Cliff Lee or Ted Lilly?

[realmofotalk]

It's tough not to go with the former Cy Young award winner and postseason stud, but if you consider that he will command $100 million or more in the free agent market, he's not likely a realistic option for your team unless you're a Yankees fan. But even so, if your team had the money to pull it off, would you rather have Lilly for $30-to-40 million and use the rest to fill other holes on the roster?

[Pebbles]

I like Cliff Lee. Even though he has struggled since being traded to the Rangers he has the potential to lead them far into the playoffs with his past record he has had in those situations.

[Trendy Bastard]

I got to see Lilly first hand in Chicago. He was easily our most consistent pitcher. He knocked on the door of a no-hitter several times, and seemed to always give the team a chance to win. While he can't go as deep into games as Lee, I'd say Ted has more "bang for your buck".

Plus, I've never been a fan of giving pitchers long term deals.

[Kingdom]

I know Lee can beat [insert team here] in the playoffs, or at least he's proven he's not phased by the big stage and frankly if I have the chance to sign a player like that, I'm doing it. If I want to be a contender, I want Lee. If I want a chance at a winning record or maybe make the playoffs, I settle for Ted Lilly.

[love_that_reefer]

I would say Lilly on a three year deal would be the best fit because like you said, you've got to fill other holes. Plus I hate spending $20 million+ on a guy who only plays every fifth day.

[catman]

If money is no object, Cliff Lee is the guy. For a team on a budget, Ted Lilly is a pretty good pickup. Lee can beat any team in a pressure game. Lilly is not necessarily a proven commodity.

[realmofotalk]

Welp, Lilly sucks balls. I guess the lesson here is go big or go home.