PDA

View Full Version : Trading Cliff Lee cost the Phillies the World Series



arkimadee
10-24-2010, 01:14 PM
If I were a Phillies fan I would be sick looking at the World Series and seeing Cliff Lee in it and not me. I know the Phillies offense went silent this series, but I still think they would have would this series had they had Cliff Lee. The aging Roy Oswalt is just not the same as having Lee in there.

I must say though, I was at the playoff game in Cincinnati and I was glad to see the Phillies fans get the same feeling I got a couple of weeks ago with the other team celebrating victory on their home field. Its nice to see someone different in the World Series and I must say I really like this Giants team. They got cool character and frikin Brian Wilson is the man at closer. They are just as young as us and didn't get rattled by the Phillies like we did. They showed much better composure at the plate and on the mound. Maybe we can take some tips from them next year.

Knightro28
10-24-2010, 01:18 PM
Have to disagree with you. Had the Phillies kept Lee, then they don't go out and get Halladay. Some would say they could have kept both, but I don't think so.

Regardless of their rotation, their bats cost them.

Many have used this argument with the Reds. "it doesn't matter if Volquez was the right or wrong decision, the Reds still didn't score in Game 1" et al...

arkimadee
10-24-2010, 01:20 PM
they could have had Lee and Halliday both this season.. I'm saying keep Halliday and Lee

Knightro28
10-24-2010, 01:27 PM
they could have had Lee and Halliday both this season.. I'm saying keep Halliday and Lee

I guess my understanding of the whole Halladay / Lee double trade was that the Phillies were only capable of having one (for whatever reason, financial, probably), and so they chose Halladay because he was willing to extend his contract. I never thought keeping both was possible, but, I very well could be dead wrong

arkimadee
10-24-2010, 01:32 PM
They traded Lee after they got Halladay. They could have kept Lee for just this season. Instead they decided to trade him to Seattle for prospects because they knew next year they couldn't afford both.

Oxblood
10-24-2010, 01:32 PM
They could have had Lee & Halladay. They didn't need to sign Blanton and give such a crazy contract to Howard. After these playoffs that Howard contract looks very ugly. Possibly the worst playoff performance by an "all-star" that I can remember.

757690
10-24-2010, 04:44 PM
The Phillies could not afford both Lee and Halladay. Their budget went from $113M in 2009 to $138M in 2010. That's a 20%, $25M jump. There is no way they could afford another $15M on top of that. I would imagine that the $138M payroll has them losing money this year, and is paid for by profits from years past.

They chose Halladay over Lee, because Lee didn't want to sign long term with them. He turned down all their offers, so they moved to Halladay. Lee might technically been traded after Halladay was acquired, but that was all part of the same plan.

Krawhitham
10-24-2010, 04:52 PM
Have to disagree with you. Had the Phillies kept Lee, then they don't go out and get Halladay. Some would say they could have kept both, but I don't think so.

If they could trade for Oswalt, they could have kept both

Krawhitham
10-24-2010, 04:54 PM
The Phillies could not afford both Lee and Halladay.


Oswalt
10:$15M, 11:$16M, 12:$16M club option ($2M buyout)

Lee was 8 Mill for 2010

757690
10-24-2010, 05:07 PM
Oswalt
10:$15M, 11:$16M, 12:$16M club option ($2M buyout)

Lee was 8 Mill for 2010

You're right about Lee. But the Astros sent $11M to the Phillies to cover all of what Oswalt had left on 2010 and part of 2011.

Plus, the Phillies did win the division without Lee, and if the kept Lee, the don't get Oswalt, who went 7-1 with a 1.74 ERA with the Phils and was the team's best pitcher against SF in the playoffs.

I don't see how it makes a difference. Lee is not replacing Halladay, and his collapse in game 1 was the main reason they lost the series. Basically, it's either Halladay, Lee, Hamels, or Halladay, Oswalt, Hamels. I just don't see the difference.

Oxblood
10-24-2010, 05:41 PM
IMO, they choose Halladay & Blanton over a Halladay & Lee combo. Terrible decision as Blanton couldn't hold Lee's Jockey strap.

757690
10-24-2010, 05:43 PM
And by the way, the Phillies already have $148M committed for next season, and that is without Jayson Werth. They are already talking about trading some dead weight, like Ibanez, Lidge and Blanton.

Hustleman
10-24-2010, 08:07 PM
They could have had Lee & Halladay. They didn't need to sign Blanton and give such a crazy contract to Howard. After these playoffs that Howard contract looks very ugly. Possibly the worst playoff performance by an "all-star" that I can remember.

that howard contract looked ugly from the day he signed it

Oxblood
10-24-2010, 10:24 PM
that howard contract looked ugly from the day he signed it

Lol, true.

Jr's Boy
10-24-2010, 11:41 PM
The bats cost the Phills the Series.Someone forgot to call Ryan Howard and tell him the playoff's had started.

will5979
10-25-2010, 01:07 PM
The bats cost the Phills the Series.Someone forgot to call Ryan Howard and tell him the playoff's had started.

Someone should also remind Votto, Rolen, and Gomes that the playoffs started.

AintlifeGrande
10-25-2010, 05:27 PM
Someone should also remind Votto, Rolen, and Gomes that the playoffs started.


Don't matter,this was our first taste in 15 years.Howard and the gang are world series winners,and used to being in the playoffs.