Skip to content

The Phillies won’t be trading Cliff Lee

Jul 31, 2013, 11:33 AM EDT

It seemed pretty obvious that the potential suitor with the most to send back to Philly in exchange for Cliff Lee was the Red Sox, and now that they’re no longer in need of a starting pitcher, Ruben Amaro is no longer looking to deal his ace:

 

I think it was always about a 2% shot that he’d be dealt at best. Amaro was smart to gauge interest, of course, but the Phillies aren’t going out of business over the next couple of years. They do need people to pitch for them and they can afford Lee’s salary. It didn’t work so good this season, but the idea of starting in spring with Hamels and Lee and whatever else you can muster is a pretty smart idea.

In other news, why did Bowden put a hashtag on “source”?

  1. largebill - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:00 PM

    Good. It used to drive me nuts when the Yankees or other teams were able to dump bad contracts on other teams. Whether it is the Angels living with the Hamilton/Pujols contracts or Phillies with Lee, teams should have to live with decisions they make. Mind you Lee is still pitching very well, but obviously the next few years they will have a lot of salary tied up in him and Howard.

    • ochospantalones - Jul 31, 2013 at 12:35 PM

      Ummmm… Lee’s contract is not particularly “bad”. At worst it is a mild overpay. We know at least one team was willing to pick up the entire contract last year (the Dodgers claimed him on waivers) and as far as anyone knows the Red Sox are also willing to pay the contract. What the Red Sox were not willing to do was pay the contract and also trade top prospects for him, which seems like a smart decision on their part.

      Howard’s contract on the other hand is a disaster.

  2. greymares - Jul 31, 2013 at 1:25 PM

    Lee was NEVER going to be traded this year and probably next year.

    • xmatt0926x - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:10 PM

      That’s part of it too. If Ruben’s grand plan of trying to compete next season with Lee fails, he can still get something good for him next July, assuming Lee hasn’t faltered. Lee still will not be just a rental to any team picking him up next season.

  3. xmatt0926x - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:08 PM

    I think this was one of the rare cases where the GM meant what he said. He was not going to trade Lee unless someone was dumb enough to trade their whole farm and pay all of his salary. I guess GM’s do occasionally mean what they say around trade deadline time.

  4. edelmanfanclub - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    Really? Lee can fetch some great prospects. He’s 34 so don’t ask for the freaking moon, but you can still get good young guys and probably some ML ready too. How does this help your rebuild? The guy is owed 50 mill between 14 & 15, an then 27.5 in 16 (option), but a 12.5 million dollar buyout (an absurd buyout indeed). Move the freaking contract now, there is no reason to hold onto a player with such a extreme salary during a rebuild (Not saying Cliff Lee is bad, hes just too expensive for a team rebuilding) Amaro is an IDIOT.

    • greymares - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:39 PM

      Really? a pitcher with 5 or 6 years of ability should not be considered as part of a re-build, I’m glad your not the G.M.

      • edelmanfanclub - Jul 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM

        *YOU’RE not YOUR
        and Lee is 34, so he (like every other athlete) is set to decline from 2014-2020 (as you stated). Alot of these players have years left of ability (Utley, Rollins, Young, Howard, etc) But they aren’t getting better, they are getting older. If I was the GM I would be dumping these high salaried players because they don’t produce for future expectations at their salaries. May I remind you that is what you pay for, not for past accomplishments. I am not a GM, I’m not even 21 yet. So I am not saying I know more than current baseball GMs, but you have to question not moving a chip that is owed well over 65,000,000 for 2014-16 while your team is in a rebuild and not using his arm to get to the playoffs. If you aren’t saving him for a playoff run, trade him for future pieces that will help for a playoff run. Am I right or Am I right?

  5. yankeepunk3000 - Jul 31, 2013 at 2:58 PM

    2%??? You sure it couldn’t have been a 3%? maybe even 5%??? id like to think it was atleast a 5.5% shot. a man can dream.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Who are the favorites for Rookie of the Year?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. R. Castillo (3655)
  2. Y. Molina (3296)
  3. J. Soler (3015)
  4. D. Ortiz (2405)
  5. B. Colon (2368)
  1. D. Wright (2267)
  2. S. Doolittle (2119)
  3. Y. Darvish (2095)
  4. R. Cano (2027)
  5. T. Lincecum (2011)