by joe table » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:46:28
lowcountry wrote:I know it's a dead horse, but I just don't see why the Phils should have to give up Lee *and* good prospects for a guy that's leaving Toronto at the end of the year and has told them to trade him by spring training or suck it.
by Wizlah » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:48:25
bleh wrote:Wizlah wrote:bleh wrote:BigEd76 wrote:bleh wrote:1 year of Halladay (on a not so cheap 2010 contract)
4 years, possibly 6
That has nothing to do with the trade though, it's between the Phils and Halladay.
you don't get the opportunity to negotiate one on one with halladay with no other suitors bidding up the price unless you make it a condition of the trade. so it's everything to do with the trade.
ok so what do we get for giving up the right to do that with Lee?
by HillMD » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:48:30
joe table wrote:We have to be getting Downs or Frasor (both walk years) in this deal, IMO
by PTOITWCFTPP » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:49:09
An agreement is now in place to send Roy Halladay to the Phillies, Cliff Lee to the Mariners, and prospects to the Blue Jays, major-league sources confirmed to FOXSports.com.
The sources said Phillipe Aumont — a Canadian right-hander — is among the players headed from Seattle to Toronto in the deal; the source added the Philadelphia is expected to send one of its outfield prospects, possibly Michael Taylor, to the Blue Jays.
Outfielder Michael Saunders and right-hander Brandon Morrow were also among the Seattle prospects in play.
It wasn't immediately clear how many players would be included in the deal. One person familiar with the talks said he didn't anticipate an announcement on Monday, an indication that the customary review of medical records is not yet complete.
by joe table » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:49:19
HillMD wrote:joe table wrote:We have to be getting Downs or Frasor (both walk years) in this deal, IMO
Could be, since their relief corps is deep. Downs, Frasor, League or Carlson all would be very valuable in our bullpen.
by phorever » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:49:42
Warszawa wrote:I don't think this deal should be a reason for Phillies fans to be real happy in terms of winning of winning a World Series. Cliff Lee was as dominating as a pitcher can get in WS and the Phillies still couldn't beat the Yankees.
by kimbatiste » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:50:13
bleh wrote:Wizlah wrote:bleh wrote:BigEd76 wrote:bleh wrote:1 year of Halladay (on a not so cheap 2010 contract)
4 years, possibly 6
That has nothing to do with the trade though, it's between the Phils and Halladay.
you don't get the opportunity to negotiate one on one with halladay with no other suitors bidding up the price unless you make it a condition of the trade. so it's everything to do with the trade.
ok so what do we get for giving up the right to do that with Lee?
by Wizlah » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:50:18
lowcountry wrote:I know it's a dead horse, but I just don't see why the Phils should have to give up Lee *and* good prospects for a guy that's leaving Toronto at the end of the year and has told them to trade him by spring training or suck it.
by Stay_Disappointed » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:50:37
ek wrote:Warszawa wrote:I don't think this deal should be a reason for Phillies fans to be real happy in terms of winning of winning a World Series. Cliff Lee was as dominating as a pitcher can get in WS and the Phillies still couldn't beat the Yankees.
The best scenario was for the Phillies to get Halladay in addition to Lee and Hamels. As far as winning the World Series in 2010 the Phillies are no better off than they were last season based on Lee's 2009 post season performance (although they are in a much better position for the next 3 years).
agree if hamels is hamels of 2009. the team thinks he'll be back to before and that would give them the shot they need. that's what the team thinks
by HillMD » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:51:57
joe table wrote:HillMD wrote:joe table wrote:We have to be getting Downs or Frasor (both walk years) in this deal, IMO
Could be, since their relief corps is deep. Downs, Frasor, League or Carlson all would be very valuable in our bullpen.
Yep, and League and Carlson are the cheaper/more controllable of the 4, so you figure they'd want to hold on to them instead of the expiring guys
by S2D » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:55:44
Wizlah wrote:lowcountry wrote:I know it's a dead horse, but I just don't see why the Phils should have to give up Lee *and* good prospects for a guy that's leaving Toronto at the end of the year and has told them to trade him by spring training or suck it.
because we also don't have the money. we'd love to believe we could take the extra 10 mill, but rube wouldn't be doing all this if we didn't have the 140 mill cap.
by drsmooth » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:56:33
HillMD wrote:It's frustrating that Toronto has 4 studs in their pen. I'd take League instead of any prospects and call it a night, if they'd do that.
by Rev_Beezer » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:58:28
by joe table » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:58:50
S2D wrote:Wizlah wrote:lowcountry wrote:I know it's a dead horse, but I just don't see why the Phils should have to give up Lee *and* good prospects for a guy that's leaving Toronto at the end of the year and has told them to trade him by spring training or suck it.
because we also don't have the money. we'd love to believe we could take the extra 10 mill, but rube wouldn't be doing all this if we didn't have the 140 mill cap.
If this was really about money, why wouldn't we just trade Blanton? You wouldn't have gotten anything for him, but you'd have cleared enough salary to keep Lee. This deal was about keeping our prospects, which is fine btw; but I believe we would have been able to do that anyway if we had just waited out the Jays. They had no options what so ever.
by S2D » Mon Dec 14, 2009 19:58:58
Warszawa wrote:ek wrote:Warszawa wrote:I don't think this deal should be a reason for Phillies fans to be real happy in terms of winning of winning a World Series. Cliff Lee was as dominating as a pitcher can get in WS and the Phillies still couldn't beat the Yankees.
The best scenario was for the Phillies to get Halladay in addition to Lee and Hamels. As far as winning the World Series in 2010 the Phillies are no better off than they were last season based on Lee's 2009 post season performance (although they are in a much better position for the next 3 years).
agree if hamels is hamels of 2009. the team thinks he'll be back to before and that would give them the shot they need. that's what the team thinks
This is strictly a long term trade. Hamels better develop or all is lost.
by Wizlah » Mon Dec 14, 2009 20:00:16
S2D wrote:Wizlah wrote:lowcountry wrote:I know it's a dead horse, but I just don't see why the Phils should have to give up Lee *and* good prospects for a guy that's leaving Toronto at the end of the year and has told them to trade him by spring training or suck it.
because we also don't have the money. we'd love to believe we could take the extra 10 mill, but rube wouldn't be doing all this if we didn't have the 140 mill cap.
If this was really about money, why wouldn't we just trade Blanton? You wouldn't have gotten anything for him, but you'd have cleared enough salary to keep Lee. This deal was about keeping our prospects, which is fine btw; but I believe we would have been able to do that anyway if we had just waited out the Jays. They had no options what so ever.
