Clearing up mis-conceptions, Part I
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Clearing up mis-conceptions, Part I
David Murphy, Daily News Staff Writer
My original plan was to file another detailed blog post later tonight after I'd had a day to mull over the Halladay and Cliff Lee deals. But I ended up listening to a healthy dose of sports talk radio while running errands today - side note, they really should put cupholders on shopping carts - and kept hearing several illogical statements (insert joke about sports talk radio here) that need to be corrected.
Illogical Statement I: The Phillies should have just swung a trade for Halladay last deadline and had Cliff Lee and Halladay for two postseason runs.
Answer: While it is true that the package of prospects the Phillies ended up shipping to Toronto isn't a heck of a lot less than what the Blue Jays were reportedly offering last summer, the big issue here is money. Roy Halladay earned $14.25 million last season. The Phillies would have been on the hook for roughly $6.5 million of that. Add in the roughly $3.5 million they took on in salary for Cliff Lee, and you are talking $10 million extra dollars dumped into the budget midway through the fiscal sports year. That would be difficult for any business to absorb. Plus, the Phillies would have owed Halladay all of his $15.75 million salary for this season. Keep in mind the Blue Jays are kicking in $6 million toward Halladay's salary (at least that is what has been reported - I do not have that independently confirmed). And keep in mind that the Blue Jays were reportedly asking for Drabek AND Brown, along with Anthony Gose, with J.A. Happ and Jason Knapp (who was a key to the Lee trade) being kicked around. So the assertion that the Phillies are parting with the same package of prospects is a misnomer too. But even if it were the same package of prospects, the Phillies would have been taking on $12.5 million in salary in 2009 and 2010, in addition to Lee's salary.
You can argue that the Phils still could have swung the deal with the prospects they had. And given Lee's performance in the playoffs, you can argue that they very likely would have won a second straight World Series with Halladay and Lee perhaps starting Games 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7. But you can't argue the finances of it all.
Illogical Statement 2: Hamels is no longer a bona fide No. 2 starter in the majors and never will be because he is a two-pitch pitcher.
Answer: Look, nobody will argue that Hamels had a down year. And nobody will argue that he would be better suited for success -- particularly against lefties -- with a reliable third pitch. But even in 2008, when Hamels was a playoff stud, he threw his curveball on just 13.7 percent of his pitches (according to FanGraphs.com). That dropped to 10.5 percent last season. But he threw the curve just 10.6 percent of the time in 2007, when he was far more successful than last season. Hamels biggest problem wasn't with his curve ball. It was with his command of his fastball and change-up. Hamels can succeed with just two pitches, but to do so he needs to be in complete control of them. Last year, he wasn't. You can argue that he will never be in control of his fastball and change-up again. And you can argue that he needs to better develop a third pitch. But I don't think you can argue that he is done for his career because he doesn't have a third pitch. Keep in mind, this guy was outstanding in 2008, and was pretty darn good in 2007. He is 25 years old, for crying out loud. Cliff Lee's first full big league season was at the age of 25.
Illogical Statement 3: The Phillies were forced to choose between one year of Cliff Lee and four years of Roy Halladay.
Answer: Not true. They did not trade for four years of Roy Halladay. They traded for one year of Roy Halladay, plus exclusive negotiating rights with him. Keep in mind the Phillies will be paying $20 million a year to Halladay for at least three seasons, and maybe four and five. That's a lot of money. The Phillies could have kept Cliff Lee and their prospects this year and then invested the money they would be paying Halladay into a guy like Javier Vazquez, and likely had plenty of cash left over to invest in other areas of the team. But they wanted Halladay. You can easily argue that it was a wise investment, since Halladay likely would have commanded more on the open market. And if you look at our previous post, you'll see that plenty of elite pitchers have thrived between the ages of 33-36. But the Phillies did not trade for an elite pitcher who was under contract for the next four seasons. They traded for one year of him, and in the process negotiated an extension for the next three.
There. I feel better now.
Poll: Who would you rather have, Roy Halladay or Cliff Lee?
I, too, wish the Phillies could have found a way to keep Lee for one year along with Halladay. It would have meant trading Blanton for prospects who are not remotely as good as Seattle's -- and I'm not loving those guys. But don't open with a complaint about insulting our intelligence and then follow that with a horribly inaccurate figure about Phillies' ticket prices. Their average price was just over $31 in 2009, not between $40-50. That alters the math by about $30-60 million... Now, assuming keeping Lee would put the team in the red, should the Phillies go into just one season knowing they'll lose money even if they win the World Series? That's an honest debate...— PhilaLogic- JBin is right..7 phils prospects for 3 Mariners prospects, Ben Fransico, and Roy. I'll take that 7 for 5 trade any day.— pyleiton
- Murph, totally agreed with you until you said this at the end: "But the Phillies did not trade for an elite pitcher who was under contract for the next four seasons. They traded for one year of him, and in the process negotiated an extension for the next three." Wrong. The trade hasn't gone through yet but the extension has been negotiated. Halladay wanted an extension to waive his no-trade clause. The Phillies wanted a commitment to a reasonable extension before they were willing to trade for Halladay. They only make this trade with the extension in place. Someone here said "The bottom line is Amaro traded 7 of his top 10 prospects plus a CY pitcher (Lee) for a CY pitcher (Halladay) who may be marginally better." Really? That's the bottom line? Where do the 3 prospects from the Mariners, plus Ben Francisco, plus the $6 million in cash from the Jays, plus Halladay agreeing to a 3-4 year extension before the trade (unlike Lee who wanted to test free-agency or get a CC deal) factor into your bottom line? Way to accurately sum things up.— JimG
- PhilaLogic - fair enough, but if you take an average price of $60 for the eight playoff games and multiply it by 45,000, that provides an extra $21M, which would result in $130M+ in ticket revenue. I should have included the postseason in the original estimate.— gbentzel
- If that had kept Lee in 2010 (pitching for a deal) and Halladay stayed in Toronto next year, he couldnt have eventually ended up in Philly in 2011? The Phillies are going to rue the day they let go of Michael Taylor. You don't put up his #s in the minors and not turn into an All Star in the Majors. There's too much consistency and success in each level of advancement.
Comment removed.- pyleiton, Remember to include the loss of Cliff Lee in the 7 for 5 trade....therefore, making no sense. A truly superior organization does not deal Cliff Lee right now! It is sad that the Phils landed a top 3 arm in the league, yet I can't feel excited!— scooterg99
- Hey Murph, Your last answer is B.S. You know the Phils wouldn't have done this deal if they hadn't been able to negotiate and sign Halladay to the extension.— mikeyhigs
- Good teams are willing to take it on the chin, where finances are concerned, when they find themselves with a window of opportunity. But that team is never the Phils. Winning the World Series should trump making a profit. We never quite grasp that concept around here. I am weary of reading how Lee's skills are expendable. I've seen enough baseball to know that what he did for us last year was no ordinary accomplishment. It is a shame we are too cheap to find out how that would translate over the course of a full season.— m8roth
- With the 6 mill from Toronto, Phils are paying Roy 9.75 for 1 year. Keep Lee at 8 or 9 for his 1 year and take a big shot at the WS. Who wouldn't take Roy for 1 year at 9.75? And if the Phils let Lee go after next year, they get 2 high draft picks. Why would they trade for only 3 prospects now?— P Even
- Comment removed.
- The bottom line is this...the Phillies parted with quite a few prospects, including their highest rated catcher, for what amounted to a rental of Cliff Lee. They then gave up virtually the same package that Toronto was asking for midseason, including the "untouchable" Drabek. So...they've given up two full sets of prospects and only have one pitcher to show for it. They couldn't pay Lee for one season and gotten the same bucket of balls and 3 bats for him at the trading deadline, or just let him walk away after the season (hopefully after winning the series)? It just does not make good sense....— Tomahawk37
- Murph: (and Paul and Phil and Andy et al...) Maybe someone could pull out a calculator and 'splain to dummies like me why Phils couldn't keep Lee through 2010....why this isn't a 'salary dump.' Jays are giving Phils 6 Mil to offset Halladay, so Phils only have 9.75 that they're paying Halladay for '10. Lee would have costed 9 mil. Phils said goodbye to Myers, who was what, 12 mil? Polanco is costing one mil more in '10 than Feliz would have costed. Pedro Martinez at 1.5 mil for 09 is unsigned. Chan is unsigned. How much MORE exactly did RAJr commit to for 2010 for all the other signings, utility, back up catcher, etc? I don't see why mgmt couldn't keep Lee through 2010, and if he leaves as a type A F/A after 2010, they still would have gotten prospects in return?... How much more net/net would it have costed to keep Lee through 2010?... 5 or 6 mil?. Okay, so Halladay is more of a horse, and vs the NYY or Redsox in WS 2010 could start games 1 and 4 (and 7 if nec.) Who will win games 2, 3, 5, and 6?
- Murph - Illogical statement #1 is NOT illogical at all. Tell me something - if I remember my numbers correctly from listening to sports talk radio myself, the Phils profited $20M this year, and the Yankees LOST $4M. Tell me David, in 3/4/5 years, who's going to remember how much money each team made/lost, versus who actually WON THE WORLD SERIES?! The only ones who are going to know who made/lost money are the owners. The other 99.999% of people are going to know that the YANKEES won the series. This is absolutely an unnecessary salary dump, and it MAKES ME MAD!!— uncle meat
- Comment removed.
