I think Buchholz/Kelly is excessive for Halladay. Halladay isn't Pedro, and he's getting up there in years. Much better to go for Adrian Gonzalez or Miguel Cabrera -- you'll have them for longer.

I think Buchholz/Kelly is excessive for Halladay. Halladay isn't Pedro

Who'd be the current organizational equivalent of Carl Pavano and Tony Armas Jr?

Bowden and Lars Anderson?

Glad to see that the auction is finally getting off the ground.

Halladay is worth it. He's a 250 IP horse with no injury issues.

Halladay isn't that old, he turns 33 in May and the upgrade from Buchholz to Halladay probably makes the Sox favorites in the AL for 2010. I'd love to see Gonzalez in Boston and while I'm a big Cabrera fan there are enough reasons to be apprehensive about acquiring him.

Halladay is worth Buchholz and Kelly and I suspect a few more. I wonder if they're just going to empty the farm since the free agent crop is so weak.

Halladay might be "worth it", but in 12 months, the Jays won't have a "Halladay", they'll have two picks near the end of the first round. And while the Yankees and Sox MIGHT get into a bidding war, I doubt it. The "loser" of the Halladay auction will be the only major player in the free agent market. If the Sox trade for, and extend, Halladay, they're not going to have the money to go after Holliday, Lackey, etc. And those guys don't have many teams able to give them top dollar.

they're not going to have the money to go after Holliday, Lackey, etc

It's not clear that they would have the money to go after both of those guys now. We discussed this several times over on Sox Therapy if anyone is interested.

I think Buchholz/Kelly is excessive for Halladay.

Congratulations, you are now a stereotypical Yankees fan.

I think Buchholz/Kelly is excessive for Halladay. Halladay isn't Pedro

Who'd be the current organizational equivalent of Carl Pavano and Tony Armas Jr?

That's basically the issue. Pavano was a top prospect in the high minors, and Armas a good one, just having made the high minors. The Red Sox currently have no one in the high minors that begins to compare to those guys. So then you've got a trade involving Buchholz, who's cost-controlled for a couple more years, and now has a very solid half-season in MLB under his belt. So he's a significantly more valuable piece than Pavano/Armas, but there's not much of anyone to replace him with.

It's annoying - there seem to be an atypically large number of excellent ballplayers on the trade market this year, and the Red Sox high minors implosion has left them with very little to offer.

EDIT: the big question is whether Halladay, like Santana, would grant an exclusive negotiating window. With the window, I'd do Buchholz-Kelly in a second. Without it, that's a much harder call for one pitcher season.

1) I've never criticized JP for floating Halladay out there last summer - I believe he knew that Halladay had little interest in being in Toronto after 2010, and that there were teams who would trade for him in mid-2009 without an extension that will not be interested anymore unless they can negotiate an extension (like the Red Sox). If the Blue Jays can get any deal that includes Buchholz and Kelly, then they got more than they ever were going to in mid-2009. Good for them, but...

2) as a Red Sox fan, I think there is no f****** way they are going to trade both of these guys - and probably other prospects - for Halladay. Maybe I'm in the minority, but consider the following:

- Who will be better in 2010, Buchholz or Halladay? Almost certainly Halladay, by a meaningful, though not ridiculous, margin. So, in 2010, what you are trading is the difference between Halladay and Buchholz, in exchange for the salary difference between the two (a $15 million difference)

- How about for 2011 and beyond? Halladay will expect at least a 3 year extension, probably for $17-$20 million per AAV. He'll be in his late 30s by then, with a lot of mileage on the arm - how comfortable to you feel about those last couple of years? And what do you think Buchholz will look like in 2011 and beyond - almost a decade younger, and under team control for several years at below-market dollars, probably in a position to get a Lester-type contract in 2011 or 2012 that guarantees him money in exchange for buying out FA year(s).

- Then add in whatever the Red Sox have to give besides Buchholz - Kelly and (probably) other prospects. Besides the fact that trading Kelly and others means they have no chance of playing for the Sox through the system, there is also the opportunity cost - you can't use those chips for other trades down the line, including for an outfield bat.

- Finally, does this pair of pitchers, as the core of a trade, strike anybody else as a very pricey core amount? The Red Sox gave up Masterson, Hagadone, and another Class A pitcher for an all-star caliber catcher who can play a good first base, had a very good bat, and was signed at low dollars through 2010...at a time when other teams wanted Martinez, and everybody knew the Red Sox needed help. To me, if the Blue Jays want to get something for Halladay right now, they should consider that a trade would take his $15.75 million salary off their books this year, and that they won't have to lay out several million dollars in signing bonuses to the two draft picks they'd get for Halladay in 2011. That's a 20 million dollar savings, minus whoever they replace him with on the active roster. For that, you can have three quality minor-league arms, one of them being Kelly. I think Kelly and Buchholz is just way to much, and I'm not sure that Buchholz won't be better than him in 2011 and beyond...and a LOT cheaper.

I've never criticized JP for floating Halladay out there last summer - I believe he knew that Halladay had little interest in being in Toronto after 2010

Considering that Ricciardi said Halladay approached him to tell him that he'd be testing free agency after 2010, your belief is probably correct.

Halladay will expect at least a 3 year extension, probably for $17-$20 million per AAV. He'll be in his late 30s by then, with a lot of mileage on the arm - how comfortable to you feel about those last couple of years?

He'll be in his mid 30s by then. He's only turning 33 next year. As to the mileage, while he has thrown a ton of innings, he's done so by being one of the most efficient pitchers out there, and has been remarkably durable in terms of arm issues - he had a shoulder strain back in 2004, and a tight forearm a couple years ago, but that's about it.

You could have made all of these arguments about the Schilling trade years ago, Balboni's. I agree that Bucholz is likely to be better than the injured minor leaguers sent to the Diamondbacks back then, but the scrapheap is littered with guys who had a good 1/2 MLB season and that's it. In three years, Clay might be Mark Prior while Halladay is coming off his third Cy Young in a row.

Fair enough - my wife turned 38 this year, and she is only now willing to say she is in her "late 30s", so, yes, ages 34-36 would be mid-30s...

...to me, a lot of this comes down to how good you think Clay Buchholz is going to be. As a 24-year-old who has demonstrated excellent stuff, has been to the top of the mountain (22-year-old throwing a no-hitter for a World Series champion), the bottom (total head case train crash in 2008), and back towards the top (24-year-old who pitches extremely well, pitches well in his first playoff start, is established as a big-leaguer), has been through the wringer already...well, I think if you look at Roy Halladay's early career, he had a very similar pattern. Early success as a 21 and 22-year-old; a complete disaster as a 23-year-old; an impressive half-season as a 24-year-old; and then 19-7, 2.93 ERA, led the league in IP as a 25-year-old.

I think that Buchholz has arguably the best chance of somebody who isn't already a Cy Young contender of being one in the near future. Add in that he's 8 years younger, and $15 million cheaper than Roy Halladay...why is Casey Kelly in this conversation again?

Just say no, Toronto, just say no. Don't make the rich get richer -- particularly the rich within your division.

As a Yankee fan, if the Red Sox are willing to trade Bucholz and Kelly to the Jays, good for them.

Though he's not quite a comp, I'd rather the Yankees then go and sign Lackey to be their No. 2/3 starter, and let the chips fall where they may.

(Although somehow I've always had this feeling that Halladay will end up going to the Phillies).

why is Casey Kelly in this conversation again?

They're gonna need a shortstop if they can't resign Scutaro, right?

I understand the point being made in #13, but I don't think anybody every thought that what the Red Sox were giving the D'Back in 2003 is anything close to the perceived value of either Buchholz or Kelly, much less both.

The Red Sox traded Brandon Lyon, Casey Fossum, Jorge de la Rosa, and Michael Goss for Schilling.

- Goss never played in the majors, and I don't recall anybody talking him up as a significant prospect.
- de la Rosa got flipped by Arizona to the Brewers three days after this trade as part of a bunch of players for Richie Sexton. He's actually turned out better than anybody would've thought back in 2003.
- Lyon was picked up off of waivers by the Sox from the Blue Jays, he was a servicable closer until we traded for BY Kim, and then we tried to trade him a couple of times to Pittsburgh at the deadline for Sauerbeck.
- Fossum was probably the key to the deal. He was a small, but hard-throwing, lefty coming off a 25-year-old 2003 season where he made 14 starts, 19 appearances, with an ERA of 5.47. He had appeared in about 75 major-league games, with mixed results - but he was a hard-throwing lefty who had, at times, looked very good. You could see him turning into a very solid major-league starter, with patience. (Of course, he never did.)

So, to be fair, Buchholz is already far more valuable than any of these guys ever were, and Kelly is a better-regarded (albeit Class A) prospect than any of the guys on this list. I also think Halladay is better than Schilling was by 2004, but a reasonable person might disagree with that.

I say, take the $15 million the Red Sox will save, and/or Casey Kelly as a trading chip, and go get Adrian Gonzalez. Buchholz as our #3 starter (Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Matsuzaka, and Harden/Sheets/Bowden/whatever as #5) is OK by me if we have Martinez catching, Gonzalez at 1B, Youkilis at 3B, and Bay in LF. (I think we'll keep Bay becuase nobody else is going to give him 4/$60 million)

My recollection of 2003 is that the Schilling deal was viewed as a pretty good screw job at the time. I recall some sort of situation involving the Yankees and David Wells that had Arizona management pissed off and led to the theory that the D-Backs basically gifted Schilling to the Sox as a way to stick it to the Yankees?

#18 - Hey if Bucholz is going to do as well as you believe you are right. He has a very high upside but also a very low downside. We've all been following the game enough to know it would be no surprise if he is still struggling five years from now (or even out of baseball). If you ignore the downside completely the deal is bad for the Sox but you really shouldn't do that.

As a Jays fan I am unsure. Bucholz is a big name when it comes to pitching prospects but I am not convinced he can put it all together to be a consistent starter. It would be fun to cheer for him as a Jay. Despite his Boston uniform I find myself pulling for him from time to time (I like cheering on the rooks).

...to me, a lot of this comes down to how good you think Clay Buchholz is going to be. As a 24-year-old who has demonstrated excellent stuff, has been to the top of the mountain (22-year-old throwing a no-hitter for a World Series champion), the bottom (total head case train crash in 2008), and back towards the top (24-year-old who pitches extremely well, pitches well in his first playoff start, is established as a big-leaguer), has been through the wringer already...well, I think if you look at Roy Halladay's early career, he had a very similar pattern. Early success as a 21 and 22-year-old; a complete disaster as a 23-year-old; an impressive half-season as a 24-year-old; and then 19-7, 2.93 ERA, led the league in IP as a 25-year-old.

I think that Buchholz has arguably the best chance of somebody who isn't already a Cy Young contender of being one in the near future. Add in that he's 8 years younger, and $15 million cheaper than Roy Halladay...why is Casey Kelly in this conversation again?

Buchholz finished strong, so there is the posibility he turned the corner, but this sounds like either Buchholz's agent or the Firebrand of the American League blogger guy wrote it. Most of his wins down the stretch were against teams that were out of it and playing out the string. That may or may not mean anything, but to start projecting him as a Cy Young candidate is getting way ahead of yourself. Also, Bucholz is skinny. That may mean something, or it may not, but there are not that many Cy Young-type SPs with that build.

I think it comes down to:

1. The negotiating window, as Matt said.
2. Whether the Red Sox think, based on what they know about him, mechanically, physically, and statisically, that Halladay projects to stay among the top 5 pitchers in the game for another three years.

They're discussing this over on SOSH and they seem to think it's a Toronto-initiated story with a fabricated timeline that suits the media designed to get the Yankees involved. They also suggest that the writers introduced the names Buchholz and Kelly, which is true. There is no source.

Of course, those guys think the price should be a lot lower than both of these guys. Personally, I'd love to trade Bowden and Doubront for a pony. (Off-topic: Why is it pony and not unicorn?)

As a Yankee fan, if the Red Sox are willing to trade Bucholz and Kelly to the Jays, good for them.

Yes, but as a baseball fan I'd like to see Halladay back with Toronto, or if the Blue Jays are too cheap to do that, I'd rather he sign with some team like Detroit or Texas. And if Toronto lets him go to a division rival, they'd better get more than a fig leaf in return if they want to maintain any type of credibility with their fan base.

Also, Bucholz is skinny. That may mean something, or it may not, but there are not that many Cy Young-type SPs with that build.

Yeah, there ain't no pitchers like that.

Yes, but as a baseball fan I'd like to see Halladay back with Toronto, or if the Blue Jays are too cheap to do that, I'd rather he sign with some team like Detroit or Texas.

It's not necessarily a matter of cheapness. The president of the Blue Jays is on record as saying that the money is there for Roy, if he wants it. However, the indications are that Halladay wants to move to an organization where he's got a chance to play in the playoffs, which Toronto can't reasonably offer in the near future.

It's not necessarily a matter of cheapness. The president of the Blue Jays is on record as saying that the money is there for Roy, if he wants it. However, the indications are that Halladay wants to move to an organization where he's got a chance to play in the playoffs, which Toronto can't reasonably offer in the near future.

You're right, and my bad. I should have left it as "unable to re-sign him for any reason".

I'm a Jays fan, but I find the reluctance to trade for Halladay insane. This guy is good. He's better than you think. Assuming that the team trading for him gets a negotiating window, getting him now is a huge advantage.

I'm a Jays fan, but I find the reluctance to trade for Halladay insane. This guy is good. He's better than you think. Assuming that the team trading for him gets a negotiating window, getting him now is a huge advantage.

I'm a Red Sox fan and agree 100%. The likelihood of Buchholz/Kelly even approaching Halladay's level of performance the next 3-4 years is pretty remote (non-existent in Kelly's case frankly). In my mind Halladay is a guy that if you can get him, you get him. If you don't, you'd better have a REALLY good reason not to and as much as I was encouraged by what I saw from Buchholz the last month of the season I'm not THAT optimistic about his future.

I'm a Red Sox fan and agree 100%.

Given how Halladay does against the Yankees, you should be agreeing 110%. He's 18-6 against them, with a 2.84 ERA in 247.1 innings.

Given how Halladay does against the Yankees, you should be agreeing 110%. He's 18-6 against them, with a 2.84 ERA in 247.1 innings.

108% and that's my final offer.

Also, Bucholz is skinny. That may mean something, or it may not, but there are not that many Cy Young-type SPs with that build.

F'real. What a bunch of fatties.

By the way, it's not that they can't. But if the Sox actually make an early offseason splash this year, I believe it would be the first time ever. At least I can't think of an occasion where the current brass spent money early in an offseason.

More realistically, there'll be three-team scenarios involving Oakland and Halladay that persist for most of the winter, and then it'll all fall through.

F'real. What a bunch of fatties.

I love touchy, wiseass, Red Sox fans. That's why I like Lucchino.

Looking over the history of the game, I don't think there have been many long-term high-quality SPs with Buchholz's build. Martinez, Maddux and Lincecum are

a) not really built like Buchholz
b) known as very unusual guys with very unusual gifts

If you think Buchholz is headed for that type of career, yeah, keep him.

Like I said, it may not mean anything. Hershiser might be a better comp. Also, I could point to Schilling, Beckett, Pettitte, Halladay, Seaver, Ryan, Sabathia, Santana, Stieb, Rijo, Morris and many others. Of course, many people thought Prior would be a horse.

(Off-topic: Why is it pony and not unicorn?)

As if you could get a unicorn without throwing Westmoreland in, too.

They famously got Schilling over Thanksgiving in 2003, so I wouldn't say this would be the first early offseason splash

Matsuzaka was done early also though obviously the timing of that one was out of their control. Beckett was a Thanksgiving acquisition and my recollection is that Manny was between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

#14 is the fanboyest fanboy post in the history of fanboy posts. I can just picture the guy in the "BUCHHOLZ" authentic home jersey writing it.

I love [...] Red Sox fans.

There's no need to call me names.

Also, I could point to Schilling, Beckett, Pettitte, Halladay, Seaver, Ryan, Sabathia, Santana, Stieb, Rijo, Morris and many others.

There are many more big pitchers in the game in general. It isn't unexpected that their category would win more awards. You could be right, but I don't see much compelling evidence that big dudes win Cy Youngs at higher rates.

I can just picture the guy in the "BUCHHOLZ" authentic home jersey writing it.

Do you also picture him typing it on his stolen laptop?

I feel like nobody is taking into account the money part of this. Obviously, there is a meaningfully greater chance that Halladay will be a #1 starter-level pitcher in 2010-2013 than Buchholz...but there will also be a $15 million annual difference during those years in how much they get paid. If you use that $15 million on Halladay, I assume it means that the Red Sox don't plan on resigning Beckett after 2010.

Now, I'd rather have Halladay than Beckett for 2011-2013, but would you rather have for the years 2011-2013, for the same money:

a) Halladay-Lester-Matsuzaka-?-?
b) Beckett-Lester-Buchholz-Matsuzaka-?

I'd rather have b.

Also, if you wait until after 2010, you could go after Halladay without givign up Kelly, Buchholz, or anybody else. You can also figure out whether you'd rather have Beckett or Halladay, since they'll both be free agents, and nobody thinks we'd try to sign both of them. The Red Sox would lose a draft pick, but it'll likely be a low first rounder, unlikely to be as valuable as having Casey Kelly. And, you have the cost control of Buchholz as your #3 starter in 2010-2013. Now, you enter 2011 with:

Halladay-Lester-Buchholz-Matsuzaka-?,

and with Kelly still either in your system, or being used to help acquire a big bat in 2010 (Gonzalez?)

I love Halladay - I guess I'm just more bullish on Buchholz than most...

In fact, what big offseason moves have the Epstein Sox made that weren't Thanksgiving-timed?

JD Drew is the only one that comes to mind. Their late-offseason moves have been midsized - Clement and Lugo and Renteria and Foulke. The big ones - Schilling, Matsuzaka, Beckett/Lowell - all happened early.

Coincidentally or not the Sox typically release their ticket prices around Thanksgiving every year (they released them last week this year).

Now, I'd rather have Halladay than Beckett for 2011-2013, but would you rather have for the years 2011-2013, for the same money:

a) Halladay-Lester-Matsuzaka-?-?
b) Beckett-Lester-Buchholz-Matsuzaka-?

I'd rather have b.

I'm gonna try to write this up later, but you have to name names. Which pitcher will the Red Sox sign for $15M who will be available on the free agent market for 2011 or 2012? How likely will they be to sign him? What will their fallbacks be if they don't sign him? Should they go to $20M to make sure they get him?

I feel like we can't both say (a) the Red Sox can't be blamed for not getting Teixeira and Sabathia because the Yankees will always outbid them, and (b) the Red Sox should pass on big trades (with negotiating windows) because the Red Sox will be able to spend that money on various unspecified stars that will come available on the free agent market.

Also, if you wait until after 2010, you could go after Halladay without givign up Kelly, Buchholz, or anybody else.

If you wait until after 2010, the Yankees will sign Halladay.

#43 - What I meant is that, in 2010, there is a $15 million difference between Halladay's salary and Buchholz's salary. In 2011-2013, whether through free agency or a pre-trade negotiated extension, that $15 million difference between the two is likely to remain. So, if the Red Sox traded Buchholz + prospects for Halladay, they are taking on $15 million in annual net payroll by having one on the rotation rather than the other. While Halladay is clearly a better pitcher today, one has to acknowledge that there is both a small risk that Buchholz will be better in the out years than Halladay, but $15 million cheaper, and that making such a trade-and-extend for Halladay represents a meaningful opportunity cost.

If you pay Halladay $15 million more a year than Buchholz would've made, it's $15 million you can't spend somewhere else.

My point in post #40 is that, for that for roughly the same money over 2010-2013, the Red Sox could have:
- Roy Halladay, or
- Josh Beckett, Clay Buchholz, and whatever prospects would be included in the Toronto trade (maybe Kelly, maybe Westmoreland, maybe Bowden, who knows)

For me, I'd rather have the Beckett/Buchholz/prospects for the same money. I am not saying that we save the money for some yet-to-be-identified free agent in 2011 or something - you are right that it is easy to attach that money to some magical player that never ends up being available (Pujols, Mauer), or that never wants to sign with your team (Teixeira). I'm using a very plausible, present-day scenario: that the Red Sox would not make the trade, and instead extend/resign Beckett; still have Buchholz; still have Kelly and other prospects; and probably sign Beckett for a fair amount less than Halladay will cost.

Full disclosure: I am not Clay Buchholz, or his agent. I acknowledge that there is a very good argument in the other direction, as well. I am very bullish on Clay Buchholz's future over the next five seasons, and that colors my calculation of any deal.

Looking ahead to next winter:

Brandon Webb will very likely be a free agent next offseason. I doubt AZ re-signs him, unfortunately.
Beckett too, but Sox will certainly do their best to lock him up long term.
Cliff Lee too, if the Phillies cannot agree to a long term deal.
Javy Vazquez (the Braves may look to lock him up if they trade Lowe).
Harang, Arroyo, Suppan have team options for 11, but all may be free agents.
Ted Lilly
Jeremy Bonderman
Jake Westbrook
Joe Blanton
Kevin Millwood

Either Buchholz is amazing, and you're going to have to start paying him decent money starting in 2011 anyways, or he's not, in which case, who cares?

If it's an authentic home jersey, it wouldn't have the name spelled out.

There are many more big pitchers in the game in general. It isn't unexpected that their category would win more awards. You could be right, but I don't see much compelling evidence that big dudes win Cy Youngs at higher rates.

Right. So the thin guys who really kick ass get nicknames like "The Freak."

I tossed out "Cy Young" due to what SBPT wrote in 14, but the issue is whether CB's build affects how you project his future. The Red Sox, supposedly, use advanced biomechanical image modeling and customized training techniques, as well as traditional scouting analysis and statistical similarity modeling done by Bill James et al, among other things, in making these decisions. That is one reason they win all the time. I wasn't bagging on Buchholz; I was just pointing it out.

This situation is of course somewhat analogous to the protracted Johan Santana drama. I was of the opinion that the Yankees should have pulled the trigger and as f'd up as the Mets are, Santana is not the problem. I am basically in the "if you can get an elite guy, go for it if at all possible" camp. In this case, I am not as sure. Halladay is awesome and cool and everything, but he is a bit older than Santana with IIRC a lower K rate.

That said, I don't think I would hold up a Halladay deal over Clay Buchholz. Casey Kelly might be a different matter.

Doesn't Casey Kelly have a no trade clause of some sort? Or was that another Red Sox minor leaguer?

Doesn't Casey Kelly have a no trade clause of some sort?

I don't know, but he is mentioned up there in the excerpt.

I don't know, but he is mentioned up there in the excerpt.

That doesn't mean much, considering the source of that excerpt.

I may be thinking of Westmoreland; I recall reading somewhere he has a clause that allows him to go back to school if the Red Sox trade him to another team. This is of course way too much Red Sox trivia to hoard in one's brain...

Find it funny someone mentions Stieb as a workhorse. He was, much like Halladay, a Blue Jays workhorse who was regularly viewed as best in the league. However, he is also a warning sign and helps explain the Jays trading Halladay in the near future. Stieb was 18-6 in his age 32 season with a 140 ERA+ (career best in W, 4th best ERA+, 3rd best ERA) and a no-hitter. He would start just 30 more games in his career (plus 23 relief games). The age 33/34 seasons were his highest paying ones too. In 8 of the previous 9 years (9 of 11) he was over 200 IP (9 straight years of 30+ starts) so no one saw it coming.

Dave Stieb is the warning to all who are thinking of trading for/signing long term Roy Halladay. You could have the best pitcher in baseball, or you could have nothing.

As a Jays fan I hope someone does do the deal and grossly overpay then give Halladay a 5 year deal at $20+ per year (class act, he deserves it as much as any player could).

I think that it is Westmoreland with the out in his contract.

It is my position that teams like the Red Sox should nearly always be willing to trade prospects for legitimate superstars.The only contingency in my mind is whether or not Halladay will grant an exclusive negotiating window. If he's determined to hit the market next winter, then Buccholz and Kelly is a no-go. If he'll grant it, I'd do it and I'd do it yesterday.

However, he is also a warning sign and helps explain the Jays trading Halladay in the near future. Stieb was 18-6 in his age 32 season with a 140 ERA+ (career best in W, 4th best ERA+, 3rd best ERA) and a no-hitter. He would start just 30 more games in his career (plus 23 relief games). The age 33/34 seasons were his highest paying ones too. In 8 of the previous 9 years (9 of 11) he was over 200 IP (9 straight years of 30+ starts) so no one saw it coming.

Of course no one saw it coming. Stieb dropped off because of a back injury caused by a collision at 1B. Basically, the back injury required surgery, which required a change in his motion to take the pressure off, which caused tendenitis, which caused him to retire. Steib's drop-off is about as unrelated to workload as possible.

Halladay is awesome and cool and everything, but he is a bit older than Santana with IIRC a lower K rate.

Halladay has been at 7.5 and 7.8 K/9IP over the last two years. He's also got a K/BB ratio of about 5.5:1 over that stretch. Over the same two years, Santana is running at 7.9 K/9IP, with a K/BB of about 3.2:1, despite getting to face pitchers on a regular basis.

Seeing Halladay in a Yankees or Red Sox jersey would hurt this Jays fan, but not as much as I thought it would 6 months ago. If he signs with either team, at least I know there will be lots of chances to watch him pitch on TV.

It's a forgone conclusion that he isn't going to be a Blue Jay after 2010. I always held up hope that he'd sign an extension, but after recent comments about him going to FA, I know it isn't going to happen.

He's been the classiest guy on the team for a long time, so I suspect his press conference about being traded will involve him saying kind things about the Jays and Toronto as a city.

I'll cheer him on in every game he pitches, except against the Jays. But for his first return to Toronto, I'll give him his standing ovation. Then I'll hope they knock him out by the 3rd inning. :)

Find it funny someone mentions Stieb as a workhorse. He was, much like Halladay, a Blue Jays workhorse who was regularly viewed as best in the league. However, he is also a warning sign and helps explain the Jays trading Halladay in the near future. Stieb was 18-6 in his age 32 season with a 140 ERA+ (career best in W, 4th best ERA+, 3rd best ERA) and a no-hitter. He would start just 30 more games in his career (plus 23 relief games). The age 33/34 seasons were his highest paying ones too. In 8 of the previous 9 years (9 of 11) he was over 200 IP (9 straight years of 30+ starts) so no one saw it coming.

Halladay isn't really a workhorse in terms of throwing a lot of pitches. Halladay throws a lot of innings. He has incredible command, so he basically never walks anyone. He threw over 120 pitches only once last year and threw over 105 pitches only 18 times.

Who'd be the current organizational equivalent of Carl Pavano and Tony Armas Jr?

Buchholz and Kelly would be pretty equivalent to Pavano & Armas.

It really all pretty much comes down to how many years and what money you have to pay Halladay to stick around. As a general rule, you always trade prospects (almost no matter how good) for established, good major-leaguers unless the money is just whack.

Of course there's a chance that Halladay craps out tomorrow. There's probably an even better chance that neither Buchholz nor Kelly end up amounting to anything. Such is the nature of pitchers and prospects. But Halladay has as good a chance to be the best pitcher in baseball over the next 3-4 seasons as just about anyone not named Lincecum.

If Halladay is looking for something like 5/$115 then I walk away completely. But he's never tried to take the Jays to the cleaners and he seems to want out mainly for a chance to win. I wouldn't be shocked if 4/$70 covering 2010-13 (giving him a small raise for this year) was enough for him; 4/$80 I think definitely gets it done.

Brandon Webb will very likely be a free agent next offseason. I doubt AZ re-signs him, unfortunately.
Beckett too, but Sox will certainly do their best to lock him up long term.
Cliff Lee too, if the Phillies cannot agree to a long term deal.

Of course we don't know yet whether Webb can still pitch. Beckett's a good pitcher and might have another CYA-worthy year like 2007 but he's not really in this company. Cliff Lee is probably still on the fringes of this conversation for at least one more year -- this year he clearly established he's good but he hasn't established he's 140+ ERA+ good yet. He's also 31 already -- I just don't have faith that he'll be elite long-term.

So unless Webb comes back full-strength, there are no pitchers like Halladay coming on the market anytime soon.

The $15 mil. salary difference between Halladay and Buchholz is likely to be the difference between their actual values. A 3-WAR year for Buchholz would be a nice result, while a 6-WAR year is about Halladay's projection.

Kelly is a prospect--a very nice one but one that is not that close to the Majors yet. If the Red Sox think he'll be ready by late 2010 (as Gammons "reports"), then I don't do this deal. If they don't, this is pretty reasonable. This is Roy Halladay, after all.

I completely disagree that Buchholz and Kelly are like Pavano and Armas. As Bill James has been saying for 25 years, you can get in trouble trying to project a player too many levels above where he at present.

Clay Buchholz, today, is arguably where Pavano was after his third (partial) year in the big leagues. He was 24 years old in 2000, after having been traded in late 1997, and went 8-4 in 15 starts with a 3.06 ERA, decent K/BB and K/IP ratios. When the Sox traded Pavano in 1997, he was like Buchholz was in 2006, when he was flying up the minor league system with great peripheral stats. Obviously, the Buchholz of November 2009 is much more valuable to a team like Toronto than the Buchholz of November 2006 - which is what Pavano was at the time of that trade.

Tony Armas, compared to Casey Kelly, is probably a better comparison. Armas, in late 1997, was a 19-year-old who had dominated low-A ball, but was up-and-down in advanced A(he was traded to Boston form the Yankees for Mike Stanley during that year). His K/BB was weak in advanced A, and his K/IP was about 35 Ks/65 IP. Kelly is also 19 years old, but and also pitched in low A and advanced A in his age 19 season. However, he is seen as a faster-rising prospect than Armas was at that time, and in 8 starts in advanced A, went 46 IP, 35 Ks, and only 7 BB. He had extremely similar stats in low A last year, but with an ERA of 1.12. Kelly, I think it is fair to say, is also higher-profile than Armas was at the same time, and is expected to majors-ready sooner than Armas was in 1997.

Finally, I'd argue that 1997 Pedro was a more valuable commodity than 2009 Halladay (as great as Halladay is). He was 25 at the time of the trade, and has just come off of a monster season (ERA+ of 219, 305 Ks in 241 IP, ERA of 1.90 at a time when offense was approaching a peak). So, the Red Sox gave up two players that were much further away from being major league-ready than their 2009 proposed counterparts, for a pitcher who is great, but much older than Pedro, and not as good as Pedro was at the time of the trade.

Maybe this just proves that the Expos got completely hosed in 1997, but to say that Armas/Pavano is anywhere near what Kelly/Buchholz is worth is, to be polite, difficult to support.

Dave Stieb is the warning to all who are thinking of trading for/signing long term Roy Halladay. You could have the best pitcher in baseball, or you could have nothing.

There's considerable risk in long-term contracts with younger pitchers, too. Comes with the position. However, if a team wants Halliday beyond 2010, I suspect they'll have to offer at least a 5 year contract. He'll be 33, and it's likely to be his last time on the market at the peak of his abilities. While teams might be more comfortable with 3 - 4 years, Halladay probably has the leverage to get 5 with little reduction in the annual cost.

I think that it is Westmoreland with the out in his contract.

That sounds wrong.

1. Pedro was more valuable than Halladay but it's closer than you state. Pedro was coming off a lights out season (better than anything Halladay has done) but had only been very, very good before that point. But no question, Pedro wins.

1a. But that wasn't the question. The question was who was the Red Sox 2009 equivalent of Pavano and Armas. Whether you (or they) would have traded Pavano and Armas for Halladay isn't the issue. FWIW, at the time, I thought the Red Sox ripped off the Expos. Even I didn't know how right I was.

2. You greatly overstate the difference between Buchholz and Pavano. Pavano at age 22, the first season after the trade, threw 134 innings of 100 ERA+ ball. Clay Buchholz, through age 24, has thrown 190 innings of 95 ERA+ ball. Pavano was as good at the time of that trade as Buchholz is now.

3. You can't seriously argue against projecting a player like Pavano while simultaneously arguing that the Red Sox shouldn't trade for Halladay because Buchholz projects so well.

3a. I'm the one arguing against projection -- Pavano then was as good (give or take) as Buchholz is now. I'd trade Pavano then (or Buchholz now) for Halladay in a second unless the years/money couldn't be worked out satisfactorily because I'd rather have the known greatness of Halladay than the potential goodness of Buchholz. Asking me to toss in an even more unprojectable A-ball P/SS isn't really gonna cause me to lose any sleep.

4. Armas was quite highly regarded. In 2000, BA ranked him the #27 prospect; in 1999, one year after the trade, they ranked him #90.

5. Your best argument is that prospects seem to be much more highly valued by teams now than they were 10 years ago. Given recent trades (Sabathia, Lee, Santana), Buchholz and Kelly might well be above the going rate. A lot depends on how desperate the Jays are to unload Halladay and what competing offers are. I think teams have switched to over-valuing prospects these days but, then, as long as the Indians and Twins aren't willing to "eat" the contract rather than sell low, it will remain that way -- I mean it's not like I can criticize the Mets for not trading a better package for Santana. The criticism would be of other teams who apparently over-valued their prospects such that the Mets had the best offer on the table (or at least one close enough that it could be perceived by the Twins as the best).

Right. So the thin guys who really kick ass get nicknames like "The Freak."

I tossed out "Cy Young" due to what SBPT wrote in 14, but the issue is whether CB's build affects how you project his future.

The mere fact that there are fewer small pitchers does not mean they are therefore less likely to be successful.

I think that it is Westmoreland with the out in his contract.

That sounds wrong.

Because it is wrong. Gammons threw out something about Westy having some kind of no-trade at the last deadline, but it has no basis in binding fact. They guys on Soxprospects have confirmed this with members of his family.

Armas was quite highly regarded.

Yes - Expos' fans expected good things from Armas up to about 2003, when we began to hear unflattering nicknames like Arm-less because he turned out to be injury prone.

The problems with the trade were: (1) Armas ended up on a plateau of league-average-ishness and injury by 2004 and (2)Pavano was one of those young players dealt by Minaya during the first half of 2002 when he was following a five-step 'win-now' plan.

Pedro Martinez (or Delino DeShields if you prefer) by 2004 effectively had been turned into the injury-prone mid-rotation Tony Armas, two end-of-the-rotation/bullpen guys in Claudio Vargas and Sun-Woo Kim and a never would-be prospect, Seung Song.

He wants to come to a playoff contender?

Fine.

Rasmus + Blake Hawksworth + a PTBNL that's actually Shelby Miller when he's eligible to be traded.

Better deal than a future #2 starter and a two-way player at A-ball that's not good on either side.

Better deal than a future #2 starter and a two-way player at A-ball that's not good on either side.

Kelly isn't a decent pitching prospect?

1. Pedro was more valuable than Halladay but it's closer than you state. Pedro was coming off a lights out season (better than anything Halladay has done) but had only been very, very good before that point. But no question, Pedro wins.

I don't know. Pedro wasn't PEDRO back then. He had had 2 good and one outstanding year but that was in the NL. There were some questions about his durability as well. He had a lot more variability in his future than Halladay did and he came without a negotiating window, while saying, IIRC, that he wasn't planning on signing long-term. The Red Sox ended up having to pay him more (and longer) than Maddux to get him to sign.

If Halladay comes with a negotiating window, I'd say his value is at least as high as Pedro's was when he came to the Red Sox.

#66 makes an interesting point about teams generally overvaluing their prospects than was the case not so long ago. In a 2009 environment:
- Would the Yankees ever trade Tony Armas for two months of Mike Stanley?
- Would the Red Sox ever trade Bagwell for two months of Larry Andersen?
- Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek for Heathcliff Slocumb? Really?


I have to say, when the rumored packages being offered last July for Halladay came out, I was generally thoroughly underwhelmed by the quality of the offers. Also, when the Pirates traded Freddie Sanchez for Alderson, many posters were surprised that the Pirates were able to extract such a prospect for Sanchez. But does anybody think Alderson is anything close to a blue chipper?

Why do teams seem to value their prospects more than they used to in trade talks? Is it that salaries have increased to the point where the ROI works in the favor of draft picks now? Is it simply that the newest wave of GM's sees the same landscape in a different way from their predecessors? Or are we using anecdotes to see a trend that actually doesn't exist any more today than it did 20 years ago?

Today on WFAN, Heyman said that in July the Red Sox had offered Buchholz, Masterson, Bowden, Hagadone, and a position prospect for Halladay. That sounds sort of nutty--was that the rumored deal at the time (that I've blocked out of my mind)?

Also, when the Pirates traded Freddie Sanchez for Alderson, many posters were surprised that the Pirates were able to extract such a prospect for Sanchez. But does anybody think Alderson is anything close to a blue chipper?

I think this was a perfect storm in that they overrated Alderson and vastly underrated Sanchez as an empty batting average guy while neglecting that that batting average wasn't all that empty and that he was a good fielder on a very nice contract.

Looking at the salaries Pedro got, and the 'wiggle-room' available on Expos' rosters after 1997, it might have been a stretch but the Expos could probably have afforded to keep him. They could have paid his 1998 salary by dropping David Segui, Mike Lansing and Henry Rodriguez. Orlando Cabrera could have become the shortstop, with Grudzielanek moving over to second, Vlad could have been brought up. Segui at first is a bit of a problem, but from recent debates at the Hall of Merit it seems that finding major-league 1Bs is perhaps the least of one's worries. The hard part would have been keeping him through 1999-2000, when he really looks beyond Montréal's means. If they could have managed, by 2002 PEDRO in addition to a lineup that included Vidro, Cabrera and Guerrero, and with Vazquez in the #2 slot might well have turned them into a contender in the NL for the wild card on a regular basis.

EDIT: Of course, they don't have Armas.

If they could have managed, by 2002 PEDRO in addition to a lineup that included Vidro, Cabrera and Guerrero, and with Vazquez and Armas filling up the #2 and #3 slots might well have turned them into a contender in the NL for the wild card on a regular basis.

I'm thinking the Red Sox would have been a little annoyed at them trying to do this. :)

# 73: SBPT, I think more teams are looking at the total value involved; Fangraphs recent analysis of Miggy's trade value goes a long way towards explaining it to me. Neither he nor Halladay represent much in the way surplus value in relation to their salary (or in Doc's case what it will cost to extend him long term). Toronto and Detroit will try to find a trading partner who will make a deal based only on equivalent talent, but I think most teams are going to look at the total values involved, which will make pre-arb guys insanely valuable. Teams probably weren't looking at players in this kind of economic light 10 years ago.

With regard to OCD SS in post #78, this is exactly the kind of thought process I am using to question the "no brainer" conclusion of a Buchholz/Casey for Halladay trade. Is Halladay better - probably a lot better - than Buchholz over the several years? Yes. But Buchholz has an excellent chance of being at least a good #3 starter, at very low dollars, and he has a meaningful chance at being a top-of-the-rotation starter...at very reasonable dollars. The fact he is a pre-arb guy who already has shown an ability to succeed at the MLB level makes him very valuable. If the Blue Jays think they are getting as much talent back as they are giving up in Halladay, they are likely mistaken. My attitude is, as a Red Sox fan, we're doing you a bit of a favor, in giving you $15.75 million salary relief in 2010. THAT is part of what you are getting back from the Red Sox...you're not getting the fiscal relief AND a similar amount of talent back.

More to the point, Toronto isn't trading several years of Halladay. They're trading one year at ~$15.75M. Just using round numbers, let's say they're trading 7 WAR. Just grabbing Clay's top comp from B-Ref, Ricky Nolasco, to generate the numbers, they would likely get more than that out of Clay in 2 years (using Nolasco's years as a full time starter) and would then have another 3 of "pure profit" on the deal, and that would be without anyone else being added by the Sox.

This is really abstract and rough, and of course their are lots of other little details (like the value of having your team's WAR concentrated in single, elite players on the roster, or the risk that Clay will never live up to the Ricky Nolasco comp), but none of them strike me as having enough actual value to make this a reasonable deal.

Who are you going to sign with the savings you get with Buchholz that will add with Buchholz to equal Halladay? Not to mention, that type of math uses 2 roster spots instead of one.

No offense, but I want to punch all of you in the face.

I'm with Shock.

Why do teams seem to value their prospects more than they used to in trade talks?

Nobody wants to be yelled at by Frank Costanza, that's why. And it's partly sentimental: To many fans (obviously not all), trading a hot prospect for a mercenary seems like trading your baby for your neighbor's Porsche. I know that this was a factor in plenty of us not wanting to trade Hughes & Joba for Santana. Maybe Red Sox fans are more coldly rational about such things, but maybe not.

Of course the retort would be, "It's easy for a Yankee fan to say that. Those ferocious gentlemen can just pluck the Sabathias and the Teixeiras off one by one when they become free agents."

Well, yeah, but what of it? Better to give up a draft choice you don't know than a couple of prime prospects you've already seen wearing the Major League uniform, and who may even have spoken their first words of wisdom to the YES girl and gotten their first pie in the face from A.J. It just seems less tawdry to do it that way.

I've been in a punching mood ever since I discovered that John McDonald is going to be a Jay for two more years.

What would the Red Sox do with the money saved by having Buchholz instead of Halladay? Easy. Resign Beckett. You can either sign Halladay, or Buchholz + Beckett, for similar money.

If it's so easy...why haven't they done it? (Use the money to resign Beckett)
Maybe because...Buchholz stinks? And Confused Kelly is so far away from contributing that it's hardly worth discussing?
And if you can rook a rook into giving you Roy Halladay for the bums, it's worth trying?

I've been in a punching mood ever since I discovered that John McDonald is going to be a Jay for two more years.

I hope you're kidding.

Oh ####, you're not.

Well, it's nice to know that our new GM is as much of a moron as our old GM.

Easy, there! The bar is very, very, very high in Toronto.

If it's so easy...why haven't they done it? (Use the money to resign Beckett)
Maybe because...Buchholz stinks? And Confused Kelly is so far away from contributing that it's hardly worth discussing?
And if you can rook a rook into giving you Roy Halladay for the bums, it's worth trying?

Or....
...maybe because Beckett doesn't want to resign with the Red Sox, or
...because Beckett, who has been dominant at times over the past four years, has also been less-than-ace good often during those same four years, and the Red Sox want to wait and see a little longer. or
...maybe the Blue Jays will realize that saving $15.75 million in 2010 is, in and of itself, part of the benefit they get from a trade, and will not demand the farm, talent-wise, or
...maybe the Red Sox would be willing to make a trade involving Kelly and Buchholz if the Blue Jays are also willing to take Lowell and, say, $6 million of his contract, too, or
...because there are other good ideas for what could be done with the money - like trying to trade for Adrian Gonzalez, instead, using the same bargaining chips, and then using the saved money towards giving him a long-term contract, or
...probably a dozen reasons none of us can know without being in teams' front office on a regular basis.

But if you think Buchholz "stinks", then we simply disagree on his future worth. And that obviously is the a driving factor in how one feels about any proposed trade between TOR and BOS.

I've been in a punching mood ever since I discovered that John McDonald is going to be a Jay for two more years.

Well, they signed him for only a little more than the minimum, and he's a terrific defender. He's a useful backup, and that's all they're really paying for.

#66 makes an interesting point about teams generally overvaluing their prospects than was the case not so long ago. In a 2009 environment:
- Would the Yankees ever trade Tony Armas for two months of Mike Stanley?
- Would the Red Sox ever trade Bagwell for two months of Larry Andersen?
- Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek for Heathcliff Slocumb? Really?

Maybe Lowe + Varitek could happen now. At least Lowe + Varitek for a decent reliver for two months could happen. Both Lowe and Varitek were old for being in AAA, and had failed to put up impressive stats. I think Lowe might have been out of options, or at least on his last option, at that time. I think the issue there was that the Mariners either hadn't realized how bad Slocumb had become, or they thought they could fix him.

Also, it wasn't so long ago that:

July 31, 2007: Traded by the Texas Rangers with Ron Mahay to the Atlanta Braves for Beau Jones (minors), Elvis Andrus, Neftali Feliz, Matt Harrison and Jarrod Saltalamacchia.

happened.

Saltalamacchia was viewed as the prize in that trade, but it's pretty clear now that he's the third, or maybe even fourth best player in that package.

Who are you going to sign with the savings you get with Buchholz that will add with Buchholz to equal Halladay? Not to mention, that type of math uses 2 roster spots instead of one.

This. A million times this. Excess value is only actual value if you can turn it into wins.

Anyway it's Thanksgiving so it will probably just be Canadians around today so I won't bother.

Or....
...maybe because Beckett doesn't want to resign with the Red Sox, or
...maybe the Blue Jays will realize that saving $15.75 million in 2010 is, in and of itself, part of the benefit they get from a trade, and will not demand the farm, talent-wise, or
...maybe the Red Sox would be willing to make a trade involving Kelly and Buchholz if the Blue Jays are also willing to take Lowell and, say, $6 million of his contract, too, or...probably a dozen reasons none of us can know without being in teams' front office on a regular basis.

I realize you're just trying to offer up possibilities here, but please don't go down the path that the Sox taking Halladay's contract will be some kind of favor to the Blue Jays. The Jays, having already divested themselves of Rios' and Rolen's contracts, do not have to cut salary just for the sake of doing so. And I think it's fair to say that there's very little sentiment, from management right down to Joe Fan, that Halladay's contract is underserved or some sort of albatross.

If you're a Boston Bruins fan, Ray Bourque's trade is a good comp. Fans knew the guy gave everything for the team for his career, but now it's time to let him pursue a championship elsewhere. That's not to say that the Jays should consider not paying Halladay as some sort of benefit. To let a player of Halladay's stature (on and off the field) go, the Jays have to make a good baseball trade and show the fanbase that the players received will be part of a better roster down the road.

And I'm afraid that I just cannot understand the idea that a young starting pitcher, whose projection is somewhere between Cy young contender and pumpkin, plus a kid in A ball, represents the upper level of what the Sox should offer for the near certainty that you get with Halladay.

This. A million times this. Excess value is only actual value if you can turn it into wins.

Except that this is not worth the extra premium in talent cost being discussed. It's worth something, but the increase from 4 WAR to 7 WAR for a single year isn't worth giving Toronto another (potentially) top prospect on top of it. I think its pretty clear that the Sox are pretty detailed about how they add up player values.

If I follow to the logical conclusion the spirit of post #94, that cutting costs is not a meaningful factor in the Jays' shopping of Halladay, then the market of potential suitors is potentially much bigger. Because Halladay is making a lot of money this year (deservedly so), then one or more of the following conditions apply:

1) Teams with lots of resources can go after him, and enter a long-term extension with him, because they have the money to do so. Being able to negotiate a long-term deal with him ahead of time obviously increases Halladay's trade value. Only a handful of teams can do this, even in theory (BOS, NYY, NYM, LAA, LAD, PHI, CHC, maybe a few others) but some of those teams would need to peel off salary they current have to make it work (like LAA).
2) If you only want him for one year, and then you'll take your chances, grab the two draft picks, and move on, then you'd add a few more teams (maybe ATL, TB, SEA,COL...teams that probably can't lay out 4 yrs/80 million for a pitcher, but might feel they are an ace away from winning the whole thing in 2010). The problem, there, is that those teams would never offer as much talent as the teams in group one - they simply won't have Halladay as long. I don't think anybody believes the Blue Jays would trade him to a team like this.
3) Here's my problem with post #93: If you believe that money is not a motivating factor for the Blue Jays, then the Red Sox would be glad to trade Buchholz, Kelly, another prospect,and (for example) Lowell for Halladay. Why? Because the Blue Jays would've largely crossed out the massive cost savings they would enjoy, and now the negotiations between the teaams can focus on talent. Now, the Blue Jays can really demand many excellent prospects/young MLB players, because Halladay is a top pitcher. I don't believe for a millisecond that the Blue Jays would ever do this...which suggests to me that the team is trying to get as many prospects as possible while getting out from $15.75 million in salary that, frankly, will have nothing to do with the Blue Jays when they becomee highly competitive again. Roy Halladay can win 25 games with an ERA of 2, win the Cy Young and the MVP, and the Blue Jays are still more likely to finish 4th next year than 1st. If they are truly serious about building a team that can win the whole thing in a few years, then they should look at the $15.75 million as an opportunity to take on another team's ungly salary for one year, and then absolutely load up on young, cost-effective, high-ceiling prospects (Kelly, Westmoreland) and MLB-ready young talent (Ellsbury, Buchholz, Bard). If the Blue Jays did this with, say, Lowell, I'll be the first guy to say "load up the prospects", because it means we can get Halladay and keep/get either Bay or Gonzalez, and have a legit shot at resigning Beckett next year. That's very valuable, and worht many prospects.

It's worth something, but the increase from 4 WAR to 7 WAR for a single year isn't worth giving Toronto another (potentially) top prospect on top of it.

I know people like to believe that this is true but it isn't. The team that trades for Halladay is going to sign him to an extension and so the Blue Jays aren't trading a single year. You can write that in stone.

3) Here's my problem with post #93: If you believe that money is not a motivating factor for the Blue Jays, then the Red Sox would be glad to trade Buchholz, Kelly, another prospect,and (for example) Lowell for Halladay. Why? Because the Blue Jays would've largely crossed out the massive cost savings they would enjoy, and now the negotiations between the teaams can focus on talent.

After writing my first post in 94, I got to thinking exactly that. Jays payroll was about 80M on opening day 2009; for 2010, subtract 11M or so (no Rolen and Rios, Vernon Wells is 11M more vs. 2009). I'll guess payroll will sit about 75M for 2010, once they get everybody signed, including Halladay's 16M. While on some level the management would be just as happy to win 74 games on a 60M payroll vs. 75-80M, the Jays do have a monopoly on the Canadian market and repeating the 2009 payroll at 80M should be possible.

If I were Alex A., I'd be more than happy to take a one year albatross contract if it improved the caliber and number of prospects coming back. It it were Lowell ,that would be somewhat fitting given he was more or less thrown in to facilitate the Beckett trade.

If the Jays trade Halladay, the home run is a straight up package of top prospects and/or low service guys. If they manage this but have to take on a one-year bad contract to do so, that's still a bases clearing double.

Here's a test for knowing whether a fangraphs Balboni analysis makes sense. According to fangraphs last year Halladay was worth 33 million dollars while being paid, I believe, 14 million producing an excess value of 19 million.

There are two relevant questions.

1) Would the Blue Jays trade trade Halladay for 19 million dollars?
2) Would the Red Sox trade 19 million dollars for Roy Halladay?

The answer to the first is an obvious no and the answer to the second is an obvious yes. Therefore it is quite obvious that the "excess value" way of thinking about trades is wrong.

I know people like to believe that this is true but it isn't. The team that trades for Halladay is going to sign him to an extension and so the Blue Jays aren't trading a single year. You can write that in stone.

This is wrong, the Jays are only trading a single year; if other teams do not meet their price and they keep Doc, they will not be able to trade him next year. The best way to think of it is that the Jays are essentially acting as a broker for Halladay. They will gain something for their services in this regard, but no one is going to pay the broker as much as they pay the actual owner/ service provider (who in this example would be Doc).

... Therefore it is quite obvious that the "excess value" way of thinking about trades is wrong.

Then why does it appear that so many teams actually look at it that way?