It seems everywhere I turn - watching TV, listening to the sports radio shows, posting on message boards, reading blogs and newspapers - I see and hear the same thing: TRADE CLIFF LEE!
Just over a year ago were were wetting ourselves with glee and naming our children after Lee because he chose the Phillies over the Yankees and Rangers. The excitement was so high about how we now had Lee back finally, Amaro had redeemed himself from his biggest failure, and the greatest rotation of all time was born.
Now, one year later, I see people talking about trading Cliff Lee ASAP and bringing back Oswalt at the trade deadline. Has Lee become the fans' scapegoat for the early exit last year and Amaro's bankrupting the team through poor, long term contracts? Is getting rid of Lee the only way to afford Cole Hamels and all the parts we're going to need next year?
I'm just flabbergasted at how the fans can turn on a "beloved" player so fast. Can someone explain this to me? The fans didn't turn on the Eagles' Nnamdi Asomugha this fast, and he was a total bust last year.
If the Phillies needed to save money so bad, maybe they shouldn't have re-signed Jimmy Rollins. Maybe they shouldn't have extended Joe Blanton a few years back at such a ridiculous number. Maybe they shouldn't have overpaid for Papelbon. To get rid of Lee is stupid. Doc will be 35 next year - who is to say he's going to keep holding up? He's already lost 4 mph off of his fastball over ONE year.
Great pitchers like Lee aren't replacable. Mediocre shortstops, broken down first, second, and third basemen, and a good center fielder and right fielder are.
People, probably correctly, have finally woken up to the realization that Lee's contract/cost potentially precludes the Phillies from signing Cole Hamels, which is a point I agree with.
Quite frankly, giving Lee all that money helped set the market price for Hamels which is an example of the Phillies becoming their own worst enemy.
Where I disagree with the reaction now is that this is something that happened sixteen months ago, and needed to be mentioned then. This isn't "new news."
I don't blame Lee, however, for anything, including the Game 2 NLDS loss. I love Cliff Lee as a pitcher.
Incorrect. There is a weird sentiment that Lee didn't act like he was upset at losing that playoff game.
I think it came in a spring training interview. The interviewer asked him about it and I think he said something about being human and to get over it.... forgive me because I am paraphrasing and I can't find the interview on the net.
I havn't seen any Lee trade threads. Then again, I don't goto anyother Phillies messageboard.
To be honest, I think Lee wouldn't be an easy to trade, espeically if if you're looking for a salary dump. His contract is huge, & very long. Anyteam looking for that, would've offered him that when he was a FA. Phillies would have to eat alot of his money, and not get much back in any trade. Now when he comes into his final 2 or so yrs, and if he is still pitching as good as he is now, then he will be good trade bait.
Right now Hamels, and Halladay are the big chips we could easily trade, and not have to pay a cent. Victorino too, but he wouldn't bring back as much.
I want to keep both Hamels & Victorino longterm, but I have settled on the fact that if we aren't gonna have them signed by the trade deadline, and we're out of the race, it is probably better to trade them.
As for Halladay since he has atleast 1 more year, but really 2 more yrs, I wouldn't trade. I would wait until next yr's deadline and see if the team is in it or not.
Fall from grace?
He threw 10 shoutout innings a week ago...
"...The Phillies didn't set the market for Lee any higher than it would have been set by the Yankees if they hadn't signed him..."
-- Yes and no.
'Yes' in that if Hamels was looking to leave, he'd used the Lee salary (probably not the Lee years), as a guideline/comparable even if Lee signed with the Yankees. But even so, most players/agents understand that the Yankees pay a premium in FA for just about everyone, largely for two reasons: 1) they actually DO have the resources to pay those premiums; and 2) there's a MASSIVE cost of living adjustment playing/living 8 months of the year in New York City.
'No' in that with Lee the Phillies established what the Phillies will pay for a player of that caliber. If Lee were making $24 million in the Bronx, the Phillies could tell Hamels "we just can't afford to pay what the Yankees pay" and it would hold water. But now they can't do that. That's why I say they became their own worst enemy as it pertains to Hamels when they signed Lee. Which is precisely why I would have traded Hamels for a boatload of prospects in one of the past two Winters, when every team is flush with cash, and Hamels had a ton of value because of his remaining team control year(s).
Shia Labeouf in that role in Money Never Sleeps is one of the worst casting jobs I have ever seen in any movie.
Ted "Sam Malone" Danson (who was about as typecast as anyone has ever been in Hollywood) was a MUCH MORE authentic investment banker than Shia Labeouf. (Danson was a more authentic doctor, too.)
'Money Never Sleeps' may have been one of the most disappointing sequels I have ever seen.
Script? Check.Casting? Check.Acting? Check.
Just horrible all the way around.
Jesus Mary and Joseph, you are a windbag.
If the Phils didn't sign Lee, the Yanks would and would have "set the market" for Hamels.
That is the answer.
Who cares whether the Phils would then have an excuse that they can't spend like the Yankees?
People are going to be upset when Hamels leaves.... at least now we still have Lee.
It ain't perfect, but the alternative possibility is the Yanks sign Lee and Hamels still leaves in free agency.
But surely we can keep Lee AND sign Hamels, right? I mean, it's not like the Phillies are bankrupt.
If anything, I think the Papelbon signing as well as RAJ's dumb contracts over the past few years have really screwed over the chances of keeping Hamels. I will say, though, that if the Phillies let Hamels walk OR trade Lee, it would be a public relations disaster for the team. The added hatred that poor Howard will feel over his contract (because you KNOW the talking heads will blame Howard and his contract for having to let Hamels walk).
If you let Hamels walk (because if you're in the race you just CAN'T trade him) you might as well let Pence go as well as and just go with an aging team on it's last legs from here on out. If the Phillies are truly ready to hunker down, take a mediocre season or two, and in a few years make a run again, you sign Hamels and Pence and let Victorino go and maybe even trade Doc.
What the Phillies SHOULD have done was let Rollins walk. Now, we're stuck with him because he has the vested right to block any trade that is made for him. This also could have freed up some money that (combined with Polly and Blanton coming off the books) could have been used tio sign Hamels. Meanwhile, Freddy Galvis will probably have to be either moved to third next year or traded, as Jimmy is blocking him for years to come.
They should also NOT have signed Papelbon and gone after a Heath Bell or a Huston Street last year. RAJ needed to be prepared to sign Hamels. Instead, he seemed to either not understand how his team's finances work this year or he just didn't care about signing Hamels.
I don't think the Phils have a problem with the annual money. They've said as much.
I don't think they want to give Cole a 7 year deal.... and a big part of me understands this.
Money-wise is not a problem with the deal.