Comments on: Taking a step back, our Top 10 now

By: bergeraj

bergeraj — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:12:14 +0000

Look I agree with just about everyone in saying this trade was bad. Here’s some things that could have happened instead and worked out WAY better.

#1. Dont take money back and send less prospects maybe just Drabek and D’Arnaud plus another B prospect. This would require us to trade Blanton for whatever just to free up 7 mil. We can argue all day what the prospects would be in the $6mil wasnt included. IMO Drabek was a must.

#2. Keep Lee forget about Halladay till next year since being a Phillie is “DREAM COME TRUE” let Lee walk while Nabbing 2 draft picks. We might have add to give a little more to Halladay but thats the price of keeping out prospects.

#3. Once again we can all argue this but BP and some at BA feel we gave Lee away at $.70 on the $. Is this really the best deal we could get? Or are these just the prospects our Scouts wanted? IMO these are the guys that the Phills wanted all along. Perhaps another team (Angels) could have given HIGHER Rated prospects but did our Scouts really like them more than what we got from Sea?

#4. Sign Lee to some sort of deal (but not as favorable that Halladay got) Also sign Halladay in next years FA class. Depending on how this year is for Hamels trade him for HUGE collection of prospects to help comp the losing of our #1 pick and save $ and build more for future.

All in All I would have preferred to take the #2 approach but we dont really know what was going on in this deal. Lee also said he wanted to be a Phillie for the rest of his MLB life. Thats 2 CY #1 Stud pitchers that wanted to be a Phillie till death do us part which is a very good sign of where this team is.

By: Steve Jeltz

Steve Jeltz — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:01:11 +0000

I am just as guilty as others when I expressed dismay at Lee being traded. I wanted to see Halladay, Hamels, and Lee together. In that rotation, I would project as a good #4 starter.
But seriously, think back 5-10-15 years ago at what a prospect list would look like for the Phils. Remember the days where Rich Schu, Tori Luvullo, Kevin Sefcik, et al were in our top few prospects? That is why the team was bad for so long. Seriously! Look how far we have come. The team has been drafting athletes, who have the ability to rise to levels that were unfamiliar in the past system. I expect the 3 guys they brought in to be in that mold. Looking at the writeups on all 3, they look like they have potential. Our guys have been doing a good job developing talent. Let’s keep doing it. As far as Aumont is concerned, I feel it is about time we develop a closer to replace Lidge. We had to shell out major bucks to fill that position.
I will be happy with seeing Halladay in red for many years. No way Lee was signing for less than 6 years and the Phils don’t like to go that far. You cannot fault them for not wanting an albatross of a contract similar to Zito or Hampton hanging out there. Plus, after 2011-2012, we will need to have a plan to fill the void of guys moving on: Ibanez, Rollins, Polanco, Werth, Howard, Lidge, etc.
Roy Halladay wanted to be a Phillie! Let that sink it a bit. The top pitcher in MLB wanted to come here. That is great to hear. We have a team on the field good enough to win again. Let’s fortify the bullpen. Now the focus goes to Hamels, Happ and Blanton. Hamels needs to be the guy of 08, while the other two need to step up a bit more.

By: Montyburns130

Montyburns130 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:38:11 +0000

What does bias have to do with any of this? It is certainly debatable, but I like the guys we sent to Cleveland more than the guys we got from Seattle. Our guys were further along in most cases and all projected as regulars. Carrasco projects as a starter. Maybe we would have traded him for Aumont, but it is debateable. Starters are way more valuable than relievers. Is there anyone who would take Ramirez over Knapp? No one that I’ve spoken with. And how about the position players…Gillies vs. Marson & Donald – no way we would have made that trade. Yes we got a half season of Lee, but we should have just made the trade for Halladay and kept our Cleveland prospects. That’s my point.

But there is no bias. I like Heyward more than I like Dom Brown. I like Wieters more than I like Marson. We are talking about trading assets, it’s not personal at all.

By: Murray

Murray — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:19:15 +0000

Would Philly trade the 4 picks we sent to Cleveland for the 3 picks we got from Seattle??? I don’t think that’s as easy a decision as you make it out to be due to hometown bias. I have a hunch that the Seattle 3 will have a higher upside than the Cleveland 4.

By: Montyburns130

Montyburns130 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:11:41 +0000

The Garcia trade was terrible. Three years is not that long ago. The same people in the front office were involved. All that being said, you win some and you lose some. I hated that trade, but you can’t come out on top in every trade that you make. My point is that they have gotten burned before (and badly once you factor in the $10MM we paid to fat Freddy).

The last time we traded an all-star for prospects was three and a half years ago, also not that long ago. We traded Abreu/Lidle for a bag of balls. That was a terrible trade. We essentially dumped salary. Again, the same guys in the front office made that trade. I’m concerned that this Lee trade is going to end with the same result. How can you trade a top 10 pitcher in baseball with a favorable contract and not get one of the other teams top 4 prospects in return? Would you trade Donald/Marson/Carrasco/Knapp today for the guys we got from Seattle? No way.

And I’m waiting for a reasonable explanation on how it makes sense to trade Drabek, Taylor, D’arnoud now for Halladay when we weren’t willing to make the same trade in July. If you like that trade, then you have to acknowledge that we should have made it last July and won a 2nd world series. The fact that not making this trade last July was a huge mistke is something that no one seems to be talking about.