Considering that the Cavs play 3 games in the next 4 days, I figured I’d try to post about one of the other sports tonight. And while it’s not technically Cleveland-related, I saw the ESPN update that the Phillies are on the verge of completing two simultaneous but separate deals: 1) shipping Cliff Lee to Seattle for prospects, and 2) nabbing the much sought-after Roy Halladay as his replacement.
Apart from my continuing affinity for Cliff, the main reason I want to look at this is because it functions as a good reminder that the Tribe is far from the only team in baseball that let economics override the prospect of success.
You’ll remember around the MLB trade deadline last season that Halladay was seen as the huge prize, and when the Phillies traded for Lee instead, there was somewhat of a backlash from their fan base. That said, the backlash was brief, since Cliff went on to be basically dominant for the stretch run of the season and the playoffs.
Fast forward to today. The Phillies essentially decide to trade Lee for Halladay. Is it because he’s a significantly better pitcher than Cliff?
Here’s a look at some of the relevant numbers:
2009 CLIFF LEE
IP: 231.2
K: 181
BB: 43
HR: 17
HR/9: 0.7
BB/9: 1.7
K/9: 7.0
K/BB: 4.21
2009 ROY HALLADAY
IP: 239
K: 208
BB: 35
HR: 22
HR/9: 0.8
BB/9: 1.3
K/9: 7.8
K/BB: 5.94
CLIFF LEE - CAREER
HR/9: 1.0
BB/9: 2.5
K/9: 6.8
K/BB: 2.71
ROY HALLADAY - CAREER
HR/9: 0.8
BB/9: 2.0
K/9: 6.6
K/BB: 3.29
The career comparison is a little skewed by virtue of the fact that Halladay has 12 seasons of experience vs. Cliff’s 8 seasons. And if you look at the year by year break-outs for Halladay (here) and Lee (here), Halladay’s performance has been more consistantly remarkable in all categories for longer (2001-9) than Lee’s. Cliff can really only go toe-to-toe with ”Harry Leroy Halladay” (true full name - thanks Baseball Reference!) the past two seasons.
However, if you isolate the sample size to just those two seasons, Halladay has still been better overall in the categories we care about — but not by leaps and bounds. And statistics aside for a moment, it’s impossible to say that Lee was the reason the Phillies didn’t repeat as World Series champs this past season. So “upgrading” him isn’t necessarily the move that I’d be trying to make if I were running the team.
That said, one thing that has always stuck with me from taking Econ in college was the concept that if you’re presented an opportunity that results in a net gain — no matter how small — you should take advantage of it, no questions asked. So from that standpoint, the Phillies’ “trading up” for Lee is completely defensible.
But since the Phillies are not directly trading Lee for Halladay, wouldn’t the best possible move be to retain Lee for the final year of his contract AND still make the deal for Halladay? That 1-2 pitching combo would instantly become the toughest in either league. Short of a meteor striking their spring training facility, it’s difficult to imagine a set of circumstances that would prevent the Phillies from getting back to the Series in 2010 if they were running those two guys out their back-to-back for an entire season in the weak-hitting NL.
Apparently the obstacle, though, is financial. According to ESPN’s Jayson Stark, if the Phillies were to use the nuclear option, so to speak, their payroll would balloon to something in the neighborhood of $160M. The franchise also has an internal rule to not sign starting pitchers to deals longer than 3 years.
After initial talks with Lee’s agents, the Phillies’ brass came away convinced that it would take a “CC Sabathia”-level deal to keep Cliff after this year. (As a reminder, the Yankees are paying CC 7 years / $161M, or $23M per). Halladay, on the other hand, has made it clear that he’s willing to take a voluntary paycut to come to Philadelphia. Reportedly, an extension of 3 years and $60M will put him in red through 2013, unless the trade breaks down in some other capacity.
This strategy brings up all kinds of questions that I don’t have the wherewithal to siphon through today. I’m most fascinated by the fact that the Phillies are taking a sort of third way between the extremes every other franchise seems to be gravitating toward. They’re apparently willing to spend but with definite caps and only with relatively short term deals.
However, I know this: if the Indians made these two moves I would be pissed. Throwing away a golden opportunity to have arguably the two best pitchers in baseball on your team is inexcusable — especially for a big market team like the Phils. I understand what they’re trying to do, but I don’t agree with it. You can’t make the hunt for the World Series title half of an arm’s race. Either go in and try to win today, or trade away Lee for prospects so you can save money. The middle road doesn’t end in victory.
-T
(view comments)
