Roy Halladay signed a contract extension today that will guarantee him $60 million over three years, with a vesting option that would pay him another $20 million if he pitches enough innings in the first three years of the deal.
That’s the story here: Not the first trade, not the second trade, and not the third trade. The story here is that one of the best players in baseball took somewhere between 35-50 percent of his market value to facilitate a trade, leaving somewhere between $60 and $100 million in guaranteed money on the table. This is a staggering upset, one for which there is virtually no comparison in baseball history.
One year ago, CC Sabathia got $161 million in guaranteed money, an average of $23 million per season over seven seasons, as a full-fledged free agent. Two years ago, in a similar situation to that of Halladay, Johan Santana engineered a trade to the Mets and signed an extension totaling $137.5 million over six seasons, just shy of $23 million per season. Halladay, a bit older than both pitchers at the time of their deals but essentially even in value to both, took less guaranteed money per season across half the guaranteed years. To pull an example from this winter, John Lackey just got a guaranteed $82 million as a free agent. Halladay’s teammate for three years, A.J. Burnett, got a guaranteed $82 million one year ago. Neither Lackey nor Burnett has Halladay’s credentials. Lackey and Burnett have a combined 36 points in Cy Young voting in their careers; Halladay had 71 in just the 2008 vote alone, the third of four straight seasons in which he’s finished in the top five in AL Cy voting.
Halladay’s contract is so far removed from his market value that it looks like an error. Remember, he had to approve not only the contract, but the trade to the Phillies that precipitated it. He made the choice that he wanted to be with the Phillies so much-and wanted to be with them immediately so much-that it was worth it to him to leave $60 million, $80 million, maybe $100 million unclaimed. There is no way anyone could have predicted this even a few weeks ago. This is the kind of decision that a player gets to make for himself and his family. Halladay gets to play for a contender in 2010 and gets to do so with a team he wishes to play for, one that holds spring training near his Florida home, and he valued those things more than the marginal dollars foregone by not testing the market. I don’t judge him for it, but I do think we should all be stunned by how much money this man left on the table. There is no precedent for it in sports.
The extension Halladay signed justifies an otherwise unremarkable trade by the Phillies, who gave up three good prospects, including the heretofore untouchable Kyle Drabek, to bring in Halladay on the last season of his contract. That’s the kind of trade teams make all the time, dealing prospects for a player who can help them win when they’re at the peak of the success cycle, and for all the hype this trade has received, it’s not all that special in the abstract. The Phillies’ ability to get Halladay to sign a favorable extension, however, gives them an anchor in the years to come. It was worth sacrificing the prospects not for the 2010 season, but for the 2011-13, perhaps 2014, seasons to come, at the price they paid for those seasons.
Drabek is the prize of the deal, the son of Cy Young winner Doug Drabek and the Phillies’ first-round pick in 2006. After missing most of the 2008 season to Tommy John surgery, Drabek dominated the Florida State League and pitched well enough after a promotion to Double-A for the Phillies to refuse to deal him at the in-season trade deadline. His size-listed at 6’0″, 185 pounds-is a concern, especially for his anticipated role as a front-end starter, but his stuff and his performance have alleviated some of those concerns. Michael Taylor, prospect number two, followed up on his breakout 2008 with another strong year, making it to Triple-A in August and holding his own there. He’s become more disciplined as he’s come through the system, with better K/BB data at Triple-A than Double-A, and Double-A than High-A, without sacrificing the power that is his calling card. I like Domonic Brown’s speed and approach a bit better, but there’s nothing about Taylor that indicates he isn’t already close to the majors. As Kevin Goldstein noted last year, he gets high marks from the Phillies for his makeup as well. Travis D’Arnaud is a young catcher with a broad base of skills who spent the year in the Sally League. A supplemental first-round pick in 2007, D’Arnaud showed good power in 2009 for his league (52 extra-base hits, .164 ISO), with acceptable plate discipline and defense. His second half was much stronger than his first. He’s at least two years away, and has some development ahead of him to become an MLB catcher.
The Phillies, to some extent, paid in prospects instead of money for Halladay. The value he left on the table made it possible for the Phillies to trade perhaps their two best prospects and another top-ten guy to get him, because they’re not going to be so exposed on the back end of a monster extension.
This, in fact, gets to my biggest problem with the sequence: Roy Halladay just left $60 million on the table to come to Philadelphia. The Phillies couldn’t leave $9 million on it in pursuit of putting him on the best team in baseball? I appreciate Ruben Amaro Jr. consistently staying on point, labeling the Cliff Lee trade an exercise in refilling the farm system rather than in keeping the 2010 payroll below an arbitrary number. I do not, however, believe he is doing anything more than fronting for an absurd ownership initiative. The Phillies play in a taxpayer-funded ballpark, have been to back-to-back World Series-with all the direct revenue that generates-and will no doubt pack Citizens Bank Ballpark again in 2010 with another three million people paying even higher ticket, parking, concession, and souvenir prices. To trade away Cliff Lee in a blatant money move is utterly ridiculous under those circumstances, and worse still, turns the Roy Halladay trade into little more than a minor upgrade.
The gap between Halladay and Jamie Moyer, who has drifted to replacement level, is along the lines of six wins in a given season. The gap between Halladay and Lee might be one win. Or it might not. Going from Lee to Halladay is effectively a lateral move in the short term and takes nearly all the air out of the Halladay trade for the Phillies. They have essentially the same team today that they did yesterday, and given that the Blue Jays sent along six million bucks with Halladay, the same payroll that they did yesterday. They will be better for having Halladay the next three years, but at the moment, very little has changed for them other than that they don’t have as much depth to call on in 2010 should they need a starting pitcher or an outfielder. They took a prospect downgrade in the deal, getting back less than they dealt away, although that will be mitigated by having Halladay in the three or four seasons that follow.
Unless it was about money-and the idea that therefore Amaro had to trade Lee to be able to acquire Halladay-there was no reason to make the second trade. Even if you grant Amaro’s notion that the Phillies wanted to restock the farm system, trading Lee now wasn’t at all necessary. The Rangers, having missed out on John Lackey and having watched the Mariners getting better, could be in on a starter. The Mets are looking for rotation help. Any number of teams might have come up with a package better than what the Mariners did, and unless there was a directive to hold down the payroll by trading Lee right now, it behooved Amaro to explore those paths. There was no baseball reason to trade Lee in connection with acquiring Halladay, and no defense of doing both at the same time that doesn’t include the phrase “arbitrary payroll figure” sounds naïve.
The Phillies’ penury is the Mariners’ gain. With Erik Bedard making just 15 starts last season, the Mariners’ rotation consisted of a Cy Young candidate and a huge falloff to a series of fourth starters. Adding Lee to Felix Hernandez gives them a pair of starters that matches any team’s top two, and with Ian Snell, Brandon Morrow, and Ryan Rowland-Smith lining up behind those two, the Mariners’ rotation now looks like a strength. This is a team, remember, that put a tremendous defense on the field last year, and with the re-signing of Jack Wilson and import of Chone Figgins, will look to do so again in 2011. Bumping the payroll by trading for Lee and signing Figgins confirms for me a comment I made in a chat session a few weeks back: the Mariners may have decided that they won’t be able to sign Hernandez, and will instead try to win a championship in the next two seasons with him. The upgrade from the pitchers who might make the 32 starts Lee will take next season-Doug Fister, Garrett Olson, a third-tier free agent-to Lee is a standings gain of perhaps six wins, or as much of a gain as you can reasonably make in one transaction. Adding Lee moves the Mariners from a .500 team to one of the co-favorites in a division where the Angels have taken huge talent hits and the Rangers might be a year shy of asserting dominance. Depending on how the rest of the winter shakes out, the Mariners might be the team to beat come April, but they still need at least one, maybe two hitters.
They didn’t cripple their future in making this deal, either, giving up less in talent to get Lee than the Phillies did to get Halladay. Phillippe Aumont is a 2007 first-round pick who has just 106
As good as the Mariners did, though, the big winners here were the Blue Jays. Behind the eight-ball with a pitcher they could not sign and could not trade without his permission, which likely meant a value-killing contract commitment, they were able to bring in three prospects who could all be part of winning teams in the middle of the decade. What Alex Anthopolous brought back dwarfs what the Twins got for Santana two years ago. It’s too easy to say that Drabek could grow into a Halladay replacement, but he has that kind of ability. Remember that the Blue Jays have shown a facility for turning lesser pitchers into league-average starters. Drabek has more talent than any pitcher in their system. D’Arnaud is a polished hitter with a strong enough arm to remain behind the plate, and while he doesn’t have the star potential Drabek has, he projects as an inexpensive, good player at a key position.
Anthoplolous traded the third prospect, Taylor, to the A’s for Brett Wallace. This is an interesting challenge trade, dealing the more complete player for the player with one dominant skill. The Jays’ advantage in acquiring Wallace is that they will be able to develop him as a first baseman if need be, as they have only Lyle Overbay in his way, and that only for a year. Wallace isn’t as bad a third baseman as he looks to be on first glance, lacking lateral range but having acceptable hands and moving fairly well back and forth. An eventual move off of third has long been assumed inevitable, and if that is necessary, the Jays can fade that. Wallace joins Travis Snider and Adam Lind for what could end up as a championship-caliber middle of the lineup. For the A’s part, they get the player with the broader skill set who may fit their situation a bit better; the A’s need outfielders who can cover ground, and Taylor is a good right fielder who could make their team out of spring training.
All of these moves were set in motion by one decision: Roy Halladay taking half his value to pitch for the Philadelphia Phillies. For that, the Phillies assure themselves an ace in 2011-13, the Blue Jays get a package that didn’t look within their reach to kick-start their rebuilding, the Mariners launch themselves to perhaps a lead role in the AL West, and the A’s align their talent slightly better as they try to get back to prominence. That’s a big day for one man, and he won’t even throw a pitch for his new team for another two months.
Thank you for reading
This is a free article. If you enjoyed it, consider subscribing to Baseball Prospectus. Subscriptions support ongoing public baseball research and analysis in an increasingly proprietary environment.
Subscribe now
I'll admit to taking the message board here a bit more personally than I should. It is an oasis of well-thought out, reasoned arguments. You consistently lower the bar, and it frustrates me. Please, stop.
Unless the phillies are absolutely convinced that Lee's 2008-2009 performance is totally unsustainable (either because it was all smoke and mirrors and he's about to crash back to earth or because his arm is about to fall off) there is no plausible baseball reason to trade him right now.
And for whatever reason (his impending free agency, most likely) the GM decided that Lee offered the team the most reasonable bang for the buck in terms of prospects vs. benefit to the team.
Of course they're increasing their risk of not winning the pennant by shipping out Lee, but they have more than enough talent as is to get to the promised land next season. So while RAJ is forgoing a short term gain in Lee, he's also trying to secure a more reliable long term future for the club. That probably makes the bosses happy, and the fans might appreciate it too if it works. The Phillies are starting to act like a heavyweight team that isn't just trying to catch lightning in a bottle before they crap out and start over. Like Boston, the Yankees, and other elite franchises, they're trying to win now while also putting themselves in a position to win tomorrow. The Lee trade may bust, but I can see the logic behind it.
He's still absurdly rich and one of the highest paid players in the game. How generous of him though. Must be he'll just light his cigars with $50s instead of hundreds.
Instead the majority of you prefer to cowtow to Joe Sheehan's idea that Halladay somehow rejected a deal of $150M for six years to sign with Philly. It's PURE FICTION.
It's another instance of BP, esp Joe, glorifying the major league ballplayer.
I typically like your articles, but this foundation of him leaving 60M-100M on the table seems like a dubious hook on which to hang your hat.
This is exactly the reason players sign long term contracts rather than year-to-year contracts, and exactly the reason teams try to keep contracts shorter.
The Phils are paying Halladay close to the going rate on a season-by-season basis for the next three or four years, but if they were to have signed him as a free agent, they would have been obligated to do so for at least six years and if not more, years when the player would have likely declined in productivity and thus, were he a free agent at the time, commanded less on the open market.
Everybody's been talking about how the Phillies got hosed in the talent portion of this deal, but you're absolutely right: the opportunity to sign this extension with Halladay was worth it. Granted, no one this side of no one is providing any believable justification for the Phillies' flipping Lee, but taken as a whole, i can't call this as anything but 3 big winners (and a good move for the Athletics to top it off).
eliyahu does make a good point (though somewhat exaggerated): this isn't even necessarily at the expense of Halladay. He may have the confidence in his arm to marginalize a guaranteed contract, and is willing to leave a good chuck of change on the table for a more amenable situation (and no-- this isn't the first time). Regardless, i'm skeptical that any hypothetical extension Halladay could have signed would yield anywhere near 60-100M more than he will actually earn over the next 6 years, injury risk be damned.
Rather, this seems like one of those rare exceptionally well designed blockbusters that doles out all the right pegs to all the right holes and everybody makes out like bandits. Well, hush-hushing the fact that the Phillies didn't have to be quite so generous with their booty...
Joe, I feel like you are making the same mistake repeatedly: That is, you are overestimating the market value for players. You admitted your mistake regarding the Yankees not offering arbitration to Andy Petite and Bobby Abreu last year. A lot of teams are pleading poverty right now, and they aren't incentivized to try to win.
There are going to be times when certain players have tremendous leverage, and yes, Halladay is a premier player, but Halladay was not a free agent and still got 20m a year.
At the end of the day, i'm happy with the trade. I think all teams involved should be happy. We now have an ace locked up at a reasonable salary for 4 years, which is essentially the Phillies "window of opportunity" with their current core. If my theory about Ruben being handcuffed by ownership is correct, I think he made a prudent decision to sacrifice one year of Lee for four of Doc, while also restocking the farm a bit. I'm not mad at Ruben for making this decision, and it's also tough to be too mad at ownership when trying to be objective and looking at it from the business side... 140M isn't a small number. And obviously, the M's and Jay's made out well in this deal also...
Obviously Halladay at the deal they got him with is fantastic. Nobody will complain about that, it would be silly. But that doesn't make Amaro or the Ownership infallible. I get that you want to look at the deal in the glass half full sense, but I see a real missed opportunity.
Amaro has been GM for two years and each year when the free agency period begins he's been out of the box like a jackrabbit. He had to have some inclination that he might try to do something along these lines and he obviously knew the dollar threshold that ownership was mandating, yet he still ran out and threw millions at mediocre players, severely limiting his ability to keep his star players later on.
There are NRI-type players that can fill the roles of Schneider, Gload, & Castro where any marginal shortfall in talent could not possibly match the difference between Lee and whoever becomes their fifth starter. And that would include if they chose to forego Polanco and sign a cheaper solution at 3b to make up for keeping Lee's salary.
Ruben Amaro obviously placed a premium on being able to lock up his 25-man roster early rather than buy into the idea that there are near-free replacement level players floating around every offseason to fill such roles.
Now if he goes and deals Blanton for some mediocre veteran middle reliever or spends a few million $ a year on one as a free agent, he is going to be crucified. Of course, in the latter case, he'll say 'See, I told you the Lee deal was to restock the farm system.' Yikes.
Sorry to whine when we have to NL pennants in a row, but it doesn't excuse what appears to be a very questionable portfolio management decision. As Joe wisely points out, this only narrowly makes the Phils better when Halladay could have been a 5- to 7-win addition to a 90-win team and given them a ridiculous playoff rotation.
I love Polanco, but I'd rather have Dobbs hacking away and Lee still on the payroll...
Also, people can criticize Amaro for not managing the budget well (I have), but they should do it based on the deal that pays Jamie Moyer 8 million this year. Signing Gload and Schneider were not issues. They're both making a million dollars this year. Any guys they'd have at the minimum would cost about $400,000. So if you replace those two, you're getting savings of just over a million dollars. That doesn't get you to Cliff Lee. Come on people.
Also, if you're including Polanco, it isn't 3 bench players you're making replacement-level. You're also making your starting 3rd baseman replacement-level.
I'm not saying that still wouldn't be worth it to have Cliff Lee in this rotation, but it's a lot different than people are making it out to be. The Gload and Schneider signings are virtually irrelevant (again, total savings going cheap there would be about $1.2 million), and to get to the money number to afford Lee, you'd have go replacement-level with your starting 3rd baseman, and then probably deplete your bullpen more to get the final 3 million out of the way.
I'd take that trade-off considering the team's offense and defense isn't a problem. The only perceivable weakness is pitching. Good starting will keep the bullpen from being exposed more than it has to be and building a bullpen is more about skill and luck rather than actually paying for one. (Remember the great bullpen the Phillies had two years ago was Lidge, Madson and a merry band of misfits and castoffs that seem to just work well.)
I think its safe to say that that strategy cost him the opportunity to have both Halladay and Lee in his starting rotation.
I think that's overstating it. That strategy has nothing to do with the fact that the Phillies upper level MiLB talent was very depleted by the trade for Halladay. Amaro, Jr. could put blinders on, only worry about 2010, and enjoy feeling like the Yankees for a year, but then the team would be running a risk of being unprepared for 2011 and beyond. The Phillies payroll growth is unsustainable at this point, and they need to think about how and where they can replace expensive talent with cheap, viable alternatives. Especially if they want to continue being an elite level contender. If the minor league system is currently Dom Brown plus a bunch of low level maybes, that doesn't inspire confidence. For one year of Lee, the Phillies bought some reassurance that they'll have talent in the pipeline for next year. And only Cliff Lee apparently offered them the combo of a) a replaceable talent (with Doc) and b) a guy who wasn't in their long term plans. Both of which made him (reluctantly, I hope) expendable, given the Phillies situation and needs.
I just don't see how Phillies fans can defend this move. A team trying to win now with the collection of talent they have in the field and on the mound simply does not make trades like this.
Was money a part of it? It wasn't not a part of it, but the bigger imperative seems to have been about replacing the upper level, legit talent that they lost when they dealt for Halladay.
Second, aren't you exaggerating the money Holliday could get in free agency? He's not equivalent to Sabathia or Santana because of his age at free agency. Would anyone have signed him to an 8 year deal going into his age 34 season? I mean, maybe the Astros, but....
No, but maybe they would have given him a 5 year deal at more than $20 million a year.
I think the forest is being lost for the trees here. Imagine that Halladay, instead of signing with the Phillies, stays with the Jays one more season and then becomes a free agent. We'll say conservatively, its a tough market and he nets a 4 year deal at $23 million per year. The truth is he likely would command much more than that, but we're being conservative to make a point. That 4 year contract at $23 million a year is $32 million more than he's guaranteed right now. $32 million! Can you even fathom how much money that is?
It's passing up a big short term gain in order to get a bigger long term benefit. And as far as short term gains goes, the Phillies were a WS team with only 2 months of Cliff Lee. They'll have a full year of someone who is slightly better, and didn't lose any (other) big pieces, so Amaro, Jr. could reasonably conclude -- especially given the lack of movement from the NL's other big teams -- that he already has a good shot at another pennant winner on paper. If you look at it that way, they've still upgraded their pennant-winning team in the short term, albeit only slightly, but they've also taken a significant step towards making sure the team can sustain this level of performance after 2010. There's something to be said for that.
Personally, what I think is essentially bought one of the Phillies prospects for $6 million. Which casts an awful light on perhaps Amaro's #1 mistake as GM, signing a 46 year old Jamie Moyer to a two year contract that will pay him $8 million in 2010. Moyer was a Type A free agent that off season. If he had been offered arbitration, there's no chance he was going anywhere. I know hindsight is 20/20, but terrible decision then, and cost the Phillies a Halladay/Lee/Hamels rotation (or at least whatever value they sent to the Jays for that $6 million) now.
http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/philadelphia-phillies_18.html
Are they somehow cooking the books to get the fans off their backs or are they just flat out lying?
Taking less for Lee now, while the fans are happy about Halladay, is better than getting slightly more later, and having the fanbase revolt.
(Count De-Amaro, The fans are revolting!......You said it, they stink on ice!)
In my opinion, anyone who says, "ah, whats the difference between $60 and $140 million" either hasn't really thought about what that means, or can't do math.
Sabathia's contract is bloated because he didn't want to go to New York initially. Their original offer was more than anyone else offered (reportedly) and he turned it down, because he wanted to play on the West Coast.
Maybe more players should go where they want instead of where their agent and the MLBPA wants them to go.
Well, he just got 3/$60MM with a shot at 4/$80MM. So you're saying he'd have gotten 6/$120 *minimum* on the open market. I doubt that's the floor. I think that's closer to a ceiling.
So he may have left money on the table, yes. But not $60-100MM.
Halladay and Lee deals were both brilliant moves. You can't take away either move and especially at that cost certainty. We could sit here and come up with deals all day that were atrocious.
Lee was dealt way too quickly. I agree with you and I think the ownership forced the hand. There is absolutely no other logical reason not to pit the Angels and the Mariners against each other and watch the pot increase steadily over the course of the next few months.
A few other items that I find to be interesting.
I like to think that the ownership forced the hand of Rueben but there is a part of me that isn't so sure. He was extremely quick to pull the trigger on Ibanez, (which is still a bad contract) Polanco (no valuation on the market at this point), and signed Moyer to two years. He is a bit trigger happy to say the least.
This entire deal just smells of Pat Gillick. Anyone could say so what, but I just find it to be interesting. I am just surprised the Orioles weren't in on the action.
Last but not least. I see mentioning of Phils fans in the thread. As a Phils fan, I can say with conviction that we are, as a whole, retarded. Not all of us, but we certainly earn our perception in the sports world. I can't listen to the radio right now with all the slop people are throwing around. It's really a joke.
What gives you this sense that other team's fans are less dumb? Surely not the radio, TV, internet, or newspapers.
Hmmm... you mean like the one they just let walk?
I think everyone made out well.
It constantly amazes me how cavalier we are with other people's money. Personally I doubt any of the large clubs are making money. I run a business and while you focus on payroll I think you are forgetting all the other expenses of this business like Clearwater, managers, coaches, travel, PR, ushers, GM, etc. Certainly they don't get it back in tickets - even assuming $35 avg ticket time 3.4 million they don't get to $140 million (which does not include benefits, taxes, travel, meals, etc).
Sure the Phillies get TV money and some share from MLB ventures but in the end I doubt they make much money.
Anyone who has to balance a budget knows there is an end point and for the Phillies it is $140 million. Deal with it. Otherwise why not sign all the top FA each year? There are limits and within those limits Amaro is doing well.
As for Halladay leaving money on the table, Joe's premise may be a bit exaggerated but I think it speaks a lot to Halladay's character. He said he wants to win and do what's right for his family and he means it.
So with no obligation to open their books to scrutiny, all claims by MLB teams to be losing money are highly suspect. Given the advantages pointed out by others in this thread that the Phillies currently enjoy, those claims rise from the "highly suspect" level to well beyond the "pure bullshit" threshold.
The last three seasons, Halladay's total WARP1 is 16.6. During his last three seasons with the Twins, Santana's total WARP1 was 18.1.
Halladay will be paid 20 mil per year for three years. Santana signed for $22 mil per year for six years (23 mil if you add the option buyout).
Santana signed in early 2008, well before the full force of the economic crisis was clear. My guess is a player identical to Santana would get a bit less now than he did in early 2008.
The most important variable of course is expected future performance. Santana was coming off a three year period where his performance was half a win per season better than Halladay's most recent three performance. His contract began at age 28. Halladay's at age 34. I think it is reasonable to have projected in early 2008 a significant edge in performance going forward for Santana relative to the projection today of Halladay's performance starting in 2011.
Conclusion: Not so sure Halladay left much if any money on the table relative to Santana, taking into account age, performance, expected performance and changed economic circumstances.
Without going back and reading the fine print about WARP1, though, isn't it likely that Santana's slightly better WARP numbers could be attributed to the difference between the AL Central and the East?
He has a huge but athletic frame, outstanding mechanics, is an absolute conditioning freak and top-notch in his mental preparation too. Even as his velocity declines he should maintain his top-notch command, movement, and pitch efficiency.
Like Clemens, Mussina, Johnson, or Shilling, Halladay still has a lot left in him at 33. I think he will easily outperform his extension and be in line for another rich contract in 2014.
Am I missing something?
Basically they traded away what conservatively is at least a three to four win advantage (plus the playoff advantage) in favor of 9 million and a few decent prospects. For a team at a championship level right now, one that could have made themselves the clear favorite for the title by not making the Lee deal, I think that's completely bats.
He was 21 in double A and has great stuff. Roy Halladay at age 21 pitched at 3A and had 5.5 K/9 and 4.1 BB/9. Not saying he's that guy or even a similar pitcher... but overvaluing minor league statistics is fraught with peril.
And I agree with Joe regarding Halladay's extension. A durable perennial CY candidate/winner gets more than 3 years, even at his age.
I don't think it was a major factor in the deal, because obviously Halladay was their target, but I have to think it merited some consideration.
I don't think Halladay would have gotten a Santana-Sabathia type of deal in length of years on the free agent market, especially because of his age. His extension with Philly, I feel, puts him pretty close to what he would have received.
In short, I don't think he left as much on the table as Joe thinks he does. Especially because we have no idea what might happen in 2010 (injury, downturn in performance, etc.).
One thing I don't think anyone is mentioning is that hypothetically he would have had competition for the free agent market next year in the form of Lee if he didn't sign this extension. That may have driven his price down even further because of the presence of another big time pitcher who is slightly less valuable than he is on the market at the same time.
Everyone wins here, its not like they traded Lee away for peanuts, they got some legitimate guys with legitimate upside, and they've extended their window of contention another 3 years without going into a huge bidding war for a free agent Halladay or trying to resign Lee. As far as I know of the guys they got from Seattle they are much closer to the majors than they guys they gave away (except Drabek), which also gives them a lot of flexibility as that 3 year window is closing.
I know the marginal value of each win peaks between 80 or 90. After 90, doesn't it actually start to diminish? And after you've reached the WS the last two years, winning one, and pretty much maxing out your attendance, tv, and merchandise revnue, wouldn't it make sense that there's not much more marginal value left?
The team won 93 games last year with Hamels and Lidge being awful and two months of Cliff Lee. A bounceback performance from those two and a full season of Halladay, and it's hard not to project them for 90+ wins again. Do people agree there's going to be some decline in marginal value of wins after that?
However, remember that they weren't some super favorite in any of the postseason series last year, now replace a Lee, Hamels, Pedro Martinez, J.A. Happ/Blanton Rotation with Halladay, Lee, Hamels, J.A. Happ/Blanton rotation. I think if they brought that rotation up against the Yankees they'd probably be the favorites. Of course the post season is a crap shoot but if you think you are going to get there regardless why not try to put the best team out there to get the title.
Nick Adenhart
Erik Bedard
Chris Capuano
Scott Feldman
Adam Eaton in 1st Year in majors
Josh Johnson and Matt Morris both very early in their careers
Mariano Rivera- obviously not a starter but he's held up pretty well I'd say
1)I'm not sure I understand the issue of when they get the TJ. What's the difference whether it's before they get there, or in their first or second year.
2)Additionally b/c of the advances in the surgery, it doesn't necessarily make sense to look to the past for comps.
3)Pitchers w/ TJ within the last 5 years are considered to be at lower risk of arm injury than those who have not had the surgery.
4)An interesting comparison will be Jarrod Parker of the D'Backs. Undersized RHP w plus stuff and armspeed, has had TJ. Both are big prospects-- will be interesting to see how they turn out.
Halladay's xFIP in 2009 was 3.07, compared to Lee's 3.65. That's not a small difference. Halladay posted an ERA+ of 155 in 2009, compared to 131 for Lee. Again, not a small difference. Lee did have a .321 BABIP, compared to .306 for Halladay, but for their careers both are right in the .299 range. Halladay is more of a groundball pitcher, and fits CBP better than Lee does. Not to mention Halladay's far superior track record.
I don't view this is a lateral move in 2010, the Phillies upgraded. Whether it would have been better to keep Lee is neither here nor there. Obviously they couldn't do it and feel comfortable with it. But Halladay is the superior pitcher.
The best 1-2 punch in the 2009 post season was trotted out by the Cardinals. The best top three was probably also the Cardinals. How did that work out?
I'm not saying it's likely, but absent this deal, it's possible Halladay could have only added guaranteed money in November of 2010, and who knows what would've happened in the interim?
Yes, particularly since the Phillies Assistant GM, Benny Looper, worked in the Mariners system until 2008. So he was pretty familiar with their talent. Todd Zolecki's MLB.com blog recently featured quick blurbs from Looper about each of the guys they got. If I can link, it's here: http://zozone.mlblogs.com/archives/2009/12/looper_talks_prospects.html.
Halladay + torn rotater cuff in August of 2009 doesn't equal $60 million or $120 million in free agency.