Heard in the Cheap Seats

My brother and I often disagree when it comes to assessing trades, free agent signings and the changes of our great city’s professional sports franchises.  If you witnessed our virtual brawl over the Brian Dawkins departure you know exactly what I am talking about.  

The Philadelphia Phillies trade for Cliff Lee was no different.  Anthony and I come at this deal from different sides of the coin.  We figured since we argue over email we may as well post that for all to see.  We will continue to do these segments from time to time as we inevitably disagree on the topic of the day.

The following is our actual email exchange on the topic.  Weigh in and tell us what you think.  Are we both wrong?  Was this the wrong move or did the Phillies shrewdly pick up the right pitcher?

From: Anthony
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 8:37 PM
To: Chris Iafolla
Subject: Re: Point, CounterPoint

Before I begin my points, I want to be clear to you, Chris, and to everyone else out there that I am not saying that the Philles made a “bad” trade!  So where should I begin my ass kicking in this debate?  I I believe the Phillies settled for the lesser of 2 pitchers in this trade.  They had the pieces to acquire Halladay, but were too stubborn to let go of certain players.  For a team that has won 2 World Series in over 100 years, I think we should all realize, this type of era doesn”t come around often.  I am going to withhold the rest of my ammo until you come back with your predictable response!

From: Chris Iafolla
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2009 8:42 AM
To: Anthony
Subject: Re: Point, CounterPoint

I like you how blunt any possible debate by saying it is not a “bad trade” just that they settled for the lesser of two players.  I don’t disagree that Roy Halladay is a better pitcher—I said as much when I posted about the Cliff Lee trade on Wednesday.  But that is not the issue at hand here.  The question for me is not who the better player is, but what was the better trade?  You say that the Phillies “settled” for the lesser player but I don’t think that is the case at all.  They wanted desperately to land Halladay and offered a very attractive package to get a deal done.  But to give up your entire stable of blue-chip prospects for one player is foolhardy.  They didn’t settle for the lesser player, they made a calculated decision to get a top-of-the-rotation starter without decimating their farm system.  

From: Anthony
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 9:44 AM
To: Chris Iafolla
Subject: Re: Point, CounterPoint

Don”t try and completely twist my words buddy.  Let me put it this way so there is no confusion: I don;t think they made the better trade.  The whole argument that I have heard from you and everyone else is that the reason the trade was so good has to do with the players they did and also didn”t give up.  Yes, they added a starter, and yes he won the cy young award last year.  But, since both trades were available, I don”t think they made the better trade here.  There are 2 reasons to have a good farm system.  One is to have replacements over the years and 2 is to be able to make trades for players like Roy Halladay.  Everyone uses cliche phrases like “mortgage the future” because they heard Buster Olney say it on Baseball Tonight. How can something be deemed a “better” trade when the only true evidence we have is between Halladay and Lee, and Halladay wins that battle in a landslide ( some people argue this, but I will get to that later). You say it is foolhardy to make that trade?  I say it’’s foolhardy to expect Halladay without giving up a top pitching prospect!  Prospects have no guarantee whatsoever, not even close to one, which is why I wanted to make the Halladay trade in the first place.  The fact that they made a trade and gave up prospects shows they knew they had a desperate need.  I have heard a car analogy used by a lot of people.  Well, let me say this to you and everyone:  If you have the ability to comfortably afford both, there is a difference between a Bentley and a Cadillac, so why settle for the Cadillac?  I have many more bullets but I want to see what other point you have other than they didn”t trade Drabek, Brown, or Happ.

From: Chris Iafolla
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:08 p.m.
To: Anthony
Subject: Re: Point, CounterPoint

You cheated, we agreed to a 150 word count on responses and you doubled it.  Does your argument need that much explaining that you can’t squeeze it into 150 words?  To level the playing field, I will stick to this new standard you have created.  

Yes, the argument is that they didn’t have to include players like Drabek, Taylor, Brown or Happ.  But it is not only about the type of players those prospects might become, but also about the cost control they provide.  Even the Phillies ownership was not comfortable with the Halladay trade—and it wasn’t because of talent.  The holes trading those prospects away creates would necessitate the signing of major-league free agents to fill out a roster.  They simply would not have the money to do that.  So yes, letting those prospects walk out the door is a risk in terms of talent, but also in terms of budget.  You can’t dismiss that risk.

Second, you mentioned that the Phillies have won two World Series titles in the last 100 years, so why not go whole hog now to win as many as possible while they have a young, strong nucleus.  But let me ask you this: how did they win last year’s World Series title?  Was it with a nucleus of players they acquired from outside the organization or by building from inside the organization?  I think the answer is obvious.  You win by drafting well and cultivating young talent. 

Finally, I think evaluating the trade on just the ability of Halladay and Lee (as you suggest) is oversimplifying the trade.  It’s not that simple. You made a car analogy that compared a Bentley to a Cadillac.  First of all, the disparity between Halladay and Lee is not that great.  Second of all, you conveniently left off price.  In my mind, a more apt analogy would be this.  Do you want to pay $500,000 for a Bentley or $50,000 for a Cadillac and we will throw a Honda Accord in on the side (Ben Francisco).  I will take the two cars (both of which serve a valuable purpose) at a fraction of the cost.

From: Anthony
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:51 PM
To: Chris Iafolla
Subject: Re: Point, CounterPoint

Yes, I cheated and then you went way overboard!  I don”t know where to begin.  Your rebuttal to my car analogy makes no sense.  My point was that they went for the cheaper deal and the lesser “car”, so thank you for making my point for me.  No, the two don”t cost the same, nor should they!  I agree that you build with the farm system, but that team was made up of a mixture, as all good teams are. Take a look at the rosters for the World Series Champs over the last 20 years. 

Also, What holes would be created?!  The players aren”t even on the damn roster. If you have a chance to win now you do it!  So, you have to give up a few prospects, if you believe in your scouting I would say you should be able to replenish.  When I was living in Cali, I witnessed the Angels develop the best farm system in baseball.  Still haven”t won since ”02, and because those prospects didn”t pan out the way they were supposed to, they have been bringing in guys like Abreu, Hunter, and Teixiera.  The team that is assembled will mostly be together for another 2 seasons, this chance doesn”t come around very often as Philly fans should know.  If you are OK with an Eagles Philosophy then more power to you.  The Phillies will be “competitive” by not going for the big deal.  To build a championship team, there has to be risk involved.  I am sick of people talking about the budget.  This is the World Champion Phillies who are filling the Bank to the tune of 101%, and if they continue to win, they will have plenty of money.  We aren”t living in Kansas City.

I guess I will just end with this: I think the Phils are lucky they can spin this by saying Lee won the Cy Young award last season.  If that weren”t the case I would be even more disappointed, because, like I said, they played it safe, and for no other reason than lack of guts and a plain stubbornness.  Kinda like the years when Reid insisted the Birds didn”t need a wide receiver.  I argue that there is a much greater disparity between Halladay and Lee.  I won”t go through every stat, I will allow people to look it up themselves.  But, here are a few reasons I feel they made the wrong trade: The Phils are very left handed heavy in the roatation.  Hopefully Pedro come in and helps with that.  That I can live with though.  Before last season, Lee had one other very good year…That’’s it!  Halladay has done it his whole career.  Lee surrenders more hits than innings pitched, Halladay does not.  Lee is a fly ball pitcher, and I don;t like that in Philly, and he has benefited from one of the most pitcher friendly parks in baseball.  Halladay induces more grounders than flyballs, which is better suited for the Bank.  Lee has a 30 point higher batting average against, and the list goes on and on.  All of this came with Halladay pitching in the best division in baseball.  So, please don”t use an award as grounds to say the race is close between these two.  Barry Zito won the Cy Young too!  You know what other award Lee won last season?  The Comeback Player of the Year.  Why?  Because he was awful in 2007 and was booed off the field and sent to the minor leagues.  You won”t see that on Roy Halladay’’s resume.

The bottom line, to me, is that the Phillies made the best trade they were “willing” to make, and I don”t agree with the reasoning.  The bar has been set at a World Championship, so if they don”t win and Lee isn”t dominant, then I will say they made the wrong trade.  There is no guarantees in baseball, but if they don”t win, we won”t get to see if Halladay would have made the difference.  If they do win it all and Lee is a catalyst, I will admit I was wrong.  Hey, at least there are those prospects to look forward to in 2012, when the window may no longer be there!  I feel so grateful for that.  Now, I”m done.  It was fun kicking your ass little brother.  That’’s how you debate!!!!

From: Chris Iafolla
Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:41 PM
To: Anthony
Subject: Re: Point, CounterPoint

 Um, use your wordcount function; if you take out the sentence where I pointed out you cheated, my section is shorter than yours. 

But I digress.  I did take a look at the roster of the last 20 years worth of championship teams and in every single instance they are built almost entirely from the farm system with a player or two as a key contributor from outside the organization.  That’s why a four for one deal of ALL (literally all) of your most coveted prospects does not make sense.  Don’t you think it is telling that no team was willing to come even remotely close to the price the Blue Jays asked?  The Phillies were not the only team that balked at the price—every team has so far.  And if a deal does get done for the Blue Jays in the next two hours you can bet it won’t be anywhere near what they requested of the Phillies.  The worst thing any GM can do is bid against themselves and that is exactly would Ruben Amaro Jr. would have been doing if he made that deal.  

The car analogy makes complete sense.  Your argument said if you have a Bentley and a Cadillac in front of you—which one would you choose assuming you can comfortably afford it?  The problem is; they can’t.  Obviously, if somebody said to me you can have either of these cars I would take the Bentley.  Until they asked for money I can’t afford to pay.  So yes, they did take the lesser car but at a more palpable price.  It was the right deal.

As for your questions on what holes would be created—the ones that those players will presumably fill on the roster.  Two SPs and two OFs do not come cheap.  That was directly from Phillies ownership that they did not feel they could afford to fill a roster if they had to look outside the organization for help.  No, they are not the Royals but they do have a budget.  You can’t just dismiss that aspect of baseball as much as we would all like to do that.  It is a business and if they can’t afford to pay their players they will suffer in the long run.  That’s a fact.

Of course Halladay is the better pitcher, but the discrepancy is not as large as the picture you paint.  You cherry picked some nice stats that support your argument so I will do the same that close the gap.  First of all, Lee was a better pitcher than Hallday last season, which you can’t dispute.  This season, since April 16^th after his rough start he has a 2.66 ERA.  He leads the major leagues in quality starts and is on pace to pitch 240 innings this season.  Cliff Lee is no slouch and is immediately the best pitcher on the Phillies roster.  

The bottom line is this: did the Phillies make a trade that greatly improves their roster? Yes.  If you can do that AND not give up a bevy of coveted prospects then why not make the deal?