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?

Uh, exactly. The whole POINT is to get Halladay, Lee, and Hamels on the same staff. If we're just switching Lee for Halladay, then why would we give up anybody good for the privilege of doing so?

mozartpc27 wrote:If we're just switching Lee for Halladay, then why would we give up anybody good for the privilege of doing so?

You mean other than Halladay being better and more likely to sign long-term?

Yankees will get halladay

realKen is tweeting the Lackey deal should be comparable to Burnett's (5 year, $82.5MM = $16.5MM per).

stevemc wrote:realKen is tweeting the Lackey deal should be comparable to Burnett's (5 year, $82.5MM = $16.5MM per).

i read this first as 'bruntlett's deal' and laughed it off

Trent Steele wrote:Yankees will get halladay

Nope

I get that this would effectively rule out the Red Sox, but wouldn't this make the Angels sweeten the offer to get Halladay and also put more pressure on the Yanks to counter? I'm not entirely sure this was a 100% positive development.

laf837 wrote:I get that this would effectively rule out the Red Sox, but wouldn't this make the Angels sweeten the offer to get Halladay and also put more pressure on the Yanks to counter? I'm not entirely sure this was a 100% positive development.

Id cross the Angels off the list.

Because while Halladay might approve a trade there to play out 2010, he doesn't want to sign with a West Coast team. And the Angels aren't giving up 2 MLB regulars plus one of their better prospects (in a weak system) to get 1 year of Halladay. They're going to want an extension, and he won't sign one there.

mozartpc27 wrote:Uh, exactly. The whole POINT is to get Halladay, Lee, and Hamels on the same staff. If we're just switching Lee for Halladay, then why would we give up anybody good for the privilege of doing so?

There's more than one objective.

The first objective is, as you note, to try and get both Lee and Halladay for 2010. A second objective is to have at least one of them in 2011 and beyond. Obviously you try to achieve both objectives, if possible. But, there are obstacles and variables. And that's where things get complicated.

First variable: Can the Phils sign Lee long-term? If so, then they're probably not going to sign Halladay long-term since they can probably afford only one of them long-term. IMO, if they were confident they could do so, they wouldn't be interested in Halladay for just one year. The cost in prospects would be too great. Leaving aside finances for a moment, from everything we've heard so far, Lee is planning to become a FA, but Halladay seems more interested in signing an extension with the right team (e.g., the Phillies vs. the Angels).

So let's assume that RAJ believes Lee will leave after 2010 but that, if he acquires Halladay, he's got a good shot at signing the latter long-term. The Jays have made it clear that they'll allow teams to talk extension with Halladay prior to completing a trade, so RAJ can turn this variable into a certainty (one way or the other) before he's got to pull the trigger on a trade. Let's further assume that RAJ is able to come to an agreement with Halladay that, if he's traded, he'll sign a long-term extension.

So far, so good. It looks as though RAJ will be able to meet both objectives. But now come two major obstacles: (1) Having the right players to trade for Halladay; and (2) the 2010 payroll. In an ideal world, the Phils have the players and the owners agree to raise the payroll (if only for 2010) to ~$155MM (They're already at ~$136.5MM, Halladay would take them to ~152MM and they'll still need another reliever and/or starter).

Let's further assume that the Phils have the right players but that ownership has told RAJ that he's got to shave some payroll to accommodate Halladay -- maybe not the full $15.75MM Halladay will make in 2010, but some significant portion of it. From everything we've been hearing, this seems a likely assumption (although, again, if ownership is willing to expand the payroll, it's a non-issue).

So, how does RAJ go about shaving some payroll? Without going into all the reasons, I think it's safe to say that the two most likely candidates to be moved are Victorino and/or Blanton. If RAJ can move them then, once again, no problem. The Phils have the prospects, RAJ has shaved some payroll, he can meet both objectives.

But, what if the Jays are (1) insisting on getting one or more prospects not currently in the Phillies system; and/or (2) RAJ can't move Victorino/Blanton either to acquire the right prospects or he can't move them at all except for essentially nothing? He's then got one possible card to play: Trading Lee. Lee will fetch better prospects than either Vic or Blanton and has a higher salary than either.

Let's be clear in our assumptions: RAJ doesn't want to trade Lee. He, like us, wants both Lee and Halladay in the 2010 rotation. But, faced with not being able to work the right deal(s) involving Vic and/or Blanton, he comes to the conclusion that the only way to get the prospect(s) the Jays want and/or the only way to shave payroll is to trade Lee.

In such a situation, he asks himself: If I can only meet one of my two original objectives, which do I choose? The answer seems easy. He chooses the second objective and does so for at least two good reasons:

(1) If he can't get the right prospects and/or shave payroll any other way than by trading Lee, he's not going to meet either objective. Without surmounting those obstacles, he doesn't get Halladay anyway, so he can't meet his first objective of having both in the 2010 rotation.

(2) If he has to choose between the two, he realizes it's essentially a clear equation: Halladay 2010-2015 > Lee 2010. Of course, it's not quite that simple because he's got to give up prospects to get Halladay. OTOH, he will get prospects in return for Lee -- probably not as good as those he'll have to give up for Halladay, but enough to effectively lower the prospect price for Halladay. In fact, he might even be able to get enough for Lee that he can avoid having to include Brown or Taylor or maybe even Happ to get Halladay.

And that's the reason RAJ might consider trading Lee to get Halladay. He doesn't want to do so. If at all possible he'll try to avoid trading Lee and still: (a) give the Jays the prospects they desire; and (2) meet his payroll concerns. But, if there's no other way, he'll trade Lee to get Halladay because, although it clearly doesn't help as much in 2010 as having both of them, it's far more beneficial to have Halladay in 2011 and beyond than to have neither.

RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ
RAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJRAJ

Wouldn't we get four picks if we traded for Halladay and both left in 2011? That's not the worst thing in the world especially if we win the WS in 2010.

When did ptk learn to hack accounts?

How much does payroll have to be shaved? Blanton's 7M? Would Halladay, as part of a contract extension, defer 7M of his 2010 salary over the life of the rest of the deal? Say he signs a 4 year extension, he gets an extra 2M per for those years.

Get Roy, keep JoeBla, keep Vic, keep Lee, no massive 3 way trade deals or shedding other salary.

Win win.

philliesphhan wrote:Wouldn't we get four picks if we traded for Halladay and both left in 2011? That's not the worst thing in the world especially if we win the WS in 2010.

I believe we would. And, yes, that's not the worst outcome. But I believe RAJ wants to have either Lee or Halladay as an anchor starter beyond 2010. Of course, I could be wrong. But I just don't see him trading for both and then letting them both walk.

philliesphhan wrote:Wouldn't we get four picks if we traded for Halladay and both left in 2011? That's not the worst thing in the world especially if we win the WS in 2010.

Plus 2 for Werth and at least 1 for Blanton.

Amaro would probably decline arbitration so he doesn't have to sign extra picks.

lethal wrote:How much does payroll have to be shaved? Blanton's 7M? Would Halladay, as part of a contract extension, defer 7M of his 2010 salary over the life of the rest of the deal? Say he signs a 4 year extension, he gets an extra 2M per for those years.

Get Roy, keep JoeBla, keep Vic, keep Lee, no massive 3 way trade deals or shedding other salary.

Win win.

I think that's a very creative (and great) suggestion and it wouldn't surprise me at all if RAJ tries to make that happen.

Frankly, I'd much rather have Lee in his prime in 2010 along with a core in their prime than an aging Halladay in 2012 and beyond on a team without Howard, Rollins, Hamels, Ibanez, and Werth potentially.

JFLNYC wrote:

lethal wrote:How much does payroll have to be shaved? Blanton's 7M? Would Halladay, as part of a contract extension, defer 7M of his 2010 salary over the life of the rest of the deal? Say he signs a 4 year extension, he gets an extra 2M per for those years.

Get Roy, keep JoeBla, keep Vic, keep Lee, no massive 3 way trade deals or shedding other salary.

Win win.

I think that's a very creative (and great) suggestion and it wouldn't surprise me at all if RAJ tries to make that happen.

I don't think a trade of Lee instead of Blanton has anything to do with $2 million in 2010 (i.e. the difference in Blanton and Lee's 2010 salaries). It's an issue of giving up the prospects. Trading Lee (instead of Blanton) to keep Taylor would be a pretty strong signal about the OF who is not going to be re-signed in 2011.

I have an idea.

Lets keep Lee, trade Blanton, get Halladay, and try to win in 2010. Then lets extend Halladay, who loves us, and let Lee leave for 2 draft picks. Then lets worry about Werth after the parade, and worry about the rest of the team after that.

Amaro is a smug bastard. He'll figure it out. I want to win everything in 2010. And with the team the Yankees have built/are building, we're going to need the best rotation possible.

BIG PELF to Toronto, Howard to Mets, Murphy and Halladay to Phils. What we lose in power we make up for in money and unathletic intensity.