New York Nine

This is old news at this point, but I figured I'd throw a few thoughts and concerns about the recent trade involving Seattle, Philly and Toronto for Roy Halladay and Cliff Lee moving forward. For those who don't know, the Phils landed Halladay by sending Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor, and Travis D'Arnaud to Toronto, and Seattle got Cliff Lee by sending Phillip Aumont, Tyson Gillies, and Juan Ramizez and for the life of me I don't understand why all parties made this deal. Don't get me wrong, Seattle made out like bandits, giving away three guys all pitchers who are incredibly unremarkable prospects for a Cy Young winner at the top of his game, and Toronto I understand they needed to move Halladay, but it's Philly that I just don't get. Now for those who have been following the Halladay to Phils rumors of the previous summer, the whole time you heard over and over how the Phillies weren't going to give up their top prospects like Michael Taylor and Kyle Drabek for Halladay and in fact they were lauded by the media for refusing to "give in" and give these guys away for the former Cy Young Winner. So instead the Phils gave up another three prospects to get the lesser sought-after Cliff Lee, who as we know amazed everyone with utterly dominating performances pretty much every time out in the postseason, culminating in a complete game in Game One of the World Series. To be sure, Cliff Lee with his sub 1 ERA in the playoffs was about as good as could be. But then after unsuccessful negoiatitions with Lee to sign a long term deal under market value, instead of continuing they ship him out to Seattle for three guys who weren't even the Mariners top prospects (not that they had any five caliber guys anyways) and then giving up those very "untouchable" prospects for Roy Halladay that they refused to give up before; what about this deal makes sense again? My first thought about this is well if you wanted Halladay in the first place and it was going to cost your top prospects to get him, why not just trade for him last year? What's the difference? Now, instead of having Cliff Lee and all your top prospects you've given up two sets of prospects for Roy Halladay essentially, what's so good about that? Sure they got something in return for Lee, but if you look at their numbers they're not exactly great, and most scouts and analysts I've read up to this point say the three guys they got in return are projected as marginal major leaguers at best. That's all you could get for Cliff freaking Lee? The guy who a year ago won 22 for a terrible Cleveland team and was even better this year?

Further, it's not like you're getting that much of an upgrade with Halladay, I mean sure if I had to choose between Lee and Halladay I'd take Roy anyday of the week, but are you really getting that much better? As mentioned earlier, you really can't get any better than what Lee did already, what's the point of getting Halladay when you've already got a great pitcher?


Now I understand that a lot of this was a salary thing and Lee's apparent unwillingness to sign a below market long term deal, but why didn't the Phillies resolve these issues before trading for him? Couldn't this have been totally averted by simply just finding out by talking to his agent about the possibility of signing a long term deal?

I don't have the answers to these questions, but the Phillies and Ruben Amaro Jr. will have to answer for these questions in the coming months as he has essentially gutted their farm system twice for one pitcher and replaced them with marginal guys. Of course projections are only that, projetions and its unclear how they'll fare in the future, but it is quite a lot to give up for a guy who's going to be 33 and just signed an extension. I don't doubt Halladay, a pitcher who has dominated my Yankees for many years will do well, but at what cost and for how long is the question that will determine whether all this maneuvering and posturing is worth it for the NL Champs.