Jose Reyes sat down with Mike Francessa on WFAN for almost an hour yesterday and talked about everything ranging from his injury plagued 2009 season, his love for the game, his coaches, who he loves/hates to hit against, possible additions to his team and of course, the Phillies.  Here are some gems from the interview:

"[The Phillies] always have something to say about me...I never talk about them...I love playing against them.

They're mad cause I hit a home run and put my finger up.  In the playoffs Victorino did the same thing.  When you are in the game, you don't think about that stuff, it just happens.

Even when they win the World Series they talk about us!  Why?"

To listen to the entire interview, click here and play the Jose Reyes audio segment.

It was a really good interview (even for Mike Francessa, for whom I detest).  Forgetting all the "team to beat", and hot stove speculations for a moment, I really miss watching this kid play.  Regardless of one's opinion of how good a player he is, one thing is for certain: He is one of the lightning rods for this rivalry.  He makes the games more fun to watch; whether you love to love him, or love to hate him.

So, get well soon Jose.  Don't try to do too much too soon and re-injure yourself.  You are the spark that sets the Mets in motion.  We need you, and so does this rivalry.

Rob Neyer just put out his list of the best players of the 0's (as he calls the decade) and as you would expect there's a fair amount of Phillies and Mets in the list.  I'm not going to copy the whole list, so here are the respective Philly and New York guys:

6. Carlos Beltran
Beltran excelled in all phases of the game -- hitting, running, fielding -- and gets a couple of bonus points for his brilliant run with the Astros in the 2004 postseason.

9. Roy Halladay (he may not be a Phillie yet, but he's of interest)
No pitcher until now? There just wasn't a pitcher who was brilliant for the whole decade, as Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens were in the 1990s or Jim Palmer and Tom Seaver were in the 1970s.

10. Johan Santana
Little separates Santana and Halladay, and Santana's best seasons were slightly better than Halladay's. But Halladay pitched more and did all his work in the game's toughest division.

[well Matt there's a nice opposition to your side of the battle: Roy > Johan]

11. Scott Rolen (doesn't count, just notable)
It's a shame that Rolen wasn't able to stay healthy in the latter half of this decade; otherwise his brilliant defense would have him headed for Cooperstown. (Maybe it should anyway.)

16. Bobby Abreu
It wasn't even one of his best seasons, but in 2009 Abreu finally (if temporarily) lost theunderrated tag … he finished just 12th in the MVP ballot, but that was the best he had ever done.

22. J.D. Drew (hate this fuckin' guy)
Don't laugh. Drew has averaged only 123 games per season, but when he's played he's hit, fielded and run with great skill. The Red Sox knew what they were getting and don't have any regrets.

27. Jim Thome
Thome hit 368 home runs during the decade; only A-Rod (who lapped the field) hit more. Thome also ranked fourth in walks, seventh in OPS and first in 500-foot homers to straightaway center field.

28. Pedro Martinez
Martinez went 75-26 with a 2.53 ERA from 2000 through 2004; in five seasons since, he has just 37 wins with 3.86 ERA, thus making the Red Sox look real smart to let him get away.

34. Gary Sheffield
Devastating hitter through the first six years of the decade -- .309/.408/.564 (batting average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage) -- but production fell off in later seasons as injuries mounted. He's the closest to Dick Allen that most of us have seen.

36. Mike Cameron
Exactly the sort of player who's usually underrated: Low batting average, but midrange power, solid baserunning and outstanding defense in center field made Cameron better than you probably thought.

37. Chase Utley
Maybe he should rank higher, but this is a lofty spot for someone who's been an everyday player for only five seasons. The National League's best-fielding second baseman and perennial leader in hit-by-pitches.

38. Carlos Delgado
It's hard to believe that Delgado has been an All-Star just twice; for the decade ranks fifth -- behind future Hall of Famers (probably) -- in both home runs (324) and RBIs (1,045).

46. Placido Polanco
Hey, what's he doing here? Well, he's here because he's been a league-average hitter who's played distinctly better-than-average defense just about anywhere they've put him.

52. Jimmy Rollins
56. David Wright
81. Tom Glavine
83. Cliff Floyd
85. Freddy Garcia
95. Jose Reyes
100. Jamie Moyer

That seems like a lot of former and current guys for only two teams.  Neyer mainly used win above replacement and playoff performance to compile and adjust this list.  It's a little surprising that Ryan Howard didn't find himself a place on this list, but remember he only registered 4.5 seasons in the 2000s.  Otherwise this list is a lot of fun to look and complain about.  Obviously I think there are about 6 too many Mets on this list (just kidding... nah for real though).

The Toronto Sun is reporting that one of the players has failed a physical in the Roy Halliday multi-team blockbuster deal.

Depending on which player it is, this could be a huge deal breaker.  Could you imagine if Lee had to return to Philly?  I wonder if he would still demand a trade.  Of course, this could all be moot if it is a lower lever prospect that could be replaced with another.

Regardless this should be fun....

Now that Lackey is off the market, it's time for Omar to turn to plan B.  Forget the Jason Marquis and the Joel Pineiros for now, the guy the Mets should be looking at is Aroldis Chapman.  Although I don't foresee him making an immediate jump to the big leagues, this kid is a special talent, and I think it would be a mistake to pass on him.  He's essentially the left handed version of Stephen Strasburg.

Chapman threw a bullpen session for MLB scouts yesterday, including representatives from the Mets.  The 6' 4'' 22 year old lefty hit 96 on the radar gun, and most people came away impressed.  Said Astros GM Ed Wade, "The kid's got a great arm.  He's a physical specimen. He's left-handed. He throws hard. Obviously, anybody would be interested in an arm like this. He's got some great stuff. The early feedback from our guys, and everybody else, is he's a tremendous talent."  Chapman has been on everyone's radar since he hit 102 mph during the World Baseball Classic, although he seemed to struggled with his command.

The problem with Chapman is the amount of money he is going to command.  I'm assuming that he will use Strasburg's 4 year, $15.1 Million contract as a starting point.  And don't forget he recently fired his agent, so its clear the Chapman is looking for a serious payday.  But at this point, I think he is a necessary gamble.  Why pay Jason Marquis $10 Million per year to be a mediocre starter, when you can give Chapman $3.5 Million with the potential for greatness.  There should be a major bidding war for Chapman in the coming days, and I would hope that the Mets at least submit a competitive offer.  Especially if they lose out on Bay and Holliday.

He isn't even officially on the team yet, and the Philly media is already annoying the hell out of Roy Halladay.  Kudos to The Fightins for passing this along.

Obviously Roy isn't allowed to comment on a trade that hasn't officially been completed.  But its still a hilarious "welcome to Philly" moment for Doc.

America loves a good debate, and in recent years we've had our fair share of great matchups.  Obama vs. McCain, Kobe vs. LeBron, Manning vs. Brady, and Charlie Manuel vs. the English language.  Enter Santana vs. Halladay.

This figures to be an ongoing battle, perhaps as fierce as the rivalry itself.  In the aftermath of the trade, most writers refer to Halladay as "the best pitcher in baseball", and its making me sick.  As far as I'm concerned, Santana is still the best pitcher in baseball.  He was in the past, he is now, and he will be going forward.  And I'm here to tell you why.  Cue the Phillies homers.

First off, lets take a look at the career stats:

Johan Santana: 122-60, 3.12 ERA, 1.113 WHIP, 9.1 K/9, 9 CG, 143 ERA+

Roy Halladay: 148-76, 3.43 ERA, 1.198 WHIP, 6.6 K/9, 49 CG, 133 ERA+

So Santana has the edge in winning percentage, ERA, ERA+, WHIP, and K/9.  To be fair, Halladay has a massive edge in complete games.  And to me, that is Halladay's biggest strength.  Still, I would have to give the career stats edge to Santana.  Most people say that in the past 2 years, Halladay has greatly outperformed Santana.  This is blatantly false.  Check the numbers:

2008-2009 (since Santana joined the Mets)

Johan Santana: 29-16, 2.78 ERA, 1.175 WHIP, 7.9 K/9, 3 CG, 150 ERA +

Roy Halladay: 37-21, 2.78 ERA, 1.089 WHIP, 7.7 K/9, 18 CG, 154 ERA +

Again, outside of the complete games, it looks like a wash to me.  You probably have to give Halladay the slight edge here, but nothing significant enough to claim the title of "best pitcher in baseball".  Drew Brees doesn't become the best QB in the NFL if he has a better season than Peyton Manning. Bottom line, Santana has the better track record, and he hasn't had a bad year in his entire career.  Hallday has.  And although Santana is coming off of elbow surgery, I like his chances of a more sustained career.  Halladay is a power pitcher who throws an incredible amount of pitches per year.  Santana is more of a finesse guy who relies on his changeup as an out pitch.  What will happen to Halladay when he can't blow people away?  Who knows.  But for many pitchers, like Pedro Martinez, this is a problem.  And Santana is 2 years younger to begin with.

One thing is for certain.  No matter which pitcher is better, the other guy is a close second.  And we are in for some legendary pitchers duels in the coming years.  I'm looking forward to watching, and arguing about this, for years to come.

Now that the deal is finalized (barring Roy Halladay passes his physical) we can sit down and decide what to make of it all.  The moving and shaking can be read in the table on the right of the post (I stole it from ESPN).

As discussed yesterday there are a lot more levels to this deal than moving players.  The main reason the deal was made boils down to the fact that Roy offered the Phillies a much more desirable long-term salary than Cliff Lee did.  Cliff wants a market-value, long-years, long-money deal and that doesn't fit into the Phillies organizational or monetary plans.  Roy on the other hand settled for 3-4 years of $20 million a year which is at least 1-2 years short of what he could have gotten in the open market next year.

On the surface, Lee for Halladay looks fine.  Halladay > Lee -- if only it was that simple.  The Phillies had to part with a lot of quality minor league talent to make this deal work.  Kyle Drabek is the Phillies top pitching prospect, Michael Taylor is right behind Domenick Brown on the hitting side and Travis d'Arnaud is the organization's top catching prospect.  The prospects received in return are of a much lower caliber.  Phillippe Aumont is a good prospect -- tall, lanky pitcher with good heat, but unpolished -- but no where near major league ready.  The other two prospects are lesser guys facing a long road to potentially make it with the big club.

Is the money saved long-term with Halladay worth what it cost to attain?  I don't think so.  I understand Ruben Amaro's thought process during all of this and that he had a tough decision to make.  However, the appeal of Roy Halladay this offseason was in adding him to our current duo of Lee/Hamels, not swapping Lee and Roy.  If the Phillies moved Blanton, signed someone cheaper than Polanco and brought in Roy, the top of the rotation would be a juggernaut and make the Phillies the overwhelming favorite to return to the World Series in '10.  I guess Ruben doesn't believe the world is going to end December, 2010, or else he'd have definitely made that move.

Added by Matt Ryan, 3:28 PM

UPDATE: The Deal is nearing completion, pending physicals.  This is how it breaks down, per mlbtraderumors.

Phillies Get: Roy Halladay, Phillippe Aumount, Tyson Gillies, Juan Ramirez, and $6MM from the Jays

Mariners Get: Cliff Lee and possibly another prospect

Blue Jays Get: Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor, and Travis D'Arnoud

The Phillies are likely to finalize a three year contract extension with Halladay in the coming days, at approximately $20MM/year.

Obviously, the thought of Roy Halladay in a Phillies uniform is upsetting.  That being said, this deal is not a slam dunk for the Phils.  There's no question that Halladay is a better pitcher than Lee.  But is he that much better?  Lee was money in the postseason last year, and it's hard to ignore that.  If you swap Halladay for Lee last year, the Phillies still come up short.  Plus, Halladay is a 33 year old power pitcher who averages 232 innings per year.  At some point all of that wear and tear is going to catch up.  If Halladay can stay healthy this deal is a huge win for the Phils.

Another key component of this deal are the prospects.  The Phillies lose their best pitching prospect, and gain the Mariners best pitching prospect.  Who knows how each prospect will turn out.  For that reason alone, it's really hard to name a clear cut winner in this trade.  We may revisit this trade in 3 years and say "can you believe the Mariners traded Aumount?", or vice versa.  But one thing to me is clear.  As much as the Phillies getting Halladay hurts, it is not a disaster.  If the Phillies traded for Halladay and kept Lee, that team might win 120 games, and walk through the playoffs.  This team is still great, but until they address the middle of their rotation, they remain beatable.

Original Post:

Added by Mike Mariano

The trade we talked about this morning appears to be more reality than speculation. The deal is far from done, yet Sources indicate that Cliff Lee will be shipped to Seattle, Roy Halladay will come to Philadelphia and a dump truck of prospects will land in Toronto.  The kicker for the Phillies is that they'll be able to reach a deal long term with Doc Halladay that they haven't (or won't) be able to reach with Cliff Lee.

When I first heard the news, I'm mixed about my initial reaction.  Roy Halladay -- love the guy, glad to have him, however (and a big however), is the supposed upgrade from Cliff to Roy worth the price it will cost the Phillies?

At this point we won't know the specifics until the deal is announced, but of course there has been speculation.  Travis D'Arnaud and potentially Michael Taylor may be leaving Philly to bring in the new ace.  D'Arnaud is a good player, but I hate to give up Michael Taylor here.  Him and Domenick Brown are the top of our position players down on the farm and the kid has an extremely high ceiling.  You've got to give some to get some, but is the jump from Lee to Halladay really as big as Michael Taylor?

Also, how is a potential 5 year, $100 million deal for Halladay going to effect this team in the next few years?  Halladay has thrown 1000 more innings than Lee, is a year older, and has had his share of arm injuries in the past.  FIVE more years is a big risk for an aging pitcher.

We'll talk more about this after the details are announced, but as of right now, does this deal make us that much better than we were before hand?

Added by Benny B:

Well, congratulations are in order. Halliday is arguably the best pitcher in baseball (after Johan of course:). However, like you said Mike, was it really worth giving up two top prospects AND Lee? Halliday, after all can only pitch once ever 5th day and may only equate to a couple more wins when all is said and done. Lee & Halliday in your rotation would have been a MAJOR coup. And with your lineup could contend with the Yankees, Sox and whom ever else. However, being as impartial as humanly possible, I think this move is at best a step sideways, and at worst a big step backwards in terms of the Risk reward.

Lackey just signed a 5 year deal with Boston, so it is safe to assume that Halliday at the very LEAST, will get a 5 year deal.  However, if I had to guess, a player option is in there for a 6th year.  I don't think he will get 7 years like CC/Johan considering his age...but I wouldn't be surprised if he did.   We will soon find out the details, but it begs the question if Doc signs a 5 year deal what in the world was Lee demanding?  It would have to be on par with Lackey, and if Doc is gonna get a similar deal, why not just spend that on Lee?  Was this just an excuse to get a bigger name than Lee?  All speculation, and I have got to wonder if maybe doc is going to surprise the hell out of everyone and take a shorter term deal...but I just don't see a pitcher of that caliber taking any sort of discount.  Anyway, the suspense is killing me.

Another congratulations is in order Phillie:  You have now graduated and become a big market team.  Welcome to the club...but this is not necessarily a good thing.  After this deal, it is going to be awfully hard to explain to Cole, Howard & Utley why they don't deserve every cent they are looking for.  Looks like Amaro is competing with Omar on who can be the bigger free wheeler.  By my count that is 6 minor leaguers that is has taken to net Doc (4 for Lee, 2 for Doc)

As a fan of Baseball, I can't wait to see the first Johan v. Doc Halliday matchup.  It's good for baseball and great addition to the next chapter in our rivalry.   I guess it's also nice to know that Lee should be available next offseason.  Time will tell on this move, but I think I would be scratching my head if I were a Phillie fan...

Floating around the rumor mill is the possibility that the Phillies are working a three-or-four-team-trade where the Phillies part ways with Cliff Lee and prospects and end up with Roy Halladay.  Yes, that would sabotage the possibility of having both but as time passes that is beginning to look more and more like a pipe dream at this point.  The costs are simply to high in the long run to have both guys on payroll, along with the offensive stars we already employ.  Both guys are looking for long-term deals and the thinking is that trading for Halladay and ensuring the long term deal is a better option than gambling that Cliff Lee can be signed before he hits the open market.  Which would you rather?

Roy Halladay: Perpetual Cy Young candidate and among best in the game, Great Nickname (Doc Halladay)

Cliff Lee:  Fan favorite, Cy Young, a year and 1000 innings younger, slightly cheaper in the long run.

Personally, I'm partial to Cliff.  If you're going to hand out a long term deal to either of those guys you have to remember one thing: you pay for the past, you get the future.  Roy is absolutely superior to Cliff over their careers and over the past 3-5 years, however it's the next 3-5 that concerns me.  Durability is one of the best attributes a pitcher can have and Roy is a 200 inning horse the past four seasons.  At what point will that run out and will he return to the days of disabled lists and arm injuries?  Cliff may only be a year younger than Roy, but his arm might be five years younger than Roy's.