User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 1.4696 seconds
41 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
The Dodgers weren't willing to trade many prospects for Lee last year when they'd have control of him for a year and a half, why would they do so when they'd only have him for a year?
That view isn't going to sell as many ads, or prompt more people to keep refreshing their browsers, so I'm not surprised to see it underplayed in the headlines.
That being said, I don't think I'd enjoy living in suburban Phoenix much either.
Arizona. They share a facility with the Dodgers.
Reread the first sentence of the excerpt
Maybe we should ask Ned why he gave up catching prospect Carlos Santana for one year of . . Casey Blake!
I don't think they even care to keep him away, just make the other team pay a high enough price.
If the Yankees gave up Montero and Hughes +, I think the Sox would say, let 'em have him. If the Sox gave up Buchholz and Ellsbury + the Yankees would say the same.
...& that's why Halladay will remain a Jay.
Concur.
I'm not saying that the Dodgers shouldn't do a three way for Cliff Lee, just that if they wouldn't get in the running for him last year, I doubt that they would do so this offseason. Unless the three way involved at least one of the McCourts.
Depends on what they give up and what his extension costs. If you're giving up a Buchholz or Hughes, who have really good odds of being at least 2 WAR players for the forseeable future, plus a bunch of other prospects, and spending $22-25M per year on an extension I don't see how you're better off.
Say the Red Sox "win" Halladay and give up Buchholz, and 3 more prospects, and extend him for 5/110-120. They've added 6 WAR in SP, lost ~2, gave up 3 prospects and spent a ton of money.
The Yankees can take sign Holliday for 5-6/110-120 to add 5-6 WAR, and still have Hughes giving them 2+ WAR, and still have the other prospects.
If the Yankees "win" Holliday, just sub in Hughes for Buchholz and the situation is identical.
To me, whoever wins under any "fair" deals for Totonto and Halladay, loses - big time.
But that aside, you're trading a lot of question marks for a lot of certainty. The rumors I heard were that Halladay was going to sign an extension of something like 4/80, so you'd be getting 5+ wins per year, at a good price, in return for a lot of question marks (Buc or Hughes + 1 to 2 prospects were the rumors I'd read). Meanwhile, you're also assuring that your rival does not get that.
Granted, there are limits to how far you'd go. I just disagreed with the notion that the Red Sox and Yankees are very interested or want to see the other one give up their prospects for Halladay.
Well, that falls under the criteria of Halladay not getting a fair deal. There's no reason for him to accept an AAV less than Sabathia or Santana. He can wait a year, and get a better deal than that from the Yankees, or someone else, probably 5/110-120.
Halladay may not be after a ton of cash:
I wouldn't be shocked in the Yankees were merely posturing to keep Halladay off the Sox, while planning to spend big on Holliday. But I am quite sure that the Red Sox are dead serious about trading for Halladay.
Which is probably why the Jays won't get nearly as much for Halladay as some around here would deem "fair." Even using Darren's valuation of 6 WAR, that's all the Jays are trading. I can see the other side paying a premium above that in order to sign him to an extension, but that will be at market rates.
I suspect the Jays will do better than the Twins, but that's mostly because I think that Santana preferred to pitch in the NL and the Twins had little choice but to work with the Mets. At least Halladay is willing to be dealt to teams with decent farm systems. If Philly would give up either Drabek or Brown, I'd bet on Doc winding up there, but they seem to be holding the line on any offer.
Well, He is Older than both of those guys. He shouldn't expect the same length of deal.
Except that he can get that now, if that's what he wants. The point is that that's not what he wants, and so Doc's desires align nicely with the Jays getting more value for him. If He's willing to sign a cheap (relatively) extension for a chance to Win then what I wrote in #27 doesn't apply; the Jays would be moving a much more valuable commodity...
While it is only 6 WAR, there's a ton of extra value for a team in having that 6 WAR concentrated in a single roster spot, and the Jays should be sure to strongly consider that in any trade discussions.
With that being said, I'd rather the Jays just keep Doc and let him walk as a free agent, since I don't think any team is going to offer enough to balance out both the picks the Jays could get after 2010, and the value that they'll get from his performance on the team in 2010.
It's valuable, and I'd expect any interested team to pay a premium for that, but not to the extent that gets thrown around in supposed "fair" trades.
Even given how well the Jays have been doing in the draft lately?
I see this idea thrown around a lot, and I think there's a disconnect between the value of the picks (which are likely to be in the 25-30 range and another in the ~40ish range) vs. player that are already signed and have a professional track record. I will say that I think the value bar you present (1 yr of Doc + 2 pics - the cost to sign those pics) is easier for trade partners to reach than the supposed "fair" value.
Which is why the Jays should just let him play out the year and take the picks.
If they're going to take some BS Jackson/Romine/Kennedy or Bowden/Kelly/Anderson package, don't bother. Let your fans enjoy another season of Doc.
Even given how well the Jays have been doing in the draft lately?
I assume the new GM has some confidence in his own abilities. If he doesn't, he should quit now.
I will say that I think the value bar you present (1 yr of Doc + 2 pics - the cost to sign those pics) is easier for trade partners to reach than the supposed "fair" value.
Yeah, but I think the below "fair" value trade does a tremendous amount of PR damage with the Toronto fans. Your better off having less value in the picks and not alienating your fanbase.
Not too bad, when they actually:
a) Have scouts, and
b) Sign draft picks
When they don't do both those things, they tend to not do so well.
Of course, even if they screw the pooch with those picks next year, it'll still mean that I'll get to watch Halladay pitch for the Jays next year, which has a lot of value to me.
Exactly.
As for Halladay's contract, he is probably willing to take 4/80 from Toronto, maybe a bit less, but why would he take below-market contract from Yankees or Red Sox?. Actually, if he gives several million to charity each year (I know he gives a lot, but I don't know how much), a good contract for him would be something like 5/90 + the obligation by the club to match him in all his charity donations 1:1 (or even 2:1) each year. If teams can put clauses where players have to pay certain amount in their charities, why couldn't players do the same? And it doesn't count towards luxury tax.
Do you think that Toronto's FO is likely to make such an altruistic gesture? Do Doc's games traditionally get a lot of walk up traffic, would they at least see a financial component to such a move? It seems like if the Jays want to turn the team around they should do what they can to rebuild quickly so they have a winning team on the field.
The opening bid from the Phillies is two of Drabek, Brown, and Taylor, just like it was in the summer.
I don't really understand the motivation for Halladay to do this. If he feels guilty about making so much money, he is free to give some or all of his paycheck to charity.
Santana's deal wasn't "below market" is any meaningful sense; 6/137.5 vs Sabathia's 7/161, ~$23M p.a.
Risk aversion. He gets the guaranteed contract one year earlier than he otherwise would, passing the risk of his injury during that year to the team which signs him in exchange for a small discount.
He's already made ~$90M in his career (including 2010 guarantee). I can't imagine much risk aversion left at this point.
IIRC the discount that Santana took wasn't all that much. Even if it's a 10% discount, that's not worth the level of prospects you're talking about.
The Yankees point is a good one, but that still doesn't mean the Jays are trading 5-6 years when their partner is paying for the extension. Halladay is unique, but there are other pitchers than can provide a decent amount of his production (and who being younger, might have less injury concerns given the mileage on his shoulder).
Good luck with that. Halladay will not bring more now than was offered at the deadline, however much you might wish otherwise.
I'm not sure I'm following this. Granted, young players will sign discounted contracts in order to get that first "enough money for life" contract, but that doesn't mean that ALL players don't also deal with risk avesion. Halladay can have a career ending injury in the next year or so. He's hedging against that...willing to shave off a few total million in order to not wind up in a situation where he gets zero from here on out.
EDITED: forgot a key double negative
I bet Halladay would work mighty well out of the bullpen.
That doesn't go with the meme that he's already embarassed by how much he makes. I'm pretty certain Roy Halladay has $30M in the bank somewhere. Why is he worried about getting zero?
If we wants that extra money enough to be risk averse, why doesn't he want the extra money enough to seek out the highest possible pay day. I find it very hard to believe that he has such very specific financial preferences that he cares a lot about being worth $60M instead of $30M but not at all about being worth $80M instead of $60M.
Plus it would give the Yankees a stable 8th inning bridge to Mariano. He could take over the closer's role when Rivera retires.
This may also be the only baseball message board that sees that money as being distributed between the owners and the players only. We pretty much all know that they money won't go back to the fans. This knowledge of basic economic theory is one of the things that makes this board so useful to read.
Of course, I'd play major league ball for a dollar....but I'm not good at baseball. It would be a massive overpay.
Exactly. Even if the reserve clause was still in full-effect, ticket prices wouldn't be one penny lower.
The Blue Jays can't force other teams to offer more. But since those offers were worthless I don't see why they would trade him at all. The Indians made themselves worse by trading Lee at the deadline. The Twins made themselves worse by trading Santana. I don't see why the Blue Jays should emulate that strategy.
Now I can't make the Blue Jays GM not stupid so I won't promise he won't be traded. The prospects I'm talking about are the minimum bid. High end free agents are worth way more than generic prospects because generic prospects aren't worth very much.
Any team that trades premium free agent talent for anything less than premium young talent is shooting themselves in the foot. We completely disagree. I think you are way undervaluing top free agent talent (which approaches infinity) while way overvaluing generic prospects (which approaches zero). Breaking Halladays arms with hammers makes more sense than trading him for the dreck you think he's worth.
Is anybody really talking about getting Halladay for nothing but B/C prospects? Seems the only disagreement is over how much premium young talent we should be talking about. So for instance, isn't there a little bit of daylight between Hughes/Montero/Jackson and Nova/Romine/Nunez?
Ah. I see the problem. You are a crazy person.
Taking your 2 sentences as true, Halladay's value approaches infinity, and no prospect has any value, therefore all the prospects in the BA top 100 could be included in the trade and that would still leave the Jays on the losing end. Therefore the Jays best option would simply be to have Halladay executed.
Unless of course you'd like to debate the relative value between the cost of a single bullet vs the draft picks the Jays will lose out on...
Edit: apparently I skipped over the "generic" label in my hasty reading, however if my math is correct, Halladay's infinite value still allows my reading to be true.
ITRW or BTF?
@BTF, some like OCD_SS think Casey Kelly straight up for Halladay is too much. They argue it's only one guaranteed year, that he costs $15M, and a player like Kelly might be worth more than that over his career.
(OCD_SS also thinks Clay Buchholz is a 4 WAR pitcher ie one of the top 20 in MLB, YMMV)
ITRW or BTF?
I think the general BTF consensus is we would give up one premier prospect i.e. Buchholz or Montero, plus B/C filler, assuming a reasonable extension. We would not give up two premier prospects, i.e. Montero and Hughes.
I presume you're taking this from a comment of mine from another Halladay thread. I'm actually undecided on Clay's value (basically trying to decide if his post trade deadline performance was him really turning the corner vs the risk of regression). What I did in the other thread was compare Halladay's WAR as compared to Clay's top BBRef comp, Ricky Nolasco. It just seemed like a pretty reasonable way to make a general comparison about how the young talent under discussion pans out without making up a bunch of numbers.
By big belief is that if Buchholz, or any of the other players mentioned, do pan out the cost controlled savings to the teams is very significant. I think this value is the reason teams are holding onto their top prospects with what appears to be a death grip. It probably also explains why teams who are about to lose star players are willing to trade them for less than the haul that some think such a player is worth.
Not granted. Why is this true?
I'm not sure it's true either but I'll take a stab at "because the Yankees have added CC, AJ and Tex in the interim." Also Boston's rotation is still depending on the likes of Dice-K and Wakefield who aren't the shiniest of options (far from the shabbiest either).
Boston is pretty under-talented at the moment (I said at the moment and I mean by recent Red Sox/Yankees standards). Hermida/Ellsbury/Drew in the OF doesn't scare anyone. Lowell still at 3B, Ortiz still a question mark. Dice-K and Wake in the rotation, a couple of holes in the bullpen. They've been taking their sweet time.
And Bucholtz and Beckett, both of whom have been fairly (to extremely) volatile in their year-to-year performances. Of their starters, Lester is the only one who really inspires multi-year confidence.
It seems to me that Boston's rotation today is actually stronger than it was then - Buck is semi-reliable, Lester is pretty reliable.
I know that. I can read, after all. ;-) It was supposed to be a rhetorical question. Sorry to have troubled you all.
Personally, I would not give up Montero for anybody. Well, not for anybody who's actually available, anyway.
And Snowboy, it is only one guaranteed year, and he does cost $15.75M.
I would do Chamberlain, Nova, Nunez and Romine. Jays fans and Yankee haters would piss and moan long and loud, but that does match up with Anthopoulos' rumored positional wish list (MLB pitcher, MiL P, SS, & C). I think Toronto would wind up getting very solid contributions out of that package.
My apologies.
Personally, I would not give up Montero for anybody. Well, not for anybody who's actually available, anyway.
Not even straight up (with filler)? If Halladay would do a 4/80-90 extension, I'd do it as a Yankees fan. The questions about Montero sticking at C downgrade him from untouchable, IMHO.
Also, a trade for Halladay is a win now strategy, so I'd rather keep the guys (Joba, Hughes) who are likely to contribute while Halladay is still elite. I would not do Montero + Joba/Hughes, or Romine + Joba/Hughes.
In 2007 they already added Dice-K, and had several interesting prospects ready to start during the season (Gabbard, Bucholz). They had Beckett, Schilling, Wakefield and Lester. Yes, Lester was projected to return after the All-star break, but they still had two aces (even though Schilling wasn't what he used to be), bought another potential ace/no.2 and had dependable Wakefield. Yankees, on the other hand, had much more problematic rotation. Boston also had really good lineup. This year they have weaker lineup, Wakefield and Dice-K are question-marks, and Beckett might be gone after the season. They don't have starters expected to arrive mid-season. And Yankees are much stronger than in 2007.
This is true, if you have zero confidence that your front office will sign Halladay to an extension.
No, not even straight up. I don't consider him an elite hitting prospect for a catcher. I consider him an elite hitting prospect period. Would you have traded Miguel Cabrera straight up for one year of Roy Halladay in 2002?
This is true, if you have zero confidence that your front office will sign Halladay to an extension.
No, it's true unless you believe that your front office will get a substantial discount from Halladay on an extension. And even if that happens, then you're still only trading for one year plus the discount, as opposed to one year plus the extension. There is no logical basis for claiming that the value of the prospects traded has to equal or exceed the value of the next five or six years of Halladay.
I just don't think he's established himself as that kind of hitter yet. Even Cabrera hadn't established himself as that before he did it in the bigs.
Which just proves that you are sane and reasonable while the other side are engaging in a fetish. "Would you have traded Miguel Cabrera straight up for one year of Roy Halladay in 2002?" is a ludicrous comparison.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main