Trade Official
Dave · December 16, 2009 at 11:58 am · Filed Under Mariners
The Mariners got Cliff Lee for Phillippe Aumont, Tyson Gillies, and J.C. Ramirez.
I still can’t believe it. Amazing. Just ridiculous. There’s still more work to be done, but right now, the M’s and Angels are about equals in terms of talent. Given a couple more good moves, the team could easily be considered the favorites to win the AL West next year.
I am as thrilled as anyone with this trade, and it is exciting to think about the year ahead.
However, I do not think this trade was a heist – and the fact that it was not is even MORE exciting.
In big fat round terms, from Philadelphia’s perspective, they gave up a great pitcher (who they maybe could have only kept for one year). In return, they got arguably the best pitcher in the game today – and significantly, at a great contract length (not too long, not too short, just right), at an excellent value (net $70 Million for four years – $17.5 Million per year). They also gave away 3 prospects and got 3 prospects – a wash.
For Seattle, again in crude round terms, if we assume Aumont and Gillies equal the two picks we would get if Lee walks at the end of 2010, then what Jack has done is to get Lee – maybe a $20 Million value – for $9 Million. So, essentially, in round numbers, Jack gave Philadelphia JC Ramirez in exchange for $11 Million.
In rough horse trading terms, that seems reasonably fair. If so, I think what it reflects is Jack’s sophisticated understanding of different teams’ needs and his ability to create nuanced and complex deals that meet everyone’s needs. The exciting part to me is that if this trade is NOT a heist, then Jack can keep doing these kinds of deals all over the place. No one (or at least no one not named Bavasi) will keep participating in lopsided deals, or engage with people who have a reputation for fleecing their partners. But lots of people will want to keep dealing with Jack if they know that he is coming from a place of doing sophisticated deals that meet both parties’ needs. Assuming that this trade, and other GM’s perceptions of Jack, are the latter, then that means Seattle can look forward to getting our needs met continuously, now and over the long term.
And that is really exciting.
The thing is, the managements of both teams are happy with the deal. There’s no winner and loser, just two winners. That’s what makes it possible for Jack to keep dealing.
I hate to mention this, but is it now possible that Lee could be a trade chip to ratchet us up even further?
I don’t get why people who defend the deal from the Philadelphia side bring up Halladay. Getting Halladay was great…but that doesn’t offset getting less then optimal players from Seattle.
Since the trade wasn’t connected they could’ve put Lee on the open market and seen what they could get. I think most believe they’d get better then the three M’s players. That is why it is a heist.
The best way to look at this would be if the Philadelphia fans would’ve been happy with this trade if the Halladay trade had never been made. I’m thinking the answer is no.
I think the deals ARE intertwined, which helps it make sense for Philadelphia.
And looking at it separately for a moment, 3 prospects for a one-year rental is pretty much market.
And certainly, we (Seattle) did very well on this deal – no question. But just not so well that no one will ever want to deal with us again….
It’s bugged me why Phillie didn’t shop Lee on the open market too, surely they could have got a better package back than what we offered, I couldn’t understand it.
Then I read the rumor that this three way trade started because Z originally contacted Toronto about Halladay himself only to find out they were already talking to Phillie about him.
I’m thinking that we’re getting something of a discount here because Jack provided a service not apparent on the surface as a ~facilitator~ who made the Halladay trade possible for the Phillies so in return for getting the Phillies what they wanted he got a chance to get what he wanted, a TOR pitcher.
It’s the only thing that adds up for me, and falls in line with everything I know about Z’s character.
It may well turn out to have great results for Philadelphia. Aumont may be ready for the Majors in 2010, and while it would be a way too much to expect him to close, he could be turn out to be an effective (if wild) setup man a la Brandon Morrow in 2007. But speculation on the best case is not the way to evaluate a trade. As David Murphy says on Philly.com:
However his analysis is a little funny, he totals up all the prospects the Phillies shipped out for Lee and Halladay, and then balances it against Halladay and the Mariner’s prospects. What happened last July is ancient history, and doesn’t take into account the value Lee provided clinching the pennant and driving the Phillies into the World Series, and keeping them in contention once they were there.
Yeah, the only way they put Lee on the market is if they lock up Halladay. Otherwise they just keep him, contend again, and take the draft picks when he leaves.
The thing about this deal that a lot of Phillie fans are having a hard time with is why the Phillies have to get rid of Lee even if they’re signing Halladay. Why not pair Lee with Halladay for a killer 1-2 and then also get the draft picks? It’s hard for them to believe that the Phillies — coming off back-to-back WS appearances and one win — can’t afford another $9M this year to hang onto one of the best 5 pitchers in baseball.
All I can think about is that Phillie thought Aumont was worth way more than the draft picks they’d get if Lee walked.
Agreed – and perhaps that Gillies specifically would be able to replace Victorino in 2011 when Shane’s contract runs out and they can no longer afford him.
Doc Baseball wrote:
“[The Phillies] also gave away 3 prospects and got 3 prospects – a wash.”
I don’t think so. The package of prospects they gave up is better than the package of prospects we sent to them, by nearly all accounts. I still don’t think this means the Phillies “lost” the deal though. They got a pitcher who is better than the one they gave up, for more years (I assume the reports that signing Halladay to an extension was a contigency of the deal were true), so it makes sense that the package they gave up would be better than what they got back. The only reason I think the Phillies “lose” is there were any number of ways the Phillies could have approached this offseason that didn’t have to include trading Cliff Lee, and wouldn’t have precluded getting Halladay.
“…if we assume Aumont and Gillies equal the two picks we would get if Lee walks at the end of 2010…”
I don’t think we should assume that. The difference in development time is significant. But given the year we get of Lee, I’m totally fine with that.
I’ve been trying to apply Dave’s advice from a post earlier this month to rumors of this trade and not get excited. I realize his post was directed at rumors that weren’t logical with regard to team direction and values but it seemed to me that, in addition, if something was too good to be true it probably wasn’t logical or true. I must now lower my skepticism barrier.
Apparently there is a Santa Claus and Mariners fans have been good!
Unbelievable. I think I want an M’s logo with a big upper-case Z in the middle tattooed somewhere noticeable so the cognoscenti will immediately know I’m a Jack follower.
I just want to chime in here with a big “Dude… CLIFF FREAKING LEE!!!!!!!!”. All Hail Jack Z!
I look forward to this season, more than I ever have before at any time in my life. I might even buy a season ticket package again! 🙂
Jimmie
Not to be greedy, but I remember early rumors that Seattle would get Lee “plus more.” Is that money? a prospect? Anything to it?
The deal’s final, nothing else is coming to us.
Y’all, this was a great great deal for the M’s. I agree with everyone about that (and agree with those who feel the Phils should have kept Lee if they couldn’t get more than this.)
Yet, I don’t think there’s any call to denigrate what the M’s gave up. Aumont especially is more than just a “middling” prospect IMHO. The other two have not only had development time but have survived the transitions inherent to that – which many touted prospects fail to do. Given that the picks from Lee walking won’t come until next year, At least 2 of the M’s may well be in the majors before the draft picks are selected. (& there’s a non-zero risk that Lee gets injured or performs poorly.)
I do believe Aumont can start long term and truly contribute to the Phillies’ future. And won’t be upset at all when he does.
I was convinced that one of the Seattle players needed to go to Toronto to free Halladay, which would give Seattle a bit of leverage with Philly.
But as two straight up deals, then is dumping Lee just about the money? 2010 money at that? Because everyone gets that Lee couldn’t be extended, but 2010 was only $8M.
CBP has been packed. The Phillies just went to the WS the last two years, and with Halladay, Lee, and Hammels in the rotation the Phillies would have no worries over unsold tickets in 2010.
Folks in Philly are glad to have Halladay, but they are not buying either (i) that they couldn’t afford Lee in 2010, or (ii) that they got the best value available in the deal with Seattle.
Seeing that the Lee became a “legendary hero” in two months, Philly fans are not pleased–but as they are Philly fans in the first place, their method of expression probably won’t be seen posted verbatim.