Okay, so what I'd really like to do is wax on about my second baseball love, my ever-growing nonsexual man-crush on Jack Zduriencik, and about how much fun it will be to see Cliff Lee pitching in Safeco in front of that defense. But until we know what prospects the Mariners had to part with in order to get the Blue Jays to send Halladay to the Phillies and the Phillies in turn to send Cliff Lee to the Mariners (and prospects to the Blue Jays), we won't know for certain that Jack Z has worked yet another miracle.

That's not going to stop me from talking about the Phillies' perspective, though. Because while we don't know the names, what we do know (assuming the fifty or sixty different reports are correct) is that the Phillies are getting one of the five or so best pitchers in the Majors, giving up another of the five or so best pitchers in the Majors, and giving up some prospects for the privilege.* Why? Was it worth it?

*As I was writing this, a report came across the Twittersphere that M's prospect Phillippe Aumont was headed to the Phillies, which certainly complicates things. Still, I feel confident that the deal for the Phillies is Halladay for Lee + a net loss in prospects, even if one is coming back. If it's a net gain in prospects, of course, that's a totally different matter, but is that even imaginable?

Roy Halladay will turn 33 in the first half of the 2010 season. Cliff Lee will play most of the 2010 season at age 31. Really, they're about 15 months apart. Halladay, of course, is right-handed, Lee a lefty. Both are slated to be free agents after 2010.

In the last two seasons, Lee has pitched 455 innings with a 2.89 ERA (147 ERA+). About 80% of that was in the AL, 20% in the NL. Over the same period, Halladay has pitched 485 innings with a 2.78 ERA (155 ERA+). All of that while pitching for an AL team trapped in the best division in the majors.

Over those last two years, per FanGraphs' WAR, Lee has been worth 13.8 wins above replacement; Halladay, 14.7.

So. Halladay is a better pitcher than Cliff Lee. His numbers are better, he did it in the harder division, and he's been doing it (more or less) for eight years, while Lee pretty much just has those two; in 2007, he posted a 6.29 ERA and spent about a third of the year in the minors. So, I mean, Lee is great, but Halladay is better.

But how much better? If Halladay is just slightly better than Lee, what are the odds that Halladay will provide a slightly better (or even much better) performance in 2010?

I really don't know, but I don't think they're great. Maybe 55%? Halladay will be his usual great self for the Phillies, but Lee would've been great too. Maybe not as great, but then maybe he would be, or even better (like he was in 2008). Halladay is an upgrade over Lee, but in a one-season sample there's no guarantee that you're going to realize the benefits of that upgrade. If someone offered me one year of Halladay for one year of Lee, straight up? Sure, I'd probably do that. But if I have to give up Lee and something else of value? I think I'm probably better off just hanging on to Lee. And that's without even considering their 2010 salaries; there may be some cost-sharing among the three teams here, but Lee's contract will pay him about $9 million, Halladay's $15.75. The odds that Halladay is almost $7 million better than Lee in 2010 are probably not very high.

Finally, let's consider two other justifications for the trade I heard yesterday:

1. The Phillies already have Hamels, a lefty, and need a righty ace to go with him. I don't think this matters when you're talking about pitchers of this ability level. Halladay and Lee both have minimal career splits. They're just good at getting hitters out. If you have the real Cliff Lee, you don't pay extra for basically a year of a right-handed Cliff Lee. Doesn't matter to me who else you have in your rotation.

2. Lee wants to try free agency; Halladay is willing to sign an extension. That's the rumor, anyway. But the rumor is that Halladay is ready to agree to a 3 year, $60 million extension with two vesting option years. That's not really some big gain you're trading for: that's the right to pay Roy Halladay at least $60 million. Lee would be unlikely to require more than that, but even if he left, that's $20 million a year you can use toward other things. I'm not a guy who believes you need an "ace" and all those other specific roles. I think a run is a run -- if Lee can't be resigned and no other "aces" are available, then you have the money to sign a star player at another position. And from the various rumors that are coming out about who's involved here, I have to believe that the Phils could've gotten Halladay, extension and all, without giving up Lee. And, at the end of that three-year extension, Halladay will be 36, with two more potential options to go. With each passing year, two differences between Halladay and Lee -- 15 months in age and thousands of Major League pitches thrown -- will become more meaningful. I just don't think the relative ease of resignability is a big factor in this case.

In all, it's crazy to say this without actually knowing what the deal is, and maybe I'll be retracting all this in a day or two. But I just don't see any way that I trade Lee and significant other stuff for Halladay at this point. But I hated the Ibanez signing, too, so maybe this means Halladay will win 30 games and Lee will have a career-jeopardizing injury in May.