But as two straight up deals, then is dumping Lee just about the money? 2010 money at that? Because everyone gets that Lee couldn’t be extended, but 2010 was only $8M.

CBP has been packed. The Phillies just went to the WS the last two years, and with Halladay, Lee, and Hammels in the rotation the Phillies would have no worries over unsold tickets in 2010.

Folks in Philly are glad to have Halladay, but they are not buying either (i) that they couldn’t afford Lee in 2010, or (ii) that they got the best value available in the deal with Seattle.

Seeing that the Lee became a “legendary hero” in two months, Philly fans are not pleased–but as they are Philly fans in the first place, their method of expression probably won’t be seen posted verbatim.

Yet, I don’t think there’s any call to denigrate what the M’s gave up. Aumont especially is more than just a “middling” prospect IMHO. The other two have not only had development time but have survived the transitions inherent to that – which many touted prospects fail to do. Given that the picks from Lee walking won’t come until next year, At least 2 of the M’s may well be in the majors before the draft picks are selected. (& there’s a non-zero risk that Lee gets injured or performs poorly.)

I do believe Aumont can start long term and truly contribute to the Phillies’ future. And won’t be upset at all when he does.

I look forward to this season, more than I ever have before at any time in my life. I might even buy a season ticket package again!

Jimmie

For a rumor to be considered legitimate, it has to pass some minimum standards of logic.

I’ve been trying to apply Dave’s advice from a post earlier this month to rumors of this trade and not get excited. I realize his post was directed at rumors that weren’t logical with regard to team direction and values but it seemed to me that, in addition, if something was too good to be true it probably wasn’t logical or true. I must now lower my skepticism barrier.

Apparently there is a Santa Claus and Mariners fans have been good!

“[The Phillies] also gave away 3 prospects and got 3 prospects – a wash.”

I don’t think so. The package of prospects they gave up is better than the package of prospects we sent to them, by nearly all accounts. I still don’t think this means the Phillies “lost” the deal though. They got a pitcher who is better than the one they gave up, for more years (I assume the reports that signing Halladay to an extension was a contigency of the deal were true), so it makes sense that the package they gave up would be better than what they got back. The only reason I think the Phillies “lose” is there were any number of ways the Phillies could have approached this offseason that didn’t have to include trading Cliff Lee, and wouldn’t have precluded getting Halladay.

“…if we assume Aumont and Gillies equal the two picks we would get if Lee walks at the end of 2010…”

I don’t think we should assume that. The difference in development time is significant. But given the year we get of Lee, I’m totally fine with that.

The thing about this deal that a lot of Phillie fans are having a hard time with is why the Phillies have to get rid of Lee even if they’re signing Halladay. Why not pair Lee with Halladay for a killer 1-2 and then also get the draft picks? It’s hard for them to believe that the Phillies — coming off back-to-back WS appearances and one win — can’t afford another $9M this year to hang onto one of the best 5 pitchers in baseball.

All I can think about is that Phillie thought Aumont was worth way more than the draft picks they’d get if Lee walked.