Phillies Nation

101 Responses to “Beerman’s Report Card: Roy Halladay”

1. Pat Gallen Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 8:53 am

   Now just for argument’s sake, is the Halladay trade completely separate from the Lee deal and we are treating it as such (for this article, I’m aware the trades we separate)?

2. Greg V. Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 9:03 am

   That Halladay trade is not completely seperated from the Lee trade and I’m sick of people acting like it was. Without Halladay signing the extension, the Lee trade would not have gone down.

3. Scotch Man Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 9:04 am

   I liked Drabek a lot. I give the trade a C.

4. Keith E Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 am

   I thought we all agreed to leave ‘you know who’ out of our conversations starting 1/1/10.
   GO PHILS!!!

5. Gaze_NJ Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 9:06 am

   I suspect that by July, Halladay will have put together such a steady and dominating first half that “he who should not be named” will be all but forgotten. I’m still not sold on Cliff Lee being as good of a pitcher as he sometimes appears, but I’ve been head over heels for Halladay for a years now. A+ for the trade, A- for the “final grade” of that memorable day.

6. Manny Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 9:43 am

   A for Halladay… D for that “eventful day.”

7. Ed R. Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 9:46 am

   They are separate deals.

   Because Amaro was able to lock up Halladay for 3 years at below market value that made Cliff Lee expendable. If Halladay was brought here purely as a rental for the year then Lee would still be here today.

8. The Beerman Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 9:47 am

   Part 2 will come on Thursday…won’t be so kind to Rubes.

9. bfo_33 Says:
   March 2nd, 2010 at 9:54 am

   I could have made the trade, Doc held a gun to Toronto’s head. RAJ did a great job of not overpaying in July, going to option 2, holding on to Brown, negotiating the extension, all without embarrassing Toronto.
   A for the trade, B for the day (not sold on Lee either, Drabek’s size concerns me, like what I’ve seem out of Aumont, think Hamels will bounce back, but miss Taylor, would have liked to see an infield prospect included).

10. Pat Gallen Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:04 am

    I agree that I will miss Taylor and that the day should get somewhere around a C, but in terms of locking up a top 3 pitcher to a friendly deal, thats an A.

11. Justin Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:15 am

    Nah, Roy’s terrible. Lose him. Lose the whole rotation, start from scratch. Its the only way.

    Seriously though, Roy gets 20 wins. Easy.

12. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:20 am

    Every insider says the Phils deal with Toronto for Halladay was a steal. The only prospect that went in that deal that hurt was Drabek since Taylor was never going to play he he was so blocked and the Phils could afford to lose D’Arnaud with Valle in the pipeline to get it done.

    With those guys lost I think Amaro gets a solid B to then send an impending free agent (who would yield at most a late 1st round pick and a sandwhich) for a pitcher with top 25 prospect upside and two guys truly capable of making the majors. PLUS if your losing Werth you don’t want do be drafting 6 or 7 times around the same point late before you get to the 2nd round which is what would have happened. Were other teams really going to give more than 1 legit and two good prospects? Was a better deal than the Twins got for Santana…

13. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Nothing should be ever compared to the Twins-Santana deal… that was horrible.

14. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:28 am

    Again, grades are useless until we see how a player actually performs on the field. With that argument, I would give this a C….right in the middle, with the oppurtunity for it to up or down based on actual performances from all players.

    But from just the pure knowledge that we landed Roy Halladay….arguably the best pitcher in the game…..and that he has that excellent CHANCE to do extremely well…..then you have to grade it an A.

15. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 am

    ^Pat- As much as we’ll look back and no doubt wish we’d kept Taylor with the career he’s probably going to have, if your in the Phils front office looking at the guys we’ve found that are in the top 100 lists you have to feel supremely confident you can groom more grade A/B+ prospects who’ll start marching up these lists.

    Remember when we were scratching our heads looking at Mike Costanzo or Carlos Carrasco wondering where else we’d get impact players from because there was nothing in the farm post Ed Wade… Or when we viewed Adrian Cardenas as our top prospect… Keith Law can rank the Phils system below the White Sox for all I care because I’m supremely confident at this front office’s ability to find and develop major league talent.

16. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:37 am

    Very, very true NJ. They seem to be pretty high on all three ex-Mariners prospects.. so we’ll just have to hope for the best!

17. Pat Gallen Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 am

    Chuck, you just have to look at it from the perspective of, was this a good trade to make during the offseason. Of course, we cant predict the future. But from the information we have at hand, how can we grade this trade.

    NJ, Your completely correct about prospects, however I have this part of me that feels like Taylor will be a force. I never had that same feeling about others in the organization before him, not even Howard or Utley at first. But, then again, that just goes to show you…

18. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:51 am

    I loved Taylor too believe me but it was a numbers game and Brown is the better fit for this team going forward, IF the Phils are going to re-sign our star free agents then role players are needed more than future star prospects who wont be developed in the right way. With Ibanez off the books a year later I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Phils strike early and try and temp Werth into $60m or so with the big money teams having a lot of money committed past next year which might make it seem like a deal worth taking… No pun intended

19. The Beerman Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:52 am

    Pat at first I was a little peeved about giving up Drabek, but then started thinking. We only get hyped about these kids bc of the era we live in where their college and minor league numbers are so readily available. The list of top prospects who pan out is so slim.

    lol odd reference, but remember todd van poppel? i had so many of his rookie cards i thought i was going to be rich. cliff floyd, he was thought to be the next game changer…for every tim lincecum there seem to be 500 tyler greenes

20. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 10:58 am

    We were all dreading giving up Drabek and or Happ, then Drabek but to use him to land the best veteran pitcher in baseball. Thinking about it were we likely to get a pitching prospect as highly rated as Aumont is for Lee AND still get a package to go with it, mirroring something Don M said last week Aumont will be up near where Drabek was on the prospect lists by the time he nears 23.

21. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Yeah it took a good week to get over giving up Drabek, but I have spent some time doing my homework on Halladay and it was the right deal great timing and great extension.

    My only issue with the “he must not be named” deal is that I feel we could have gotten more for him if RAJ wasn’t impatient., or just kept him.

    My only issue with the deal was why not trade this group and maybe insert a Lou Marson for D’Aroud back in July. That was the part I was annoyed with. Their farm would not have been raped at the higher level.

22. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Because it was going to take much more to get Halladay back then and the only prospect we really lost in the Lee deal was the kid pitcher.

    Jeff- out of interest where do you think we could have got a better deal? Yankees, Boston, Angels? Have thought about this long and hard and I think we got a much better deal than it seemed at the time because I think Aumont is better than any guy that could be named without bigger issues let alone what would have come here with them. It blindsided the insiders and it wasn’t the sexy story driving deal they would have hoped for.

23. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 11:15 am

    Talking about great pitchers like Roy Halladay….. how about former Phillie, now Republican Senator, Jim Bunning? Major A-Hole.

24. The Dipsy Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Why? Why did this post have to go up? After digesting everything, I have formed the following beliefs:

    1) I would much rather have Halladay than Lee especially given the fact that he signed a VERY team friendly contract;

    2) As crazy as this may sound to some, after reading a lot about these prospects, I’m not so sure the guys we gave up are better for the Phils than the guys we got back. I would rate Drabek just a little higher than Aumont as a prospect. I would rate Taylor higher than Gillies, but Taylor was blocked. I would rather have the live arm of Ramirez than a catcher that will never play here. I also like the fact that these guys have shown some pedigree yet have not yet played themselves out in the minors and are in a position where they have to make the team or get traded, like Taylor. We got good talent back, but the talents is a little farther back in the pipeline and given the makeup of this team, thats just fine. And I love Gillies.

    The Dipsy

25. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 11:25 am

    Ok, if you’re grouping Lee and Halladay together….as part of the same deal…..and I think you have to do that…..then it’s a A.

    Lee had to be dealt for all the reasons that have been hashed over a million times. And the Halladay part of it speaks for itself.

    Forget Michael Taylor. Forget Kyle Drabek.

    We got…and I know this is a contoversial statement….we got a fair return for Lee. And we got the best pitcher in the game.

    So….give it an A then. (But I really hate grades before the players involved actually perform)

26. Matt Kwasiborski Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 11:27 am

    The best part about the Halladay deal was that we are not used to being the buyers for the top flight major league talent. We are usually the sellers getting prospects in return and hoard them hoping that they will be contributors one day.

    Now, we are win now mode, something that hasn’t happened to this team for an entire generation. If we were Yankee fans, we would be used to giving up prospects for big time talent. We are very leery of these minor leaguers coming back to beat us one day. But we now have the BEST pitcher in baseball. The guy had a 2.79 ERA pitching in the AL EAST. Cliff Lee had an ERA of 3.14 pitching in the AL Central and his ERA was higher pitching in the NL last year. Thanks Cliff, but give me Halladay if I had to choose.

    There is no way Halladay will be a bust unless he suffers a major injury- which can happen to any player at any talent level at any time. Losing Drabek and Taylor hurts our system, but some people pointed out that Taylor is pretty much blocked and we have solid talent in the OF down in the minors. Drabek is the bigger factor, but so what if he develops into a solid major league #1. We have a PROVEN commodity now who is considered the best pitcher in baseball.

    Lee was awesome and he will be a legend just above Aaron Rowand (short stint, major contributer) but he will be seeking top dollar on the market next year and when we see the contract he signs, we will then realize what a steal Halladay was.

    The trade is a B+ until Halladay wins the CY Young, NLCS MVP and WS MVP this year.

27. BRANDON Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 am

    Does anyone know if they have done the lottery yet for open day tickets?

28. WFC010 Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    Honestly…part of me really thinks we should have traded Happ instead of Drabek, but Happ is still more of a sure thing to at least be an “Okay” Major League pitcher, while Drabek has the higher ceiling for potential, but is somewhat riskier in regards to how he’ll do in the Majors.

    And I really feel awful about losing Taylor also, especially since we are probably losing Werth…and Taylor has power and bats right.

29. theo Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    does anyone know where we can find streams of all the spring training games?……i think i found some on myp2p….any other suggestions?

30. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Not sure about the streaming, but I would imagine that MLB Network will have games on every day ?

    I know that the Phillies have like 7 Spring Training games on TV this year

    ESPN used to show afternoon baseball games too, not sure if they still do now that MLB Network is here

    …

    Taylor is ready for the majors now though.. they traded him while his value was high . . . Brown projects to be the better player, and he will be ready next year, when we just might need a new OF

31. Bob in Bucks Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    Definitely an A+ trade. I still can’t believe the $20MM/yr extensions that we got from Halladay PLUS $6 million. Sure we gave up talent – you have to give to get but I thought Amaro did a great job.

    For everyone ready to kill him for the next deal remember that Amaro got him in the first place. We essentially traded Seattle prospects for the prospects we sent to Cleveland. The ones sent to Cleveland were marginally better but we were getting 1.5 years vs Seattle getting one year. Note Seattle did not get an extension signed.

    It is easy to spend others money. But without the Seattle prospects the farm system would be decimated. We need the prospects if for nothing more than trade bait.

    A tough but right move. For those who think Amaro could have done better can we hear which team and which prospects?

32. Griffin Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    I give the Halladay trade a B+ and the Lee trade an F.

    If you take the 10 prospects that were involved in the 2 Lee deals and the Halladay deal, the best 3 prospects were Taylor, Drabek and D’arnaud. The Phils paid top dollar for 1 year of Halladay. The fact that they were able to sign Halladay to a discounted extension is absolutely great, but the Blue Jays only traded 1 year of Halladay and got a king’s ransom.

    The Lee fiasco is unexplainable and there is no way Tyson Gillies is anywhere near Michael Taylor.

33. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    NJ,

    Well I am not sure exactly who we could have gotten, but I feel and I know others felt the same way, that RAJ did not thoroughly look into what he could have gotten in return, just took a partner. Now I know he did his homework I just felt there was more out there to be had, but you know just a thought.

    His salary is low for production so many would jump at him.

34. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Wait until Aumount is a dominant RHP to match with Halladay.. and then we’ll see how much we hate that trade

    .
    .
    .
    And I keep saying, but get no responses . . . if we “stole” Lee from the Indians.. why would people think we could then get back some amazing return for Lee . . when the team would get him for only 1 year, instead of 1.5 ?

35. Griffin Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    “why would people think we could then get back some amazing return for Lee”

    Because two wrongs don’t make a right?

    The Phils gave up 3 great prospects for 1 year of Halladay.

    The Phils received 3 mediocre prospects for 1 year of Cliff Lee.

    Granted, the Phils gave up even LESS to acquire Lee but if we’re just analyzing the second Lee trade, the Phils didn’t get enough back IMO.

36. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Carrasco, Marson, Donald, Knapp

    vs

    Aumount, Gillies, Ramirez

    those was the guys for Lee… I’d much rather have the guys we got than the guys we gave up. Knapp could be good, but he’s probably 4 years away

    …
    to get Roy Halladay, we had to give up much more than we gave up for Lee, because Halladay is better

37. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    those was = “those were” ….in blog language

38. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Yeah I am not sure I would use the word hate with the Lee trade, but I am just not confident in it.

39. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    I think we all wish we would’ve gotten as highly-rated prospects as Toronto got FROM US, FOR HALLADAY

    but the fact that we are able to steal Cliff Lee from Cleveland, made teams not want to reward us for that steal.. nobody was going to give up MORE than we did, for LESS time of Cliff Lee..

    Lee isn’t going to resign with Seattle… He’ll be a Yankee.. they will have kept Hughes and Chamberlain ..and added their main target 1.5 years later. So they’ll be “winners” out of all of this

    Seattle better hope like hell they make the World Series this year, otherwise that trade is BUST

40. Griffin Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Seattle gets 2 draft picks for Lee which isn’t too shabby. It’s a gamble worth taking.

    Is there any way Carl Crawford and Cliff Lee AREN’T Yankees next year?

41. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    Yea but Draft Picks aren’t anywhere near as good as Top Prospects . . . most draft picks never make it to the majors, but give those guys two years of playing professional baseball …working their way through the majors… and you have a much better idea of who can succeed at the highest level

    Crawford could be on the RedSox

    but that would mean Werth is a Yankee instead of a RedSock (Sock?? doesn’t sound right) … Werth’s stepdad played for the Yankees, so I’d imagine he wouldn’t mind playing in NY, taking over RF for Nick Swisher

    Swisher makes $9 M in 2011… but then has a $1 Million buyout.. (or a $10.25 M option) … so I could see the Yankees eating a lot of that salary to move him in 2011

42. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Eff!! I would MUCH rather have Werth be a “RedSock” instead of a Yankee.

    Excellent point about the “steal” of Cliff Lee form Cleveland. People forget about that and automatically just assume that some other team out there will be able to do the same thing. The “steal” was so blatant to the rest of the baseball world…and everybody took really good notes.

43. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    Yeah if kept Lee, and got Halladay, yes our farm would be weak, I just don’t think it is much stronger with who we got back in return.

    I would say what we got in return vs what we gave up for Lee was a push, but we got Lee for half a year and Seattle has him for a whole year. Thats the difference. not necessarily the players. Of course it is easier to grade out what we gave up cause we have already seen what Carrasco did with the Indians, Knapp was shut down due to fatigue, Donald was hurt and Marson is looking like their starter at catcher.

    The group we got, not too sure about yet. Just not confident in it. I hope Aumont is with Hamels/Halladay for many years, but we never know. He played on the otherside of the US in a different farm league so lets see what he does in Reading or Lehigh.

    THe other 2 interesting stories nothing I get overly excited about yet! You all remember how excited I was about Drabek last year, not sure that we will have a prospect like that, but we do have

    Halladay!

44. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    But Marson and Donald will never be anything special . . . I said that from the get-go that Donald is a part time player.

    Marson could be good, but he’s either a starting catcher on a terrible team, or a backup on a good team

    I think Aumount has more “upside” than Drabek… he’s younger, and more powerful ..

45. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    Aumont is one of these guys that has the ability to just “shock” a lot of people. I CAN’T WAIT to see the guy pitch….anywhere this year.

46. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    younger but not by much, Drabek has good pedigree too.

    Only time will tell.

    Don I do agree that what we sent to Cleveland was crap.

    I think Knapp and Aumount are similiar in some ways big arm big power.

    Drabek is more major league ready than Aumount so we shall see, Drabek may in the majors this year. I think he would have been our 5th starter this year at some point.

47. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    whhoops hit enter

    But I would rather have Halladay as my #1

    Halladay

48. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    “I think Aumount has more “upside” than Drabek… he’s younger, and more powerful ..”

    Interesting… I didn’t know that Don M knew more about prospects than the scouts from Baseball America…

    —

    What many on here are saying, and rightly so, is that we gave up a $hitload for Halladay when the guy was basically telling Jays management that he had to leave and go to Philly. The extension we then gave Halladay is what saves this deal… but if you’re looking at the actual trade: giving up THREE Top 100 prospects for a rental (1 year of Halladay), then it sounds pretty lousy. Again, I’m okay with the Halladay deal overall BECAUSE of the extension. Otherwise, HELL NO.

    As for the Lee part of the deal, I agree with Griffin. We stole Lee from the Indians… that doesn’t mean we have to let someone else steal it from us. The guy put up one of the most dominant pitching performances in playoff history… He’s worth much more than the *actual* value of the 3 prospects we got… of course, they might all become stars… but AS OF TODAY, they are so-so prospects… even Aumont. Just because the spotlight is on him doesn’t mean he’ll be pitching with Halladay and Hamels anytime soon…

49. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Maybe Halladay DID “tell Jays management that he had to leave and go to Philly”

    That, however, doesn’t automatically mean that we didn’t have to give something up of significant value in order to make the trade.

    There’s NO WAY that Toronto just makes any kind of deal because Roy Halladay is demanding a trade. No GM is THAT stupid.

50. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Manny sorry but that was idiotic saying Don thinks he knows more than Baseball America because last week they said there’s a 60 or so prospect difference. What he clearly said which I agree on is Aumont could be near or exceed Drabek’s rating when he has reached the age Drabek was.

    —
    You can’t look at the Halladay and Lee trades in similar trade value, Halladay had FAR superior value because you were trading for a guy who was penning a multi-year deal. Lee was a rental for anyone and the market would have shriveled had he stayed on it especially since the Seattle deal was only made because the Phils pressed for one guy in particular they wanted.

    “Because two wrongs don’t make a right?
    The Phils gave up 3 great prospects for 1 year of Halladay.
    The Phils received 3 mediocre prospects for 1 year of Cliff Lee.”

    The Phils acquired Halladay because it was a FANTASTIC deal and EVERYONE inside baseball said it and D’Arnaud wasn’t a GREAT prospect, a good one with a lot of upside. The guys received from Seattle were not ‘mediocre’ considering Aumount is pretty much where Drabek was at that point without a serious arm surgery, Ramirez being a guy scouts view as being very likely to be an impact reliever or guy capable of making the rotation and Gillies isn’t Quintin Berry, he’s a young legit prospect capable of being a major leaguer.

    The Phils had to deal Lee to add 3 major league caliber prospects to add to the group that will be major league ready at a time the Phils will not be able to re-sign or add free agents without players at the minimum salary. That would have been only a remote possibility if they’d taken the picks and gone to the draft, we weren’t getting Washington or Pittsburgh’s 1st rounder.

    —

    As for what the Phils could have got I think we got what may turn out to be a very good deal.

    -The Yankees weren’t going to give one of their top prospects and would have been a far inferior package.
    -The Red Sox might have given a bluechip pitcher but the rest of the package would have been poor.
    -The Angels were not going to give one of their top pitching prospects.
    -The Seattle prospects were probably as good as anything the Dodgers would have given.

    Who else would have bid on Lee? Aumont is probably the best prospect we could get given a couple more years grooming where he’ll likely reach elite prospect status and we got A LOT more in the deal.

51. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Since Baseball America is right all the time….

    Im smart enough to know that 20 year old kid that’s 6′7″, and now working alongside Roy Halladay is heading in the right direction

    http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2010/01/25/the-top-100-prospects-of-2010-26-100/

    The Skinny: The best pure arm, and the player with the most upside in the Halladay-Lee blockbuster, was Aumont. He is not as far along in his development as Kyle Drabek but the raw stuff stacks up with anyone. Armed with a 92-95 mph heavy sinking fastball and a four-seamer he can sit at 94-98 mph with, the 6-foot-7 Canadian can get by on arm alone. Couple that with his plus breaking ball at 79-83 mph and Aumont has two pitches that could make him a downright dominant force.

    Ranked higher than Aumont’s #29

    was #15- Kyle Drabek

    The Skinny: If Phillippe Aumont was the pitching prospect with the best stuff in Roy Halladay-Cliff Lee deal, then Drabek is the one with the best combination of stuff and polish. He’s undersized, but the 22-year-old has the stuff, bloodlines and feel for pitching to perform at the top of a big-league rotation. Aside from some lingering makeup concerns, Drabek is very close to the total package.

    so Drabek would compare to a Pedro Martinez?
    Aumont would compare to .. Roy Halladay? who he gets to watch up close everyday

    …
    MLB.com ranks them as Aumont #47 . . . Drabek #17

    Aumont: Aumont has thrown just 106 2/3 total professional innings since being drafted in 2007, but he’s shown just how dominant he can be, with a .228 batting average against and a 9.20 K/9 ratio.

    Upside potential: He’s still a bit raw, but he still has the chance to be a top-of-the-rotation type ace or a nasty closer out of the bullpen. He’ll get to the bigs faster if he remains in a relief role.

    Drabek: Statistically speaking: It’s hard to nitpick on a guy who was so successful in his first full season following Tommy John surgery. Overall, Drabek’s numbers, from ERA (3.19) to strikeout rate (8.23 K/9) to walk rate (2.76 BB/9) were outstanding, especially considering the elbow reconstruction. He will need to improve against lefties, who hit .317 against him in Double-A (compared to .174 for RHH).

    Upside potential: He’s not far from helping Toronto out. He probably could get hitters out now in a bullpen role, but he still has the upside to be a No. 2-type starter.

52. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Again, my point is: Don, NJ, Chuck.. you guys are betting way too much on guys like Aumont, Gillies… because you think or heard they have tons of potential…not only that, but that the potential will be fully realized and that these guys will become elite prospects. That’s some pretty serious betting there…and I’d rather be conservative and, as a fan, I can only value prospects by whatever the legit sources tell me they’re worth.

    When Drabek was pitching late last season, EVERYONE here was salivating at the thought of having him in the rotation in the very near future. We all said: he is LEGIT, he will be a No.1 or a No.2 for sure, he is one of the best prospects in baseball, he was the one who looked the best amongst all pitchers at the Futures game… But now, SINCE WE TRADED HIM AWAY, we all think: Oh, he’ll probably be a No. 3, or even worse “I think Aumount has more upside than Drabek”..

    THAT IS COMPLETE BS. Drabek is >>>> Aumont. Drabek has tons more potential than Aumont, too. Be real.

    It just sounds to me like we’re trying to justify ourselves by saying stuff like that. I bet if we traded Aumont tomorrow for a big name, in a week the same suspects will be on here saying “Oh well, he projected as a reliever anyway” or “he doesn’t have a good secondary pitch, he’s not that great.”

53. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    and Clearly since Drabek is much closer to pitching in the Majors.. he’s rated that much higher as a prospect

    …
    I think the Phillies like Sabastian Valle more than D’Arnaud anyway… neither is anywhere near ready to challange Carlos Ruiz . so they can add another 10 catchers to the farm system between now and the time they need someone to take Ruiz’s place

54. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Well yea, cause Drabek did actually make it to AA and pitched there successfully… at least we know that he made that step and he excelled. Guys like Gillies, Ramirez, and Aumont have a lot of potential but they’re even more unproven because they’ve never been past single A ball. If they falter in AA, which is a strong possibility for anyone moving up in the minors, forget about these guys becoming elite prospects.

55. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    Key phrase in the last few posts:

    “now working alongside Roy Halladay”

    Manny, I don’t think you realize just how HUGE that in itself is. The guy (Aumont) has tons of RAW TALENT….but now he gets to really how to PITCH.

56. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    ^ really learn how to PITCH

    Sorry.

57. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    I love this thread arguements on both sides.

    I am on the Drabek >>> Aumount side It would be great if Aumount can show what Drabek did last year, but there is still A lot of iffs.

    Drabek is not many days away from the bigs.

    I would have loved if they traded Lee to Seattle first and took Aumount and sent him to Seattle, they might have even tried that but would have loved it none the less.

58. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    I meant Aumount to Toronto

59. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    You can’t just look at it in narrow terms now and go i want that guy and not the next one! Look at the Upton brothers, BJ was a higher rated prospect than Justin because he was older but Justin has exceeded BJ at the point BJ was at that point in his career.

    Drabek is older and more developed than Aumont. Almost everyone forgot Drabek when he had TJ surgery and jumped back on his badwagon after everyone else started saying how good he was coming back from it. Aumont was drafted a year after and is therefor a year less developed so give him a year+ to develop and then start getting out your war paint because the Drabek vs Aumont arguement now means nothing. It’s in some ways like saying who would you prefer Lincecum or Strasburg.

    And Drabek has tons more potential than Aumont are you freakin; kidding me? your just looking at the names and rep. Drabek is a small guy with skills and a year more under his belt, Aumont on raw talent is probably a top 5 pitching prospect in all of baseball. He is a giant with a fastball that could put you in a coma and a plus off-speed pitch and needs to learn how to pitch. It’s like Pedro vs Randy in their style and as a prospect you take that beast over the other every day and twice on sunday.

    What it comes down to is it took Drabek to get Halladay who’s far superior to Lee and then trading Lee you get Aumont who is likely to become every bit the prospect Drabek is given time to develop.

60. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    I really hope that has as big as an effect as you think… I think that what most guys in ST can learn from Roy is his strong work ethic… learning how to pitch itself..hmm it’s tough to tell. All I know is this: Roy is a pitcher not the pitching coach!

61. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    !!!!!ITS NOT DRABEK VS AUMONT!!!!!!!

    !!!!!WE DIDN’T TRADE DRABEK FOR AUMONT!!!!!!

    we traded Drabek for Halladay- win
    we traded Lee for Aumont instead of going to the draft.

    Who would you rather have?
    -Lee signed to a $100m+ deal and Drabek who hasn’t pitched a major league inning
    OR
    -Halladay for 5 years far below market value and Aumont who’s likely to accent to top prospect status near where Drabek is now given the time to develop since he’s only 21…

62. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    “It’s in some ways like saying who would you prefer Lincecum or Strasburg.”

    Ok, that’s easy: LINCECUM by a mile.

63. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    Very True NJ,

    but once again it is an if. and all prospects are that, and you ask the question Strasburg or Lincecum, my answer Lincecum, why.. because we are winning now. Drabek could help us this year and next cheaply. Then be the number 1 after Halladay. Aumount could be in the bigs in 2-3 years or he could not, maybe he has to have TJ surgery. only time will tell.

    But that all being said I am fine with Aumount, because we have Halladay for the next 4 and the top 4 for the next 2.

    Remember last year when our staff was broken, before Lee and Pedro, I was on here talking about Drabek every day, cause we need to minor leaguer to come up and make a splash sooner than later. Now we don’t

    Halladay

64. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    I don’t think that anyone is saying that RIGHT NOW …. Drabek isn’t more of a sure thing … He is.

    But what I said, was that I thought Aumont had more “upside” … a chance to be a more dominant pitcher

    …
    Taking their Minor League numbers into account

    Kyle Drabek (in 4 seasons).. 3.71 ERA, 1.26 WHIP … 7.6 K’s per 9 innings pitched
    Phillippe Aumount (in 2 seasons).. 3.31 ERA, 1.25 ERA.. 9.2 K’s per 9 ip

    of course right now, you would rather have Drabek, because he’s closer to contributing at the Major League level . . . but in the long run, Aumont just might be the better pitcher. Well have to wait and see. Aumont can’t even drink beers legally yet, so he has a long, long way to go

65. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    No we didn’t but if we didn’t trade drabek for Halladay we would have Aumount.

66. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    Manny how many major league innings has Drabek pitched?

    I LOVED Drabek even recovering from TJ surgery but I don’t get how you can anoint him a HOFer and cast-off Aumont when Aumont is right now at the point Drabek was coming back from TJ surgery.

    How do you know Aumont won’t reach the level in 12-18th months time Drabek is at now??

    If your going to make it Drabek vs Aumont it’s who would you prefer- Drabek coming off TJ surgery or where Aumont is now.

67. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm

    On the other side really the debate is

    Lee(1yr)/Drabek vs Halladay(4-5yr)/ Aumount

    I would have to go with the second

    I think we all wish it was

    Halladay (4-5yr)/Lee(1yr)

68. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Halladay trumps everything!!

69. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    Kyle Drabek gets HAMMERED by Lefty’s … he’s not yet ready to pitch in the big leagues

    maybe by the end of this year.. but not yet

    I want to see him do well, especially now that he’s in the American League and it wouldn’t hurt us.

    I think it would be cool in a few years to see Drabek pitch in Philly in an Interleague Game… but he’s not ready to step in and contribute to an MLB team…

70. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:44 pm

    So can we have Lincecum too:)

71. Jeff of Nova Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    Like I said before I have come to terms with the deal and I am happy with what we have and looking forward to watching these prospects grow(hopefully)

    Time will tell on the prospects part of the deal, but Halladay is going to shine:)

72. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    “No we didn’t but if we didn’t trade drabek for Halladay we would have Aumount.”

    ARE YOU FREKAIN’ KIDDING ME??? your telling me you can get Roy Halladay for Kyle Drabek and get a prospect like Aumont back and your still gooey over Kyle Drabek kind of wishing the deal didn’t happen???

    Halladay for Drabek and Taylor is a MUCH better deal than Seattle got with Lee for Aumont, Lee is going to clean up on the free agent market and Seattle will be left with draft picks that aren’t as good as the guys we got from Seattle.

73. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:49 pm

    If we had kept Lee and let him walk for the picks and got left with what could be a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick plus the sandwich pick would we really have players that can step in in 2012?

    Remember the Brewers got a 2nd rounder for Sabathia and the Jays a 3rd for Burnett

74. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:50 pm

    guys remember its 5 years with Halladay- this year, 3 year extension and then an option year that WILL be exercised.

75. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Wow Don, now you’re nitpicking. ANYTHING just to make your point that maybe Drabek isn’t as great as we all think –despite the tiny little fact that he’s ranked No. 25 in all of baseball.

    NJ, I know what you’re saying..and that’s exactly my point. Drabek now is more proven than Aumont –Aumont still hasn’t thrown a pitch above single A. You have to compare their value as of today, not what it was a year ago… As you say, it’s a POSSIBILITY that Aumont MIGHT reach Drabek’s level..and I agree with that statement… but he has not yet.. and he will have to really excel in AA to match Drabek value-wise… I’m trying to assess these guys for what they’re worth right now, not what they might be or what they were in the past.

76. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    Drabek is a great prospect now ranked 25th (if I remember rightly Carrasco was pretty near there at one point)… Amount could be 25th next year or the year after since he’s two years behind Drabek.

    The Phils don’t need a stud pitcher now, they need one in two years time when the payroll is higher than my blood pressure right now trying to make the point.

    What it comes down to is would you rather Halladay and Aumont in the rotation in 3 years time or Drabek and ??? from the draft pick… That’s a no brainer.

77. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    If your saying you want Drabek here then your saying you don’t want Halladay.

    The Lee deal was a SEPARATE one to re-stock the farm with likely better and more developed players than we would have got from the draft picks.

    Again it was Halladay or Drabek NOT Drabek or Aumont.

78. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    saying Drabek’s got a higher ERA, and less K’s per 9

    followed by the fact that Drabek isn’t yet ready to pitch in the Majors..

    is NITPICKING???

    …

    Im still missing the part where I said that Drabek wasn’t good… this whole thing got started by my saying I think* Aumont has more “upside” …which I still think. I don’t expect anyone/everyone to agree.. .. that was just what I took from that trade, was that we were bringing in a younger guy, with the possibilty of a higher ceiling

    Again, as of right now.. Drabek is closer to a “sure thing” .. but I wonder what Aumont will look like when he’s 22 years old ?

79. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    we’re all arguing about different things..

    again.. I doubt anyone on here would say that RIGHT NOW.. Aumont is more vauable than Drabek

    but in two years.. Aumont could be ahead of where Drabek was when he was 22.. Aumont could be ahead of Drabek at 24… or Aumont could be watching hockey and wearing drinking Molson as a “never was”

80. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    …And either way Halladay will be ripping it up lik Ron Jeremy in Silicone Valley which is all that matters…

81. Don M Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    “ROCK OUT WITH YOUR DOC OUT”

82. NJ Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    And hang out with your Aumont out?

83. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    I think it comes down to that “sexy” thing again.

    Let’s face it. Kyle Drabek has a sexy name. A FAMOUS name.

    People have annointed the guy as the sond coming of Jesus right from the beginning.

    I was upset that we lost him too. But I’m really, really happy with where we are now. And I hope Kyle has an awesome career and puts up some ridiculous numbers.

84. George Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    Manny, in “trying to assess these guys for what they’re worth right now, not what they might be or what they were in the past, you are failing to realize that ANY player’s perceived worth is not just based on the current season. That would be idiotic. In the case of prospects, scouts have to make “projections,” and those are always based on probable future performance.

    You just can’t compare two players for only one certain year, or compare several years to one and a half. You have to go by natural ability and makeup. I’m sure Phils’ scouts see a lot in Aumont, or they’d have asked for someone else. Drabek had already gone to get Halladay, so the comparison isn’t valid, anyway.

    One other thing: the fact that the Phils “stole” Lee–and remember, they also got a MLB caliber outfielder in the deal–may mean that other teams don’t think he’s all that great. The Phils may have done better on the Lee trade than we might be giving them credit for.

85. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    To pick up on George’s argument, let’s say Cliff Lee has a bad year this year. Then what is his value??

    I’m not saying that he will necessarily have a bad year. My point is that maybe we got maximum value for him when it’s all said and done.

    That, in effect, would not only be a steal….but highway robbery.

    Give Ruben credit for pulling the strings he is. He’s not perfect but so far he’s earned my trust.

86. Jeff Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    Scotch Man is a moron. Give the trade a C. Drabek is a prospect with a bad arm you turd. DOC IS THE MAN BOY.

87. Manny Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    Everyone, my idea is not to piss all of you off.. I’m very happy that Halladay is on our team and I expect him to dominate. I just wanted to get across a few things:

    1) Stop thinking that Aumont is the next great thing cause the guy is currently ranked No. 93. That means that there are 92 better prospects in baseball today, including guys like Travis D’Arnaud, whom we never thought of as an “elite” prospect.

    2) Recognize the value we lost in the Halladay deal. It was a great deal for Toronto, especially given the circumstances. Taylor and especially Drabek ARE legit prospects. Perhaps you could say it was a win-win. But the point is: don’t undervalue a guy like Drabek NOW because he’s on a different team when a couple months ago everyone was high on him. That means: stop finding excuses to make yourselves think that maybe Aumont will be better. I won’t buy that one bit until a knowledgeable baseball source tells me otherwise.

88. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 7:35 pm

    Manny, I don’t think anyone here is trying to UNDERVALUE Drabek. We all recognize his ability and potential as a legit major-league starter…..maybe THIS year.

    However, I think too many guys are definitely UNDERVALUING Aumont, who, like Don said has (and I’m paraphrasing) “tremendous” or maybe it was “more upside” POTENTIALLY than Drabek……in the LONG RUN.

    Who knows…..maybe they’re both future Cy Youngs and the whole thing is a win-win for everybody.

    And, don’t forget (I know you haven’t)…..we now have ROY HALLADAY!!!!!

89. Chuck Says:
    March 2nd, 2010 at 8:07 pm

    Also, just because some ranking has Aumont at #93 doesn’t necessarily mean that there are 92 better prospects ahead of him. Those rankings are arbitrary. Aumont could bust out of the shoot….have a killer spring and surge ahead of a lot of guys.

90. NJ Says:
    March 3rd, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Manny sorry but thats more BS than you’ll find the cage of a bull in a zoo! When you say things like there are 92 prospects better than Aumont your saying what amounts to the Braves should have traded Tommy Hanson or Jason Hewyard for Teix because Feliz was a better prospect at the time. Was Jason Heyward the best prospect in baseball when he was drafted? No. Was Drabek in the top two years ago (which is the point Aumont is at now)? NO HE WASN’T.

    Scouts get a woody very few pitching prospects get right now when they look at where Aumont could be coming into the majors. You take the names off the back of the jersey and have Drabek and Aumont throw bullpen sessions next to eachother as prospects who haven’t pitched a major league game and Aumont will get his fair share of votes. No-ones saying Drabek isn’t a better prospect right now and will probably be but Halladay/Aumont is better than Lee/Drabek when you factor in the contracts.

    “Recognize the value we lost in the Halladay deal”-
    It was a great deal for Toronto, especially given the circumstances. EVERYONE inside baseball said the Phillies got a FANTASTIC deal for Halladay and that the Jays only saved face in the deal. Do you think guys like Buster Olney and Peter Gammons are wrong when ALL have exactly the same opinion??

    We ARE NOT undervaluing Drabek, he is a bluechip prospect who hasn’t pitched a SINGLE INNING in the majors for one of the best pitchers in the free agency era! In a separate deal we then acquired a YOUNGER, LESS DEVELOPED prospect with a far superior skillset to Drabek to OFF-SET the loss, not replace because we didn’t trade Drabek for Aumont period and if you believe we did your saying we made a mistake acquiring Roy Halladay.

    Your saying we’re nitpicking against Drabek about you won’t believe it till it comes from a credible source… Well who’s saying he’s undersized etc? It isn’t Don M or me or anyone here, it’s baseball scouts who’ve said the kids got the make-up but there are concerns for a guy who hasn’t pitched above AA. Oh and those same scouts raved over D’Arnaud from jump street and were just waiting for him to progress through the minors, Valle has that same billing.

    -Drabek, Taylor and D’Arnaud for Halladay was a GREAT deal
    -Amount, Gilles and Ramirez for impending free agent Cliff Lee was a good deal vs the two prospects we were likely to get in the 2011 draft.

91. The Original Chuck P Says:
    March 3rd, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Wow… first, we did NOT trade those three guys for one year of Halladay because we would have never made that deal without that extension in place. I mean, Toronto can feel that way if they want to but the bottom line is that the market price for one year of Halladay was not what they were asking. Couple that with the fact that they weren’t eager to trade him within the division knowing that an extension was going to be required to get the prospects that they were looking for and it was almost a perfect situation for a team like ours to swoop him up. We also received $6 million in the deal… $6 million that allowed us to do a lot of things this offseason.

    Further, think about what we were willing to give up for Halladay for the stretch run last year… without an extension… we were all stir crazy. How many people said, “Pick any two of Happ, Drabek, Taylor and Brown and two fillers”? In the end, we stole Cliff Lee, made it to the World Series and held onto the guys that Toronto wanted until Halladay forced his way out of Toronto. Halladay will be in Philadelphia for the next four or five years.

92. Griffin Says:
    March 3rd, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    I’m with Manny. The prospects we got from Seattle aren’t as good as any of the prospects we gave up for Halladay.

    Aumont is not as good as Drabek. Stop saying that prospect rankings are “arbitrary”. They aren’t. They’re not Gospel, but they do have merit.

    Carlos Carrasco was never a top 50 prospect. He has disappointed a bit, but Carrasco is only 22! Can we stop calling him a total flop, he’s still incredibly young! Is Gavin Floyd a total bust of a prospect after he disappointed early on?

    The Lee trade was a disaster. The only way to justify it is by saying “well you never know with prospects” which is crap. The 2 draft picks would have 75% of the value that the 3 mediocre prospects have, plus you would get a full year of Cliff Lee. It’s not even close which side of that trade is better.

93. NJ Says:
    March 3rd, 2010 at 6:58 pm

    “The prospects we got from Seattle aren’t as good as any of the prospects we gave up for Halladay.”

    Well no kidding… Lee isn’t the pitcher Halladay is, not close… He isn’t even considered the best pitcher in Seattle.

    We gave to get Halladay, we got a fair chunk of it back trading Lee and it was a win every day of the week and twice on sunday…

94. NJ Says:
    March 3rd, 2010 at 7:06 pm

    Griffin sorry but that is trash on the prospects… Aumont is a top prospect, Ramirez and Gilles are prospects comparable to Carrasco and Bourn.

    The first draft pick would have been a late first rounder at BEST and could have been as little as a third if the signing team went shopping a la AJ Burnett (the Jays have lost two type A free agents in the past two off-seasons for a total of two sandiwch picks, a second and third). The Phils don’t have to pay the bonuses and know they have 3 prospects capable of making the majors. Brain Burke the Maple Leafs GM nailed it today in his press conference, he said every day I’m going to take the prospect who’s been in the system developing than the pick who you might not see at all.

    The Phils traded Lee because they needed to add to a pile of prospects capable of making the team next year and the year after at minimum salary when we need to pay our free agents, wasn’t going to be the case with the prospects. Look at the teams who may have been in play if Amaro hadn’t taken the Seattle deal and it wouldn’t touch on what we would have got. At most we would have got Westmorland who probably isn’t going to be as good a prospect as Aumont is likely to be and we would have got nothing else.

    We got a great deal for Halladay, we got a good one for Lee. It’s the consensus opinion of guys like Buster Olney now the dust has settled and isn’t Halladay/Lee mania

95. Griffin Says:
    March 3rd, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    NJ, I completely disagree. None of the prospects from the Mariners are “top prospects”.

    No one is disputing Halladay is better than Lee, but when you trade Cliff Lee making $9 milllion in 2010 when his value couldn’t be higher and you don’t even receive a top 75 prospect? I’m sorry, that is not good enough. I’d rather have Lee in ‘10 and take the draft picks.

96. NJ Says:
    March 3rd, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    ummmm Aumont isn’t a top 75 pick right now… He’s likely to be a top 50 next year. He is considered a top prospect no matter how you spin it. He’s thought of now where Drabek was two years ago yet the moaning continues.

    The two other prospects are expected to be major league contributors. Do you really think the prospects would be worth it when you’d have to sink and extra couple of mil on each one to get get a prospect even in earshot of Aumont.

    Cliff Lee’s value was not anywhere near its highest, they guy probably hasn’t even unpacked his bag in his Seattle hotel room. He’s going to make $100m and go to a team that will be drafting at the end of the first round who if they go on a shopping spree will crush that pick down to what could amount to drafted about 40th and 50th if not lower, the Blue Jays compensation for Burnett who’s comparable was 37th and 99th… Would you still say you’d rather take those.

    Aumont- Has only just turned 21 and has a better ERA, WHIP and K/9 rate than Drabek, oh and is a 6′7 left with a power sinker in the high nineties and a plus off-speed pitch already.
    Gillies- Aged 20 in 230+ minor league games has 70+ RBI’s and steals, over 100 walks, a .321 average with a .447SLG% and an .866 OPS
    Ramirez is viewed from the right side what Bastardo as a guy who will stick in the majors as a set-up man with a good fastball and off-speed pitch or a middle of the rotation starer.

    The Yankees weren’t going to give a top prospect, the Sox might have given a Westmorland but nothing more, the Angels were not going to give a top pitching prospect, the Dodgers didn’t have anything to give that compares to what Seattle gave up and who else was going to make a play for Lee AND give a top prospect and support package for one year of Lee? His value was rock bottom for an upper tier pitcher just like Johan.

    If the Phillies had kept Lee this year and taken the picks the window would slam shut so fast after the 2011 season you’ll think you’d broken your nose.

97. NJ Says:
    March 3rd, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    I’ve got to say I can’t wait till two years down the line when Baseball America’s prospect rankings comes out and is further littered with guys who’ve been in the Phillies system- Aumont, Gillies, Gose, May, Valle, Galvis, Singleton and there’s 3 or 4 players from rookieball expected to be of that ilk.

    I guarantee you Gillies will be higher than where D’Arnaud is right now (Gillies already has a higher SLG% than the ‘power-bat’ catcher) Aumont will be near where Drabek is if not higher and this board will be creaming itself over him.

98. Griffin Says:
    March 4th, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Players don’t get ranked higher just because they get older. There are plenty of guys drafted out of high school that get ranked highly. If players progress and improve as they get older, they will be ranked higher.

    I hope you’re right about all the prospects you’ve mentioned, but I think you are describing “best case” scenarios.

99. NJ Says:
    March 4th, 2010 at 10:17 am

    Well Gillies numbers cannot be ignored, he’s on the rise like Ron Jeremy on the way to work.

    Aumont’s stock is going up not down, the kids got a K/9 rate near tear and a sub 3.5 ERA with a 1.25 WHIP, his values going up not down.

100. NJ Says:
     March 4th, 2010 at 10:22 am

     ^and on the flipside Drabek’s only year anywhere near this high on the rankings has been this one. Taylor was a complete unknown until he started clubbing the ball for fun and D’Arnaud was thought to have been a disappointment by most Phillies fans to this point…

     You lose (one year of) Lee, Drabek and Taylor, get Halladay, Aumont and Gillies… It’s a win! Be Happy

101. Griffin Says:
     March 4th, 2010 at 12:43 pm

     I am happy overall with the offseason, but I can’t shake the feeling of “What if??”

     I am just trying to pretend that Cliff Lee never existed, it makes it easier that way.

Leave a Reply