Phillies realistically in it for Halladay?

by **mcare89** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:50:40

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.

Imagine all the different ways we can draft five toolsy outfielders!

But in all seriousness, the draft pick windfall would be a very nice consolation when one or both would walk.

by **joe table** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:52:28

Trent Steele wrote:
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

You are right that we just don't know, but I find it extremely unlikely that the Phillies have any inside info that Lee would cost more than Halladay in a potential extension.

Even if Lee's agent has confirmed that they're going for top FA dollar, and rumors are around that Roy loves Philly (they would be rumors, not direct talk with the agent since that's tampering), those provide no certainty when they actually get down to the bargaining table with the guy after a trade. A rumor that Roy likes Philly and *may* be willing to sign there for less than his 23+ AAV market value is not the type of info to base such a huge move upon IMO

And I don't really see how Hamels' future relates to the decision....the fact that Hamels would want to leave by 2013 doesn't necessarily give them any more motivation to try to win now because they are worried about how that "loss" would weaken the future team. They only have a handful of players under contract for 2013 anyway so how could they even quantify the impact of Cole's presence/absence as it relates to their decisions for the 2010 team?

Plus I am sure they are going on the assumption that Cole won't necessarily be around in 2013 anyway. I think that is a safe assumption for any FA player really, you have to assume they are gone until you are able to lock them up

by **JFLNYC** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:52:28

For the record, I'm one person who would be at least somewhat concerned about the 2010 payroll. Amaro hinted in something I read that they might allow a one-year spike in payroll, but Halladay plus other things they need to do (3B, bench, bullpen) would bring the 2010 payroll to $150MM easily. Again, though, maybe Rube knows that Moyer is going to retire or he's got something else up his sleeve.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:52:32

joe table wrote:
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

I was being a little sarcastic, and I understand that we'd be giving Toronto more in the deal than we'd get back from two picks. It would make for a nice cushion on the back end though.

If something like Happ, Taylor and take your pick of a prospect or three not named Drabek or Brown can get it done, then I think the chance to be the best NL team in three decades compels you to make that deal. It's all about the ring, and damn we'd have a good shot at one if Rube could pull that off.

by **Shore** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 12:53:37

The key to everything is dealing Ibanez while he still has first-half-driven polish on him.

Taylor plays left, and we have oodles of insurance in Francisco/Brown/Mayberry. We sign Beltre, or even DeRosa for god's sake, and drop Jimmy down... go

Victorino
Utley
Werth
Howard
Beltre
Rollins
Taylor
Ruiz

Beltre + Taylor are $10M cheaper than Ibanez + Feliz; we spend that savings on Halladay, after dealing Happ ++ for him.

Halladay/Lee/Hamels/Blanton/Drabek.
Mathieson in the bullpen with Lidge/Madson/Romero

Long term, you only keep 2 of the 3 stud starters, but for 2010 they are easily affordable.

So where's Ibanez go? White Sox? Cubs? Red Sox?

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:08:49

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.

I think Halladay would be a significant upgrade over Hamels and if you have the chance shouldn't you do it?

by **joe table** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:09:53

All these Halladay scenarios are more than anything making me think how fantastic it would be for the Phillies to be able to lock up Lee this offseason.

I have been keeping the expectation that his agent is going to wait it out and make him the 3rd highest paid pitcher in the game after 2010....but if the Phils could pull it off somehow, it would be glorious. A lot of anxiety about figuring out how to manage the transition with core of the lineup goes out the window when you think about having Lee, Hamels, Happ and Drabek all locked in through 2012

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:10:15

The We Love Jayson Werth Fan Club on Facebook asks, "Would you give up Drabek and Happ for Halliday?"

Most of the responders, who appear to be mostly women, want to keep Happ and trade Hamels. Must be his kissable lips. Or they just started following baseball in June this year.

Pacino invited me to the dumbass fan club.

by **mcare89** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:12:28

jerseyhoya wrote:The We Love Jayson Werth Fan Club on Facebook asks, "Would you give up Drabek and Happ for Halliday?"

Most of the responders, who appear to be mostly women, want to keep Happ and trade Hamels. Must be his kissable lips. Or they just started following baseball in June this year.

Pacino invited me to the dumbass fan club.

Chicks dig the receding hairline.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:15:32

Patricia Mullen Dybalski
NO Happ and Drabek are keepers
39 minutes ago · Report

Stacie Konrad
just get rid of hamels
39 minutes ago · Report

Kelly Gallagher
Keep Happ
37 minutes ago · Report

Lauren Kelly
no way would i give up happ, he's an ace in the making.
32 minutes ago · Report

Rachel Isanski
keep Happ, get rid of hammels
31 minutes ago · Report

Karla Rosenberg Taylor
NO!!!! Get rid of Hamels!!!!
31 minutes ago · Report

Monica Bellino
Hell no! Happ is amazing & Drabek is one of the best prospects around. Day 1 Ruben said he would not trade happ for halliday & it's not gonna happen now
29 minutes ago · Report

Tammy Snow Cornelius
No Effin' Way. We are on our way to another world series with the team we have. I would think about benching Hamels until he gets out of his slump.
9 minutes ago · Report

by **joe table** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:17:34

They're all just bitter and jealous because Heidi has a bigger rack than them

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:34:14

Bob Truhan
keep happ can hammels
9 minutes ago · Report

A guy has jumped on board.

I'm reporting it because I'm fair, balanced and unafraid.

by **kimbatiste** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:34:50

joe table wrote:They're all just bitter and jealous because Heidi has a bigger rack than them

Please, please let SchillingFan respond to this.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:36:07

kimbatiste wrote:
joe table wrote:They're all just bitter and jealous because Heidi has a bigger rack than them

Please, please let SchillingFan respond to this.

Why?

by **Bakestar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:37:20

I'd almost forgotten how neurotic and retarded this fanbase can be but for WFC.

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:41:18

The guy's name is Hamels not hammels, and he was the NLCS and WS MVP in 2008. He won this city its first championship in 25 years. In the 2008 playoffs, the Phillies won 11 games, Hamels started five of them. But by all means keep a "rookie" who is 14 months older than Cole and has limited stuff, instead of him. Jesus a lot of Philly fans are stupid, reactionary people.

Tempted to post this

by **SideshowBob** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:42:09

My quick thoughts...

1. I'd be nervous about the 2010 payroll. If they could add Roy's salary and make it work, hey awesome.

2. IMHO, the reason you trade for Halladay is so you can sign either Halladay or Lee for after 2010 and let the otehr walk for draft picks. Sign the one with the more reasonable deal or better projection looking forward (or hopefully both features).

3. No way you trade Hamels in a Halladay deal. Yes, you can trade Happ -- not that I'm opposed to keeping and using Happ who I think would be a good #3/4 pitcher, but his trade value has got to be pretty high right now.

4. We are probably "interested" in Halladay just to ensure that the asking price is as high as possible if indeed the Mets or Dodgers, whomever, trade for him.

by **Bakestar** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:42:48

jerseyhoya wrote:
The guy's name is Hamels not hammels, and he was the NLCS and WS MVP in 2008. He won this city its first championship in 25 years. In the 2008 playoffs, the Phillies won 11 games, Hamels started five of them. But by all means keep a "rookie" who is 14 months older than Cole and has limited stuff, instead of him. Jesus a lot of Philly fans are stupid, reactionary people.

Tempted to post this

::LIKES THIS::

by **FTN** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:43:07

5 pages in a few hours.

we're rounding back into form

by **jerseyhoya** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 13:43:52

All I needed was a little encouragement from someone

Archived

Phillies realistically in it for Halladay?

Will the Phillies realistically try to trade for Halladay?