The OLD Halladay/Smug thread is HERE

by **philliesphhan** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 20:30:16

Monkeyboy wrote:
lethal wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:Yeh, if the Big 3 sgtay healthy, the 4 and 5 spots are manned by the Kenrick.Moyer/Lopez's of the world, and the offense also stays healthy, I think 95 games is a good expectation. But if Halladay goes down and 3 of 5 spots are mediocre, then we could slide below 90 games. And the Braves will be right around 89-92, imho.

It's sacrificing depth for quality. It's risky, but it could turn out fine. If they make it to the playoffs and the big 3 guys are healthy, then it's definitely worth the gamble. I'm just not sure I would do it, unless we can hold onto Happ.

How many games did the Yankees win last season with basically a 3 man rotation? Didn't they win over a hundred games and a world series with CC, AJ, Pettitte and junk?

tbf, their bullpen was significantly better and their offense was moderately better. Plus, my whole point, if you look back at my posts, was that we would be in trouble if one of our big 3 went down, which isn't that unlikely with Halladay's workload and Hamels' elbow. The Yanks stayed healthy. Give us their bullpen and a guarantee that our big 3 will stay as healthy as theirs did and I would say 100+ games and a very good chance at a wfc.

You could say that about any team, and most teams big 3 aren't anywhere near as good.

by **Monkeyboy** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 23:05:49

philliesphhan wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:
lethal wrote:
Monkeyboy wrote:Yeh, if the Big 3 sgtay healthy, the 4 and 5 spots are manned by the Kenrick.Moyer/Lopez's of the world, and the offense also stays healthy, I think 95 games is a good expectation. But if Halladay goes down and 3 of 5 spots are mediocre, then we could slide below 90 games. And the Braves will be right around 89-92, imho.

It's sacrificing depth for quality. It's risky, but it could turn out fine. If they make it to the playoffs and the big 3 guys are healthy, then it's definitely worth the gamble. I'm just not sure I would do it, unless we can hold onto Happ.

How many games did the Yankees win last season with basically a 3 man rotation? Didn't they win over a hundred games and a world series with CC, AJ, Pettitte and junk?

tbf, their bullpen was significantly better and their offense was moderately better. Plus, my whole point, if you look back at my posts, was that we would be in trouble if one of our big 3 went down, which isn't that unlikely with Halladay's workload and Hamels' elbow. The Yanks stayed healthy. Give us their bullpen and a guarantee that our big 3 will stay as healthy as theirs did and I would say 100+ games and a very good chance at a wfc.

You could say that about any team, and most teams big 3 aren't anywhere near as good.

But as presently constructed, this team is good enough to win even if one of our top 3 go down because we have so much depth.

I would rather trade Victorino and Blanton to get the extra pieces needed for Halladay and keep Happ to maintain more depth. I think Taylor and Francisco could take Victorino's ABs without losing too much. That would free up the money needed for Halladay while keeping the extra starter to help protect against injury. I would love to add Halladay if the situation is right.

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 09:45:11

maybe rosenthal wasnt talking out his ass

More Halladay talk

The Jays discussed a three-way deal which would see Roy Halladay wind up with the Philadelphia Phillies, lefty Cliff Lee go to the Seattle Mariners and prospects come to the Rogers Centre, according to FOX Sports.

Like Halladay, Lee is a former Cy Young Award winner with a year left on his contact, but the report said the initial meeting with Lee's agent, Darek Braunecker, last week in Indianapolis, did not go well.

There would be a horde of prospects for the Jays to choose from: Shortstop Carlos Triunfel, catcher Adam Moore, former No. 1 pick Phillippe Aumont, a pitcher from Gatineau, Que., and outfielder Michael Saunders of Victoria, B.C.

After seeing how well fans failed to storm the gates to see Corey Koskie of Anola, Man., the Jays' mandate will be to obtain the best players, not the best Canadians. That's the way business was conducted in August, as the Jays failed to come to terms with lefty James Paxton of Ladner, B.C., selected 37th overall and Newmarket lefty Jake Eliopoulos (68th).

The Philllies could move two minor-league outfielders, either Dominic Brown or Michael Taylor.

Sounds like the workings of a good deal for both the Phillies and the Jays. Seattle? Not so much.

Toronto Sun

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 09:49:42

ek wrote:well it says according to fox sports

yes, but the Mariners were not identified in the Rosenthal article. I dont know where that came from but Elliott is in the know.

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 09:51:01

Trent Steele wrote:
ek wrote:well it says according to fox sports

yes, but the Mariners were not identified in the Rosenthal article. I dont know where that came from but Elliott is in the know.

wait, I am wrong. It does mention Seattle

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 09:51:39

So, I guess you can just read this as Elliott being lazy. Nevermind.

by **lethal** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:35:44

I've always thought Seattle was a good trade partner. They're on the cusp of playoff contention and have some interesting prospects plus some salary room with Johjima going back to Japan.

Victorino in LF would give them the best defensive OF, maybe ever. They have a OF named Saunders that they like a lot though. They could use some SPs, so Blanton would be a guy they might be interested in, but Lee would really be a get. If we could swing Triunfel out of the deal while putting Taylor, it'd be a great swap of prospects at positions of need (Rollins won't be around forever and Polanco...who knows).

by **Grotewold** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:39:28

Halladay talk a hoax to steal Eagles' thunder

by **philliesr98** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:02:43

wait, why would we want to trade Lee for Halladay, AND give up taylor, drabek or brown?

im not understanding, someone explain what is so great about this scenario?

by **lowcountry** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:09:44

I'm sorry, but I say fark any Halladay trade that includes Lee. That's just madness.

If that's the only way to get Halladay, just try and get him next year.

by **Grotewold** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:11:56

I don't get that at all. Halladay is at least a little better in 2010, and if we acquire him it probably means we signed him long-term.

by **dajafi** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:14:22

philliesr98 wrote:wait, why would we want to trade Lee for Halladay, AND give up taylor, drabek or brown?

im not understanding, someone explain what is so great about this scenario?

The logic is that you'd have Halladay beyond 2010. It makes some sense, but I'm pretty sure I agree with you: the point is to have the best shot to win in 2010, before the lineup core starts to get old.

by **philliesr98** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:29:19

Yea I get the fact that if we trade for Halladay we would have him a bit longer, but i dont think that is worth giving up any of elite near ready prospects. Lets just hope he hits free agency and we can sign him instead of trading for him, if not o well, try and sign cliff lee...

by **joe table** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:32:25

philliesr98 wrote:Yea I get the fact that if we trade for Halladay we would have him a bit longer, but i dont think that is worth giving up any of elite near ready prospects. Lets just hope he hits free agency and we can sign him instead of trading for him, if not o well, try and sign cliff lee...

I think that the assumption throughout this discussion is that the Phillies would be willing/able to lock down a Halladay extension, but less so a Lee extension. I think that is a flawed assumption since I think Halladay will ask for and end up getting more money (definitely higher AAV) in his next contract than Lee...so if the Phillies really can afford Halladay, then they'd be able to afford Lee too

by **Grotewold** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:32:25

philliesr98 wrote:Lets just hope he hits free agency and we can sign him instead of trading for him, if not o well, try and sign cliff lee...

The problem is neither of those scenarios is likely IMO.

Now is the time to get Halladay.

by **Trent Steele** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:58:45

Lee won't be doing a discounted deal
Phillies GM Ruben Amaro met in Indianapolis with Darek Braunecker, the agent for superstar pitcher Cliff Lee. Those discussions were very preliminary and included opening-type questions such as, "Would Cliff consider a long-term deal to stay in Philadelphia?'' (answer: yes). But word is, the star who dominated the 2009 postseason (4-0, 1.56) will be taking "no discount.''

That is no reflection on what Lee thinks of Philly (he likes it) but more reflective that he is 1) maybe the best bargain in baseball at $9 million for 2010, 2) he's made more than $25 million in his big league career, and doesn't need to worry about "security," and 3) he's only a year away from free agency, which means a monster payday.

With all that in mind, Lee is expected to seek about $23 million a year, which is the annual pay of Johan Santana and CC Sabathia, though Lee wouldn't expect the seven years Sabathia received as a 28-year-old signing in New York. (The small-market Indians received some ridicule for losing both pitchers, but they should get credit for treating both star pitchers with kid gloves early, as both remain as healthy as possible.)

There has been some buzz around baseball that the Phillies might consider trading Lee, possibly in a three-way deal to acquire Halladay, but while that isn't completely farfetched, it isn't exactly a likelihood, either. The Phillies are said by sources to be "quietly'' pursuing Halladay, and they may believe they have a slightly better chance of locking him up than Lee since Halladay is believed to prefer to train on the West Coast of Florida. Even so, there's no indication Halladay wants to take a big discount deal either, and three-way trades certainly aren't easy

heyman

by **my cousin mose** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 13:08:32

evidently, ed price @ aol fanhouse is 'tweeting' that john lackey is slated to have a physical for the red sox; which would likely mean a deal is pending. i don't have a twitter account (nor do i care to) so i can't direct quote it or anything, but it was being discussed on power alley on xm radio just now while i was at lunch. i post this here b/c i've got to think that if this comes to fruition, it takes the sawks out of the roy halladay running, no?

by **CrashburnAlley** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 13:11:53

^

Ed Price:

Source: Free-agent P John Lackey to take physical with #RedSox. Bos apparently moving on to 2nd choice after Jason Bay. Working to confirm.

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 13:13:40

CrashburnAlley wrote:^

Ed Price:

Source: Free-agent P John Lackey to take physical with #RedSox. Bos apparently moving on to 2nd choice after Jason Bay. Working to confirm.

cross your fingers on this one

by **my cousin mose** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 13:16:17

CrashburnAlley wrote:^

Ed Price:

Source: Free-agent P John Lackey to take physical with #RedSox. Bos apparently moving on to 2nd choice after Jason Bay. Working to confirm.

my man.

i'm all for getting halladay, keeping lee, and all other forms of smuggy domination. i'm not too open to the idea of trading lee; but i feel pretty confident in saying that pfifer probably isn't getting $25M/year here, so maybe it's not as bad as i thought

Archived

The OLD Halladay/Smug thread is HERE