The Deal

So let's discuss the Roy Halladay/Cliff Lee trade for a minute or two, shall we? I have one question for Phillies General Manager Ruben Amaro: Why? The Phillies made one of the best mid-season moves last year, grabbing Cliff Lee on the upturn of his season. The Phillies made no qualms about saying Halladay was their first choice last year, but the team would've had to give up too much to get him, so they wisely moved on to Cliff Lee, and got him fairly cheaply too. Lee then dominated his first few games in the National League, then struggled a little, but settled to a 7-4 record with a 3.39 ERA. Not bad. But Mr. Lee wasn't done. He then displayed one of the greatest postseason pitching performances I have personally ever seen. Clifford won four of the five games he started, posted a sick 1.56 ERA, and struck out 33, while walking only 6. He was phenomenal for the Phillies, and proved to be exactly what they needed; a stud ace to take the pressure off Cole Hamels.
It seemed almost a certainty that the Phils would then lock Lee up long-term. But then rumors began during the winter meetings that it would cost the Phillies 'C.C.'-type money to keep him. (No offense to Cliff Lee, but that's a bit overzealous. Even C.C. is not worth that amount of money. No one is.) So then the Phils renewed their interest in possibly getting Halladay. Would it still cost a ton to get him? Well, the answer was pretty much yes. The Phils had to give up their apparent second coming of Jesus Christ, Kyle Drabeck, as well as three other prospects. AND, they'd have to trade Cliff Lee. What?!
There was no stipulation that Lee had to be traded in order to get Halladay. GM Amaro simply decided that he needed to attain some prospects in return for what they were giving up for Halladay. But the Phillies have an extremely deep team as it is right now, with no giant holes that need filling by young propects. So if there was ever a time to unload a little farm talent in order to get ANOTHER ace, this would be the time, right? The Phils have represented the NL in the past two World Series, and were on the short list of teams to make it to the dance this year, with either Lee or Halladay heading the staff. But why not keep both if possible?
Halladay wouldn't allow a trade without an extension, but the Phils were able to do that, with a three-year $60 million deal. So why did they need to give up Lee? They had already picked up his option for 2010 at $9 million, which is extremely reasonable. So you would've had a rotation of Halladay, who you locked up for four years; Lee, who you had for one more cheap year; Hamels, who you hope can return to 2008 form; and young talent in J.A. Happ. Quite frankly, who cares who the fifth starter is at that point, because you've got the best rotation in the National League, if not baseball. But instead, Amaro trades Lee to get some talent for the future, maybe.
It's ridiculous to say that the team who got Roy Halladay this off-season 'lost out', but with this deal, how can you say the Phillies got the best possible situation? The Phils would've had the best rotation in baseball, but instead are now just somewhat better than they were last year, when they lost the WS. Go figure.