The Savior wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:It would be exciting, but I prefer the rumored Victorino/Happ/filler for Wright deal to this one.

Mets prefer Kendrick. Deal is close. We might have to give up a 3rd rounder in 2011, though.

I heard Domingo Santana for Wright and cash (to equal out the salaries so the Phils only owe Wright as much as Santana's minor league deal).

Why would the Jays want Hamels if in a year or 2 he is making 13-15 million ? They refused to pay Doc 20, so you would think they would want younger, cheaper guys, under their control for longer.

GMAN wrote:Why would the Jays want Hamels if in a year or 2 he is making 13-15 million ? They refused to pay Doc 20, so you would think they would want younger, cheaper guys, under their control for longer.

2010 he makes 6 and change, 2011 he makes 9 and change, 2012 he's arb eligible (maybe 11-12 mil coming to him). That's 3 years, 27-28 mil due to him. That's a young guy, on a cheap (for a #2 at worst) contract

Trent Steele wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I wouldn't trade Hamels for Halladay straight up due to salary implications and the like, especially with our current almost brokeness, unless Halladay really wanted to come here and was willing to sign a very reasonable extension. Also trading Hamels for him takes a whole lot of the shine off of it because Joe Blanton is still your number three either way.

i dont think I would either, but I cant deny that i would be really really freaking excited if it happened.

I wouldn't do so either because trading Hamels to get Halladay defeats the purpose of getting Halladay, which is to show the other NL teams Lee/Halladay/Hamels in all our press releases prior to the start of the season, thereby inducing all of them to forfeit the season in quivering fear and making us default NL Champions of 2010.

Seriously, though, I don't see the point of trading Hamels for Halladay. This only make sense as a prospects-for-Halladay to blow shit up with the best rotation in baseball right now sort of way.

mozartpc27 wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I wouldn't trade Hamels for Halladay straight up due to salary implications and the like, especially with our current almost brokeness, unless Halladay really wanted to come here and was willing to sign a very reasonable extension. Also trading Hamels for him takes a whole lot of the shine off of it because Joe Blanton is still your number three either way.

i dont think I would either, but I cant deny that i would be really really freaking excited if it happened.

I wouldn't do so either because trading Hamels to get Halladay defeats the purpose of getting Halladay, which is to show the other NL teams Lee/Halladay/Hamels in all our press releases prior to the start of the season, thereby inducing all of them to forfeit the season in quivering fear and making us default NL Champions of 2010.

Seriously, though, I don't see the point of trading Hamels for Halladay. This only make sense as a prospects-for-Halladay to blow $#@! up with the best rotation in baseball right now sort of way.

Especially whey you have to pay Halladay 100+ mil to ensure you will make up a solid return for Hamels. Pretty a** backwards reasoning when we already have another ace we could pay 100+ mil to keep around, who would not cost the current #2 pitcher

joe table wrote:

The Savior wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:It would be exciting, but I prefer the rumored Victorino/Happ/filler for Wright deal to this one.

Mets prefer Kendrick. Deal is close. We might have to give up a 3rd rounder in 2011, though.

I heard Domingo Santana for Wright and cash (to equal out the salaries so the Phils only owe Wright as much as Santana's minor league deal).

Mets wish they could get DOMINGO for Wright.

The Savior wrote:

joe table wrote:

The Savior wrote:

Houshphandzadeh wrote:It would be exciting, but I prefer the rumored Victorino/Happ/filler for Wright deal to this one.

Mets prefer Kendrick. Deal is close. We might have to give up a 3rd rounder in 2011, though.

I heard Domingo Santana for Wright and cash (to equal out the salaries so the Phils only owe Wright as much as Santana's minor league deal).

Mets wish they could get DOMINGO for Wright.

In order to close the deal, they may be willing to go as far as installing a permanent HD scoreboard at Citi Field showing Chase Utley highlights on a constant loop above Utley's Corner

If you had to go the prospects route, what would you give up ? Taylor, Bastado, Happ & a mid-level prospect. Would that get it done ? You keep Brown and Drabek and Hamels. The problem with keeping Hamels is there is no way you can pay 3 top of the rotation starters.

GMAN wrote:If you had to go the prospects route, what would you give up ? Taylor, Bastado, Happ & a mid-level prospect. Would that get it done ? You keep Brown and Drabek and Hamels. The problem with keeping Hamels is there is no way you can pay 3 top of the rotation starters.

Yeah, it's that last question which makes me think the answer to this thread's title is "No."

it would be EASY to pay 3 top of the rotation starters in 2010.

Hamels = $6.65MM
Lee = $9MM
Halladay = $15.75MM

That's a bargain. Lee & Halladay are free agents after '10 so you keep one of the two in a long term deal.

stevemc wrote:it would be EASY to pay 3 top of the rotation starters in 2010.

Hamels = $6.65MM
Lee = $9MM
Halladay = $15.75MM

That's a bargain. Lee & Halladay are free agents after '10 so you keep one of the two in a long term deal.

Not only that but you'd probably have a much better on read on post-2010 Hamels after next season than you do now.

stevemc wrote:it would be EASY to pay 3 top of the rotation starters in 2010.

Hamels = $6.65MM
Lee = $9MM
Halladay = $15.75MM

That's a bargain. Lee & Halladay are free agents after '10 so you keep one of the two in a long term deal.

I don't think anyone is worried about paying them in 2010.

stevemc wrote:it would be EASY to pay 3 top of the rotation starters in 2010.

Hamels = $6.65MM
Lee = $9MM
Halladay = $15.75MM

That's a bargain. Lee & Halladay are free agents after '10 so you keep one of the two in a long term deal.

I agree that it is workable salary wise for 2010, but let's say they do have 100 mil earmarked for an ace starter. Why not just give it to Lee and hold on to your other assets (Happ, Taylor, Gose whoever would be in the Roy deal).

If you make the trade you are basically saying, I'd rather give up more valuable prospects for the chance to pay Halladay than just pay Lee. Is the cost less than the marginal value of the two pitchers over the 2011-2014 time frame? Unlikely IMO, because as good as Roy is Lee is the f'ing t*ts

There is something to be said for loading up with the 3 for 2010 but then you are getting into the question of if you already have a team with a good playoff shot, how much better of a chance objectively does adding another ace give you in the playoffs, with so many other variables/so much other variance in play in a short series?

jt - your point is valid. I was just saying that the argument of you can't pay 3 top starters doesn't hold water in relation to the 2010 payroll. Keep in mind if you let Halladay or Lee walk - you are getting 2 firsts in return!

stevemc wrote:jt - your point is valid. I was just saying that the argument of you can't pay 3 top starters doesn't hold water in relation to the 2010 payroll. Keep in mind if you let Halladay or Lee walk - you are getting 2 firsts in return!

If we offered both arb and both walked, we could start rebuilding for the post Utley-Howard-Rollins era in a big way.

joe table wrote:

stevemc wrote:it would be EASY to pay 3 top of the rotation starters in 2010.

Hamels = $6.65MM
Lee = $9MM
Halladay = $15.75MM

That's a bargain. Lee & Halladay are free agents after '10 so you keep one of the two in a long term deal.

I agree that it is workable salary wise for 2010, but let's say they do have 100 mil earmarked for an ace starter. Why not just give it to Lee and hold on to your other assets (Happ, Taylor, Gose whoever would be in the Roy deal).

If you make the trade you are basically saying, I'd rather give up more valuable prospects for the chance to pay Halladay than just pay Lee. Is the cost less than the marginal value of the two pitchers over the 2011-2014 time frame? Unlikely IMO, because as good as Roy is Lee is the f'ing t*ts

There is something to be said for loading up with the 3 for 2010 but then you are getting into the question of if you already have a team with a good playoff shot, how much better of a chance objectively does adding another ace give you in the playoffs, with so many other variables/so much other variance in play in a short series?

One thing that you just can't include in the equation is what the Phillies know (or think they know) and what we don't.

Maybe they've been told that Lee has no intention of resigning here after next year or that he fully intends to test the FA market and will sign for nothing less than a Sabathia-like contract?

Maybe they've heard that Halladay wants to come here and would be willing to take a more reasonable deal than what Lee will want?

Maybe they've been told by Hamels' people that he is 100% headed back to the West Coast after 2012?

I mean, probably not, but who knows. It's difficult to judge these types of decisions with incomplete information

and Trent - that is why I say we evaluate what 2010 can give us (i.e. the prospect of having those 3 at the top of the rotation). Regardless, in 2011, you have Drabek & Hamels in the rotation. You then have potentially one of Lee & Halladay and who knows where all our potential minor league prospects are (not to mention Happ).

2011 rotation regardless of Lee or Halladay looks like:

Hamels
Drabek
Happ

That is not a bad base with the prospect of Lee or Halladay mixed in.

jerseyhoya wrote:

stevemc wrote:jt - your point is valid. I was just saying that the argument of you can't pay 3 top starters doesn't hold water in relation to the 2010 payroll. Keep in mind if you let Halladay or Lee walk - you are getting 2 firsts in return!

If we offered both arb and both walked, we could start rebuilding for the post Utley-Howard-Rollins era in a big way.

The rebuilding argument isn't very compelling. If you are saying that the Phils would not spend 100 mil on either pitcher (or really, on both pitchers), then the deal is completely about 2010.

You would not be helping the post 2010 rebuilding effort with the Halladay move because Toronto valued the two or more players you traded for him as clearly better than the same two picks they would have gotten as comp for Halladay. You would obviously rather have that objectively more valuable trade package of prospects than two picks from a rebuilding perspective

That being said I can't call people crazy for wanting to take the risk for 2010 if the cost to acquire Halladay is one of the stud OF prospects, Happ and maybe another intriguign lowball guy. Not Hamels or Drabek though IMO

Still can't get over the fact that we now give the Phils the benefit of the doubt.

I guess I can't include Happ in the future rotation post Halladay if he's in the Halladay deal (oops).