Grotewold wrote:

Squire wrote:

Grotewold wrote:
I think the Lee and Halladay thing, which never a real option because of ownership, is distorting public opinion here.

That's one way of looking at it. I tend to think of it as the Lee and Halladay thing never being a real option because of Rube's mistake on Jamie Moyer's contract last year.

No GM is perfect. And ownership could still approve an extra $9MM in 2010.

True enough.

Monkeyboy wrote:The first post was very similar to about a million other posts in this thread. I was making a post assuming that the trade had gone through as listed in the hour before I went to bed.

this is what is driving me mad. Ye on the 'oh noes' side keep responding to rumoured trade pieces by saying that 'if it's true, rube has been epically thick and had such a hard on for halladay he's fucked the team's future'.

Well, the first time I can understand. and if he did that, I'd react the same. but there is NO EVIDENCE that this is what he's done. And yet those opposed to this trade keep saying the same thing. This makes me feel like I'm having my head repeatedly smacked with a brick. I do not like it. please stop. you have said your piece. feel free to offer more analysis when we see the actual trade. because your reaction to every bad version of the trade is exactly the same. there's no nuance to it. you're not weighing up relative options, unlike, say, JFLNYC or MozartPC. It's not informative. It makes me angry. it is not contributing further to the debate.

Furthermore, I find the basic form of this argument somewhat illogical, based on past evidence. The folk who think he's being fucked sideways with a pitchfork keep assuming that rube is so mad for halladay (and old people in general) that he's just lost his mind. but he could have sold the farm last year for halladay if he felt like that. so why would he do it now? the logic of the argument doesn't hold. I'm not disputing that it couldn't happen. People go mad. People do stupid things. But he's been down this path once, so I feel he's less likely to do so.

Monkeyboy wrote: It reiterates things both FTN and Dajafi said.

but your posts ignore the other things they've said about how strange the proposed deal is in light of previous behaviour and how the announcements of possible pieces aren't consistent and so the rumours make less sense than usual.

puzzling through the possible permutations trying to make sense of truth from rumour is one thing. Shouting again and again that rube has screwed us and he had all the cards and didn't negotiate well when we don't even know the deal is different. and boring. maddeningly boring. frustratingly boring. Another phrase I would use is fucking tedious. to the point of anger. I get your point. I really do. I don't agree with it, I find the argument flawed, and if you keep repeating it and repeating it to make me believe you, I will get more and more pissed off.

Trent Steele wrote:I think we can stop acting like something else is going to happen. We're getting Gilles, Aumont, and a 3rd prospect, probably Ramirez.

I agree with this. We lose Lee, Drabek, Taylor and d'Arnaud and end up with Halladay (extended), Aumont, Gillies, J.C. Ramirez and $6M.

This trade makes us more like the Mets than I have ever wished. One star pitcher, declining position players, and no farm system.

So with Ramirez this seems like at least a little less of a terrible move on Lee?

Still hard to fathom giving up Drabek in the Halladay deal, even if he will sign cheap.

CalvinBall wrote:This trade makes us more like the Mets than I have ever wished. One star pitcher, declining position players, and no farm system.

There is so much speculation and so little information that it makes my head hurt. One thing is for certain is that, if true, I am not fond of the idea of Lou Marson, Carlos Carrasco, Jason Knapp, Jason Donald, Michael Taylor and/or Domonic Brown, catcher Travis d'Arnaud, and, Kyle Drabek for Halladay. Getting some mystery parts back is essential, but 7 prospects is a ton. I know, odds on minor league players, etc., but you would need the expect that 6 of these make it to the show and two could be all star caliber players on the low side of expectations.

CalvinBall wrote:This trade makes us more like the Mets than I have ever wished. One star pitcher, declining position players, and no farm system.

idk that you can say we have no farm system. Recent drafts have been very promising and we did keep Brown.

On paper right now, the prospects we gave up look better than the prospects we got back. You can't say that part is a travesty yet because none of us have any idea how those guys are going to pan out. We'll have to wait and see with that part of it.

thephan wrote:There is so much speculation and so little information that it makes my head hurt. One thing is for certain is that, if true, I am not fond of the idea of Lou Marson, Carlos Carrasco, Jason Knapp, Jason Donald, Michael Taylor and/or Domonic Brown, catcher Travis d'Arnaud, and, Kyle Drabek for Halladay...

...and three prospects from the M's. And the 2009 NL pennant.

Grotewold wrote:

thephan wrote:There is so much speculation and so little information that it makes my head hurt. One thing is for certain is that, if true, I am not fond of the idea of Lou Marson, Carlos Carrasco, Jason Knapp, Jason Donald, Michael Taylor and/or Domonic Brown, catcher Travis d'Arnaud, and, Kyle Drabek for Halladay...

...and three prospects from the M's. And the 2009 NL pennant.

and Ben Francisco!

Most fans don't know or care about prospects. Fans are likely to be unhappy about Lee leaving.

I have reason to believe that the Phils had been negotiating an extension with Lee pretty much as soon as the world series ended. But I would guess Lee wasn't willing to give the phils much, if any discount over what he anticipates he can get as a free agent next year.

Right now, it appears we get Halladay for 3 or more years in exchange for one year of Lee. That is a win, by almost any measure.

The question is which prospects are involved. I know most of us believe that Rube had Toronto over a barrel here, but if the Phils really want two top of the rotation stars for not just 2010, but for the next several years, and there was no guarantee on Lee (and even if the Phils were able to sign Lee, it would cost a lot) then the Phils don't have quite as much leverage as many here imagined.

Woody wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

thephan wrote:There is so much speculation and so little information that it makes my head hurt. One thing is for certain is that, if true, I am not fond of the idea of Lou Marson, Carlos Carrasco, Jason Knapp, Jason Donald, Michael Taylor and/or Domonic Brown, catcher Travis d'Arnaud, and, Kyle Drabek for Halladay...

...and three prospects from the M's. And the 2009 NL pennant.

and Ben Francisco!

And 6 million dollars.

The problem is a pile of cash can't lay down a sacrifice bunt.

Trent Steele wrote:I think we can stop acting like something else is going to happen. We're getting Gilles, Aumont, and a 3rd prospect, probably Ramirez.

Still not buying that drabek is going. And I just don't see any good reason why he's using lee in a straight salary dump, when he could do the same with blanton.

I would feel so much better about this if they had flipped Aumont along with Taylor and D'Arnaud and kept Drabek

Wizlah wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:I think we can stop acting like something else is going to happen. We're getting Gilles, Aumont, and a 3rd prospect, probably Ramirez.

Still not buying that drabek is going. And I just don't see any good reason why he's using lee in a straight salary dump, when he could do the same with blanton.

It's not a straight salary dump. It's partially that, and partially Ruben trying to rebuild the farm from him overpaying for Halladay because he wants him so badly, and needs the extra $6 mil from Toronto to make his budget work.

Drabek could be great. One day. In the future. Maybe. Right now, he's a AA pitcher.

CalvinBall wrote:The problem is a pile of cash can't lay down a sacrifice bunt.

But it can save you 15% or more on your car insurance.

Squire wrote:

Grotewold wrote:

Squire wrote:

Grotewold wrote:
I think the Lee and Halladay thing, which never a real option because of ownership, is distorting public opinion here.

That's one way of looking at it. I tend to think of it as the Lee and Halladay thing never being a real option because of Rube's mistake on Jamie Moyer's contract last year.

No GM is perfect. And ownership could still approve an extra $9MM in 2010.

True enough.

Oddly, I don't think the Lee trade has much to do with finances or the Moyer contract. They could easily clear most of the room for Lee's $9 million in 2010 by trading Blanton. I think it's more that Rube and the FO are reluctant to trade all of the prospects without getting prospects back, which means trading Lee rather than Blanton.

The thing I don't get is why there isn't a Lee auction? Why do these deals have to happen at the same time? Why are we limiting ourselves to Seattle? If it's not really a 3 way trade, it just doesn't make any sense