BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: Phillies

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. rawagman Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:14 PM (#3417551)

I just looked at Halladay's B-ref page and other than his aborted 2000 season, he has never had an ERA+ lower than 115. I'm not the only person to think he is now the best pitcher in baseball.

2. Darren

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:20 PM (#3417558)

So, 4/69 for Halladay vs. 5/85 for Lackey, and look at those projections. From this, it seems to me that AA really wanted Halladay out of the AL East. Because at the price of 3 very good prospects and that contract, you'd think the Red Sox and Yankees would have been all over Halladay.

3. RJ in TO Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:24 PM (#3417564)

Because at the price of 3 very good prospects and that contract, you'd think the Red Sox and Yankees would have been all over Halladay.

4. tl; dr (Voxter)

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:45 PM (#3417575)

Around here, we had a decent number of people claiming that Buchholz and Kelly would be too much.

Probably the same people who though the Sox shouldn't try to sign Mark Teixeira because he might block Lars Anderson.

5. NJ is feeling better Posted: December 19, 2009 at 04:46 PM (#3417576)

Was there any indication that Boston or New York were willing to offer those 3 very good prospects? Around here, we had a decent number of people claiming that Buchholz and Kelly would be too much. As for New York, wasn't their only very good prospect someone like Montero, who appears to have been declared untouchable?

I think the reasoning from the NY angle is that the Jays wanted one part of the deal to be a high end near ML ready arm, and for the Yankees that was only Hughes/Chamberlain, which became the sticking point. They supposedly were ready to deal Montero.

6. AndrewJ Posted: December 19, 2009 at 05:12 PM (#3417595)

Philadelphia Phillies - Acquired P Roy Halladay from the Toronto Blue Jays for P Kyle Drabek, OF Michael Taylor, and C Travis D'Arnaud.

Halladay, Halladay, Roy Halladay... I live in Philly, read the Inky and Daily News, listen to WIP. No, this trade didn't get any kind of local media coverage.

7. Dan Szymborski

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 05:15 PM (#3417598)

I think the reasoning from the NY angle is that the Jays wanted one part of the deal to be a high end near ML ready arm, and for the Yankees that was only Hughes/Chamberlain, which became the sticking point.

Which doesn't speak well for the Jays. Not because a high-end ML ready arm isn't valuable, but if you constrain what you want, you also constrain what you can possibly get.

8. Darren

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 05:46 PM (#3417639)

Was there any indication that Boston or New York were willing to offer those 3 very good prospects? Around here, we had a decent number of people claiming that Buchholz and Kelly would be too much. As for New York, wasn't their only very good prospect someone like Montero, who appears to have been declared untouchable?

People thought that Halladay was going to cost 6/120 to extend, though. At 4/69, he's ridiculously valuable. I guess what I was trying to say above is that I find the final parameters of the deal to be proof that they wanted him out of the division, because I cannot believe that either of the big dogs would have passed up that trade.

9. Darren

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 05:47 PM (#3417640)

I think the reasoning from the NY angle is that the Jays wanted one part of the deal to be a high end near ML ready arm, and for the Yankees that was only Hughes/Chamberlain, which became the sticking point.

I'd deal one of those guys in in a heartbeat for Halladay on that deal. Same for Buchholz.

10. Darren

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 05:56 PM (#3417657)

Were you drunk when you typed the TO, Dan? It's got more typos than even I usually have over at ST.

11. jyjjy Posted: December 19, 2009 at 06:00 PM (#3417659)

NY probably would've given up Montero plus what they ended up trading for Granderson. I'm sure NY wouldn't have needed any money thrown in either. Would that have been a better package? Drabek + Taylor >>> Kennedy + Jackson but Montero is better than any of them and much better than D'Arnaud.

12. RJ in TO Posted: December 19, 2009 at 06:03 PM (#3417661)

As an aside, if Halladay hits those ZIPS lines, he can probably start thinking about his HOF speech - he'll be 217-108 with an ERA+ of about 134 in just under 3000 innings, with another 3-4 years of effective pitching ahead of him.

13. Paul D (AKA The Other Canadian) Posted: December 19, 2009 at 06:38 PM (#3417685)

The Phillies were apparently Halladay's number 1 choice, maybe NY and/or Boston can't sign him to the same deal.

14. Dan Szymborski

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 06:44 PM (#3417691)

As subscribers to @TransOracle already saw, Halladay's career ZiPS right now is 274-145, 131 ERA+, which is 2nd most wins of the pitchers I've done so far this offseason behind Sabathia (obviously I haven't done Randy yet).

15. tl; dr (Voxter)

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 06:46 PM (#3417692)

Did you guys know that Halladay's whole name is Harry Leroy Halladay? How did I not know this already?

16. Lassus: Posted: December 19, 2009 at 06:53 PM (#3417696)

The REAL King Harry!

17. Boileryard Posted: December 19, 2009 at 07:28 PM (#3417716)

Did you guys know that Halladay's whole name is Harry Leroy Halladay?

Harry Leroy Halladay III

18. tl; dr (Voxter)

Posted: December 19, 2009 at 07:34 PM (#3417720)

It just keeps getting better and better.

19. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2009 at 08:19 PM (#3417753)

Mike Mussina, Kevin Brown, Steve Rogers

Interesting comps. Ages 29-32:

Rogers 967 IP, 125 ERA+
Mussina 876 IP, 132 ERA+
Brown 813 IP, 141 ERA+

Ages 33-36:

Rogers 480 IP, 93 ERA+, done at 35
Mussina 774 IP, 108 ERA+ (roughly John Lackey's projection)
Brown 855 IP, 156 ERA+ (despite missing half a season)

I hate pitchers. :-)

20. Walt Davis Posted: December 19, 2009 at 08:58 PM (#3417772)

I'll add that the Jays look to have done substantially better here than teams did in the Santana, Sabathia or either Lee trade, probably even better than the Haren trade. (They may have made it worse for themselves with the Taylor-Wallace swap but that's a different matter.)

21. Shalimar Posted: December 21, 2009 at 03:15 AM (#3418371)

Has Peavy's stock gone down so much recently that he isn't considered to be in that league anymore, or are people just forgetting he was traded?

22. jyjjy Posted: December 21, 2009 at 03:50 AM (#3418375)

I think it's more that Peavy contract pays him over 17 mill per for the next 3 years so he was already being payed roughly market value at the time of the trade.

23. Al Kaline Trio Posted: December 22, 2009 at 12:29 AM (#3419104)

probably even better than the Haren trade

How is that? Are you saying the trade as a whole (Haren had more cheap years) or just the prospects involved?

Anderson + Carter + Carlos Gonzalez is similar to Drabek + Taylor + D'Arnaud (I think Taylor is better than Gonzalez but I think Carter is better than D'Arnaud). Then throw Greg Smith and Aaron Cuningham in and I'd say the Haren deal was a better haul especially once Anderson and Chris Carter upped their prospect status afterwards.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate