Yes, but the point I was trying to make to Phil is they were going to be in the exact same boat with Stroman and Sanchez if they didn't make the trade. Now, they could sign them for the same price on the open market, but they got two free pieces out of the deal. He's making some bizarre connection to what a free agent does on a new contract to a trade of players under current contract, when one has nothing to do with the other. The same way a team that's completely out of play off race has a star player that will demand a huge contract they can't afford the next year so they decide to become sellers at the trade deadline. They trade them to a contender at the trade deadline. The next year when he signs his fat new contract and gets off to a good start, do you think the team that traded him says "oh fuck, he's off to a good start under his new contract, we shouldn't have traded him for prospects"?
Phil making zero sense and it's some of the dumb shit I've ever heard by someone that watches baseball as much as he does. (sorry Phil, but it's true)
Of course a free agent can be a bust, but the Jays would have had to sign Stroman and Sanchez to the same amount money either way, so what the Jays did was trade two guys that did pretty much nothing for two years, and got two prospects back, and their in the exact boat. They could have signed Stroman and Sanchez to a collective 25 million, or given Marcus Semion 18 million with 7 million on another player.