have done it) they should have tried to shed salary somewhere else…and as you said, signing Polanco was idiotic.

by NastyNate82 on Dec 17, 2009 6:29 PM EST up reply actions

yho

You forget that Lee came from the Tribe? I agree with you on the

prospects the Indians received but the players that the Mariners gave up have their own question marks.

by Slick1 on Dec 17, 2009 7:20 PM EST reply actions

Doc has been effective for much longer than Lee in the AL was my intended point, my fault for not being clear. His career really has been all over the map in the AL…from being left off the postseason roster in one year to Cy Young the next is quite a trip. Anyone know what changed with him to make him that effective? Everything I read was fastball control, but it seems like it would have to be more than that.
I wonder why teams are hesitant to take the compensation picks and feel they should unload the player promptly. The fear of the unknown in the draft? Knowing that draft picks will take even longer to return on the trade than another team’s minor leaguers?

by NastyNate82 on Dec 17, 2009 11:58 PM EST reply actions