I’m a sickels guy, not Law. he had those three 2,3,8 in the phillies organ. going into this coming season. Which doesn’t say much, bc the phils system isn’t very good. But they were at b-, b-, c+. I just think you would want more of a sure thing, per say, then what the phillies got. I believe Aumont pitched the whole year in the bullpen, too. Too injury prone for me, as a headliner for the trade. I just think a first rounder/Suppl, give you much more of a sure thing, then anything the phillies got.

I agree with your assessment of Blanton. Very under the radar.

A couple more points. Blanton has produced 2.2 or more WAR every year he’s been in the big leagues. He’s also as much of a guarantee to give you 200 IP as there is in the game these days. I’d much rather give Blanton $24M over three years than sign an injury risk like Sheets, who’s asking for $10M by the way, or Bedard, who can’t seem to find a taker.

Also, on the prospects, you may not like the three that the Phillies got from Seattle, but Keith Law, who’s opinion on prospects I regard highly, said that the 3 the Phillies got from Seattle are better than the 4 they gave to Cleveland. Therefore, again, if you accept that the Phillies philosophy was that they were not going to totally deplete the farm system by trading 10 prospects combined in 18 months for Halladay, Lee and Blanton, you have to say that they did pretty well turning Marson, Donald, Knapp and Carrasco into Francisco + the 3 prospects that they got from Seattle + 3 months from Cliff Lee.

I agree with you that Amaro has been average at best, but primarily because of the extra years on the Moyer, Ibanez and Polanco contracts. I also would have preferred that the Phillies keep Lee, but not necessarily at the expense of Blanton. I would have rather seen them have a rotation of Halladay, Lee, Hamels, Blanton and Happ in 2010 and, if the budget was really a concern, fill the 3B slot on the cheap (maybe a Dobbs and Crede platoon). That being said, I’m not sure where you get your info that Aumont is definitely going to be a reliever and that Gillies is a 5th OF. At this time last year, Aumont was a starter and the 3rd ranked Seattle prospect and the Mariners were getting raked over the coals for putting him in the pen. The Phillies must think he can be an effective starter. Also, everything I’ve read says that Gillies has great speed and a great arm and, if his power doesn’t develop, he’s a 4th OF at worst. If your assessment of the 3 prospects that they got from Seattle is correct, the Lee deal will turn out to be a horrible one. I was just pointing out that the Phillies also saved some cash (the $2M difference between Lee’s and Blanton’s salaries plus not having to spend to sign the prospects).

The phillies could have DFA’ed Blanton, and picked a high risk/reward Bedard/Sheets/etc type. You go inhouse on relievers instead of two old pitchers, and you could extend Lee. Not even mention the horrible Ibanez/Polanco potential on those contracts, plus Moyer.

the phillies aren’t a small market team. signing bonuses should mean nothing to them. the phillies could have went inhouse for relievers, for example like the A’s did with Bailey.

I’d much rather take a first rounder and suppl first rounder instead of a 5th OF, a reliever, and an unknown in Ram.

To me, Amaro is at be an average GM.

Thanks. Ruben deserves criticism for some of the moves he’s made, especially giving the extra year to Moyer, to Ibanez and to Polanco. It is even fair to criticize him for the Lee trade, but – and I’m looking at you Buster Olney – people should at least know all of the factors before commenting on it.

Your comparison misses the mark on a number of levels.

1. Baez and Contreras are irrelevant to the Lee vs. Blanton comparison as the Phillies still would have needed to sign a set-up man and a hybrid starter / reliever. If we assume that they are on a budget, they could have still signed Contreras, but with $2M less to spend, they would have had to sign a replacement level reliever for $625k instead of Baez for $2.625M.

2. The real comparison is Lee + the 2 draft picks the Phillies would have received had he left after 2010 through free agency vs. Blanton + the three prospects + the money that the Phillies save. The money is the $2M difference in Lee’s and Blanton’s contracts + the signing bonuses the Phillies don’t have to pay the draft picks. The latter part is often overlooked in the equation, but it has to be considered because Seattle has already paid the signing bonuses (including $1.9M to Aumont) for the three players the Phillies acquired.

3. While you consider Aumont, Rivera and Gillies to be 2nd tier prospects, at this time last year, Baseball America had Aumont and Rivera as the top two pitchers and Gillies as the fastest baserunner and best OF arm in the Seattle organization. I don’t subscribe to BA, so I’m not sure how they currently rank all three players.

4. After having dealt Cardenas, Outman, Marson, Donald, Knapp, Carrasco, D’Arnaud, Taylor and Drabek in the last 18 months, the Phillies felt it was important to restock the farm system with players who are close to being ready to help in their window from 2010-2013. All three of the guys that they received currently project as major leaguers, so their thinking is understandable. While I disagree with their thinking, if they decided that they were not in a position to give up D’Arnaud, Taylor and Drabek without getting back some prospects – even lesser ones – the real way to look at the situation is that they traded 7 prospects for 3 prospects + Ben Francisco + 2 months of Cliff Lee + Roy Halladay.