That would be a cool trade. I like the idea of the next Carlos Delgado getting his chance in Toronto

I can't wait for an entire offseason of Yankees and Red Sox writers writing masturbatory trade fantasies of offering groups of players that won't hurt the Yankees and Red Sox in the slightest for Roy Halladay.

Why would the Red Sox or Yankees (or anyone) make a trade that hurts them, even in the slightest?

Why do they NEED to make this trade winning the World Series?

Why would the Red Sox or Yankees (or anyone) make a trade that hurts them, even in the slightest?

Because that long term hurt might be balanced out by short term championships (or, in the case of the Jays, that short term hurt might be balanced by long term gains).

Besides, for a team like the Yankees, they can just wait until the prospects they've traded hit free agency during their prime and sign them back again (assuming they're actually any good). For a team with their resources, prospects are less important than for any other team.

Halladay should stay in Toronto. Give him the Alex Rios money, Blue Jays.

Remember, you still have Austin Romine, Zach McAllister, and other young pitcher that may be as good, perhaps better, than Hughes, Joba, or Montero.

I would be extremely surprised if McAllister, Ivan Nova, or any of the Yankees' other pitching prospects turns out as well as Hughes or Chamberlain already are, much less how well they could still turn out.

Halladay should stay in Toronto. Give him the Alex Rios money, Blue Jays.

Beeston has already said that the money is there for Halladay, if he wants it. Unfortunately, Halladay has apparently indicated to the team that he will test free agency anyway after the 2010 season.

I don't care how big of a fanboy it makes me, but there's nobody available I'd trade Montero for. After seeing the #### it took to get Santana and Lee, I don't see a reason he'd need to be in the deal anyway.

Because that long term hurt might be balanced out by short term championships (or, in the case of the Jays, that short term hurt might be balanced by long term gains).

Under that definition, losing Joba, Hughes, or Buchholz would hurt plenty, as would losing excellent prospects like Kelly and Montero.

Besides, for a team like the Yankees, they can just wait until the prospects they've traded hit free agency during their prime and sign them back again (assuming they're actually any good). For a team with their resources, prospects are less important than for any other team.

Or they could trade a Major League player then go out and replace him with a free agent. Their resources come in very handy, yes. But just because they can do those things doesn't mean the trade would be unfair or bad for Toronto, necessarily.

But just because they can do those things doesn't mean the trade would be unfair or bad for Toronto, necessarily.

I never said it would be.

The Yankees are not going to give up Montero nor the Red Sox Kelly. When it comes to trading aces with a year left on their contract and a mega deal coming their way, the haul is never commensurate to their value. It wasn't that way with Clemens, Santana, Randy Johnson and Pedro and it's highly unlikely to be different for Halladay. The only prospect traded who could have been considered his organization's best was Pavano and that happened for the youngest of the aces. The prospects the Yankees might tender up are Austin Jackson, Mcalister, Austin Romine and maybe a high ceiling but very far away Aroyds Vizcaino.

It wasn't that way with Clemens, Santana, Randy Johnson and Pedro and it's highly unlikely to be different for Halladay.

Randy Johnson was traded for Halama, Carlos Guillen, and Freddy Garcia. While that may not have been commesurate with Randy's value, it was certainly a good haul for the Mariners - even if they didn't get Guillen's top seasons.

Although I suppose you might have been talking about the Yankees/D-Backs trades.

When it comes to trading aces with a year left on their contract and a mega deal coming their way, the haul is never commensurate to their value

Or, as we went around on in the Halladay to the Sox thread, their actual value is being way overestimated (or overstated) by the team trying to trade them.

The idea that Casey Kelly is somehow more valuable than Roy Halladay strikes me as pretty absurd. A top 5 hitting prospect in the upper minors, like Montero, then I can understand the reticence. But an A ball pitcher who is years away? Come now, those guys flame out at an alarmingly high rate.

locking down an historic 1-2 tandem in the Bronx.

How would Halladay-Sabathia be "historic", exactly? (Plus, I hate the use of "an" in front of "historic".)

The idea that Casey Kelly is somehow more valuable than Roy Halladay strikes me as pretty absurd.

I think the idea would be that Casey Kelly is more valuable than one year of Halladay, but that's making things a bit too simplistic.

Beeston has already said that the money is there for Halladay, if he wants it. Unfortunately, Halladay has apparently indicated to the team that he will test free agency anyway after the 2010 season.

It is kind of sad really. Roy seemingly loves Toronto and Toronto definitely loves him back. He just doesn't think they can compete and he wants a shot at winning while he's still good.

You can’t allow a possible future Designated Hitter stand in your way of acquiring Roy Halladay and locking down an historic 1-2 tandem in the Bronx.

What about a possible future Mike Piazza?

What about a possible future Mike Piazza?

A good consideration is that it would likely be easier to replace Montero's potential bat on the free agent market than it would be to find a pitcher like Halladay.

A good consideration is that it would likely be easier to replace Montero's potential bat on the free agent market than it would be to find a pitcher like Halladay.

Why wouldn't you just sign Lackey and keep Montero?

Why wouldn't you just sign Lackey and keep Montero?

Because Lackey is a mouth-breathing goober and ugly as sin.

Why wouldn't you just sign Lackey and keep Montero?

Because Halladay has a much better record of both health and performance than Lackey, and the damn Yankees will just sign Montero back when he hits free agency 6 years from now.

Because Halladay has a much better record of both health and performance than Lackey

And his extension will presumably reflect that.

Why wouldn't you just sign Lackey and keep Montero?

Because John Lackey is a good pitcher, Roy Halladay is a great pitcher, and Montero is an unproven minor leaguer.

Because John Lackey is a good pitcher, Roy Halladay is a great pitcher, and Montero is an unproven minor leaguer.

And none of that has anything to do with why the Yankees would part with Montero and Joba or Hughes for Halladay's services.

Of course Halladay is a great pitcher, but the Yankees don't actually need a great pitcher right now. I'm not even sure they need a SP at all, but if they do, a good pitcher to slot in at number 3 is just fine.

They need to maximize the value of their prospects/dollars in terms of winning games over the next 6 years.

I'm saying that Montero/Hughes/Lackey + $30M is worth more than Halladay in wins over the next 6, and it's not particularly close. Acquiring Halladay now provides almost no excess value, b/c you need to pay him market price beyond 2010.

I don't know why they would handle this any differently than they did Santana or Sabathia. Giving up talent and dollars (at anything close to a reasonable prospect package - not the Mets robbery) makes no sense for the Yankees.

There was a long threat a few days ago about the Red Sox and Halladay, and I think the Yankees' scenarios are different not just from the Red Sox...but from any other team in American team sports. They suffer fewer consequences from taking risks than any other team in American team sports.

How can I say that? Well, in the other three major sports, there are salary caps of varying types, and it does, at a minimum, two things. First, while there are still advantages to being an extremely revenue-rich franchise, you can only use so much of an owner's personal wealth or team's revenue-generating ability into the on-the-field product. Jerry Jones, Charles Dolan, Mark Cuban, whoever...even if they want to pay Lebron or Peyton Manning $30 million a year from their own personal wealth, they can't. Second, and more importantly for this conversation, it also means that other sports' teams can paper over stupid personnel decisions for only so long. If Dan Snyder of the Redskins wants to keep giving aging, overrated big-name free agents crazy contracts with million of dead-weight guaranteed money, he can...for a while. Eventually, if you keep doing it, you will run out of cap space to put 53 guys on the active roster every week, and sign your draft picks. For that matter, if Bob Kraft (another crazy-rich NFL owner who is Bizarro Snyder...he makes all the right decisions) wants to keep signing really good players for tons of money, he, too, eventually has to stop - he has to put 53 guys on the field for a set amount of money, too...

Baseball, of course, is the one sport that is not like this. Sure, there's a luxury tax, but if you have enough money to go way over the threshhold, then several miliion in "tax" probably isn't going to be the difference in signing a premier guy like Halladay, Sabathia, or Teixera.

Here's the real issue, as it relates to a Halladay-to-the-Yankees trade. If the Red Sox (or Phillies, or Angels, or Mets) want Halladay, the fact he:
1) is making almost $16m in 2010; and
2) will command more than that, likely through 2014 or so
means that even these teams, who are among the richest in the game, can't afford to f*** this one up. The Red Sox, in putting together a package, have to keep in mind that a trade-and-extend of Halladay virtually guarantees they will not resign Beckett after next season. It also makes the math, in the short term, a little tougher for finding a LF, or a big bat at either 3B or 1B. So, when the Red Sox are figuring what they can offer in trade, they are not necessarily saying, "OK, when we get Halladay, he'll be replacing the promising-but-currently-far-inferior Clay Buchholz". They are really saying, "OK, he's replacing Buchholz this year, and then the really-good-if-not-quite-Halladay-but-probably-a-lot-cheaper Josh Beckett in 2011 and beyond. Oh, and then we won't have Casey Kelly or Clay Buchholz for those years, either, meaning we'll have to pay/quickly develop a replacement for that rotation spot, too." Other teams, besides the Yankees, would be making similar caluclations. This is one reason why the Red Sox simply can't value Halladay as highly in a trade as the Yankees, because his salary represents a real opportunity cost for even wealthy Boston.

For the Yankees, there is no such thng as opportunity cost. Think about it: last off-season, they purchased, without giving up a single player, a #1 starter, a #2 starter, and Mark friggin' Teixera. Sure, they lost some draft picks, but because they signed so many free agents, they were losing 2nd and 3rd round picks by the end of the winter, because they had already given up their 1st round pick for earlier free agents. The "penalty" for signing additional Type A free agents actually goes DOWN as you do it more often!

Of course the Yankees should pursue Halladay aggressively - if they get him, it does not necessarily preclude them from going after any other player in a future year. We can pretend they aren't going to pursue Holliday because they are trying to "keep it real" with their payroll, but realistically, if they thought their offense was screwed for 2010, you don't think they'd go after Holliday, Bay, or somebody else? And if they lose good prospects in the process of trading for Halladay, they are in a better position than anybody in American team sports of buying solutions down the line. Montero may be a great prospects, but if Joe Mauer hits the market next year, does anybody think the Yankees won't at least make an offer? And you don't think that offer will have the effect of jacking up the final price for the Twins? If the Twins end up winning a bidding war with the Yannkees for Mauer, the real winner is...the Yankees! They will have increased the ante for future top-tie catchers, and will have weakened the Twins, who will be forced to use 20% of their total payroll on one player.

I would absolutely trade Montero and Joba/Hughes for Halladay, in a second...but I would not trade Buchholz and Kelly for Halladay. It's not that the Sox players are that much better (if at all) than the Yankees offer...it's just that having, say, Beckett/Buchholz for the next four years, instead of simply Halladay, is a wiser response to the opportunity cost facing them.

The Yankees wouldn't know what an opportunity cost was if it hit them in athletic cup.

(Plus, I hate the use of "an" in front of "historic".)

http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/drgw007.html

and the damn Yankees will just sign Montero back when he hits free agency 6 years from now.

Who was the last prospect that the Yankees traded away and then signed when he hit free agency? Not, you know, when the guy's old, but when he first hits free agency? How many examples are there for any team in, say, the last 10 years?

Re: 25

Please stop. The Yankees are playing a different game, financially, but history has demonstrated that they have a cap somewhere around 200 million. It's always fun to talk about last offseason's signings without acknowledging that their payroll stayed about the same.

http://www.alphadictionary.com/articles/drgw007.html

Very interesting. When I got to this part:

A little-known fact about English is that whether a noun begins with a consonant or vowel affects not only the selection of "a" and "an," but also the pronunciation of "the": before a consonant this article is pronounced [thuh] but before a vowel it is pronounced [thee].

I said to myself "That's not right. I'd say '[thuh] apples'". But then I started on some sentences, and realized that I would say "Go to the fridge and get [thee] onions.", while I'd say "Go to the library and get [thuh] books." It's not a drawn out [thee], but it's definitely there.

However, I'd still say "[thuh] historical abstract", not "[thee] historical abstract", so personally, I'm going to remain annoyed at "an historical".

My favorite part of that post is that somehow the Red Sox wouldn't be able to re-sign Beckett if they get Halladay.

I would absolutely trade Montero and Joba/Hughes for Halladay, in a second...but I would not trade Buchholz and Kelly for Halladay. It's not that the Sox players are that much better (if at all) than the Yankees offer...it's just that having, say, Beckett/Buchholz for the next four years, instead of simply Halladay, is a wiser response to the opportunity cost facing them.

That's crazy. If both those offers are on the table the Yankee one is way, way, way, better.

Please stop. The Yankees are playing a different game, financially, but history has demonstrated that they have a cap somewhere around 200 million. It's always fun to talk about last offseason's signings without acknowledging that their payroll stayed about the same.

Yeah. The payroll has been approx. the same the last 3-4 years. The Yankees are rich, but they have limits.

Yeah. The payroll has been approx. the same the last 3-4 years. The Yankees are rich, but they have limits.

Is there any evidence of them having hit their limits? Even with them dropping $200M a season, and shelling out whatever for revenue sharing, they're still apparently wildly profitable. I have little doubt that they could go higher if they wanted to, and if players worth signing were available at the right positions.

Is there any evidence of them having hit their limits? Even with them dropping $200M a season, and shelling out whatever for revenue sharing, they're still apparently wildly profitable. I have little doubt that they could go higher if they wanted to, and if players worth signing were available at the right positions.

Carlos Beltran would be the most famous example.

Is there any evidence of them having hit their limits? Even with them dropping $200M a season, and shelling out whatever for revenue sharing, they're still apparently wildly profitable. I have little doubt that they could go higher if they wanted to, and if players worth signing were available at the right positions.

See [34], Beltran is one. But, the fact is that 2009 payroll was $7M lower than 2005 (per Cots). If that's not a sign of a limit, I don't know what is.

Their revenue is huge, but not unlimited, and they spend over $100M on revenue sharing and luxury tax. Plus, the Steinbrenners need to build up a cash reserve to pay the estate tax when George passes. Apparently, George was running the team at negative cash flow for a while, relying on asset appreciation and loans. I doubt the new generation wants to do that; they probably want some cash flow to spend. Also, the loans have probably gotten a lot more expensive w/ the financial crisis, and they probably tapped out their borrowing capacity on the Stadium.

#31 - I agree, the Yankee one would be way better...and I still think the Yankees would be in a better position to make the trade.
#30 - The only way the Red Sox could pay Halladay and Beckett whatever it'll take in 2011 and beyond is if they take a lot of the money that comes off the books after 2010 (Ortiz, Lowell, Varitek is about $25 million off the books, but you'll have to pay Paplebon several million more through arbitration, so you're probably freeing up a little over $20 million in payroll after 2010), and apply it towards Halladay's salary (which probably won't be much less than the $20-$22 million freed up). Of course, that doesn't answer how you replace your DH or third baseman. Oh, and Victor Martinez, who is only making $7.25 million in 2010, is also a free agent, so you have to fill that hole, too.

So, yeah, if you sign Halladay to the kind of contract we all think he's going to get, you either sign Beckett, or you fill some holes in the lineup. This isn't the Yankees, folks - you can't have half the team making an average of $12.5 million a year...(and I'm not joking: ARod/Teixeira/Jeter/Burnett/Sabathia/Damon/Matsui/Posada/Rivera/Nady/Cano/Pettitte/Swisher/Wang are 14 players from the 2009 team. Their combined 2009 salary: $178.95 million. The average, for those 14 players: $12.8 million. To put that in perspective, the Red Sox - with the 4th highest payroll in baseball! - had only two players who made more than those 14 players averaged (Drew made $14m, and Ortiz made $13m). Beckett made $11.2m. If you took the Red Sox 14 highest, so nobody thinks I'm cooking the numbers, it's about $113 million (a ton of money, to be sure). But when people act like the Red Sox (or anybody else) can just sign all these guys like it's nothing, give me a break.

This isn't the Yankees, folks - you can't have half the team making an average of $12.5 million a year...

But they had a $143M payroll two years ago, and can certainly go above that.

The Red Sox only have $51M committed in 2011 (Drew, Lester, Pedroia, Youkilis, Dice-K, Wakefield and Tazawa). They can easily pay Halladay and Beckett $20M each, and still have $60M+ for the rest of the team.

I'm saying that Montero/Hughes/Lackey + $30M is worth more than Halladay in wins over the next 6, and it's not particularly close. Acquiring Halladay now provides almost no excess value, b/c you need to pay him market price beyond 2010.

Market price alone provides excess value with Halladay - he's been worth 66m the last 2 seasons according to WAR, and even if someone gives him a 5 year extension it won't be worth much more than 100m. That's the beauty with Halladay - even if he does decline, he'll very likely provide more than enough value over the front of any extension to cover the back end of it. I also don't know how you can say it's not particularly close, unless you are discussing Halladay and Lackey's respective abilities - then you'd be correct. As for your equation, you need to add at least one first round draft pick to Halladay's side (that you'd be giving up to sign Lackey), as well as the other possible 2 top 40 picks you'd receive once Halladay leaves, assuming a renewal of the current CBA's system.

Using the converted dollar amounts on fangraphs for WAR makes you a bad person.

I think Halladay should go to the Mets. That way Red Sox fans and Yankee fans can stop bickering.

Why would you wish such a horrible injury on Halladay?

Anything to bring peace between long time enemies. After that, we trade Halladay to the Middle East.

The Mets already broke Johan Santana's spirit.

Anything to bring peace between long time enemies. After that, we trade Halladay to the Middle East.

After Flushing, Mosul would look like a garden spot.

a trade-and-extend of Halladay virtually guarantees they will not resign Beckett after next season

This is simply untrue. Wildly untrue. The Red Sox have limits, but part of the way they stay within them is that they sign good players. Beckett is one of those, for whom they will not have to give up a draft pick to acquire him. Others have pointed out the Sox's minimal payroll obligations that offseason; I concur with all that, and would mention that giving big contracts is not the problem nearly so much as giving big contracts to players who aren't that good -- something the Sox generally don't do.

But they had a $143M payroll two years ago, and can certainly go above that.

John Henry doesn't want to apologize to Bud Selig for exceeding the "luxury tax" threshold again.

John Henry doesn't want to apologize to Bud Selig for exceeding the "luxury tax" threshold again.

Hey, I agree with Yankee Redneck. May be a first.

Of course Halladay is a great pitcher, but the Yankees don't actually need a great pitcher right now

?? I don't think this is ever true of pitchers, but even if it is, that is no reason not to get him. The issue (obviously) is whether what you have to give up is worth it.

I'm saying that Montero/Hughes/Lackey + $30M is worth more than Halladay in wins over the next 6, and it's not particularly close.

Maybe, but as Ryan suggested, Halladay might give them the edge they need to repeat. Given the Yankees' team age, that is worth considering.

Hey, I agree with Yankee Redneck. May be a first.

Baseball is the greatest team sport in the world. Let's make it a two-fer!

Maybe, but as Ryan suggested, Halladay might give them the edge they need to repeat. Given the Yankees' team age, that is worth considering.

They should be worrying about the next ten years, repeating is nice, but not necessary. Given the team's age, they shouldn't trade two young potential stars for another 30-something.

Again, if you must have a pitcher, sign Lackey (the deal will be shorter/cheaper than the Halladay extension), keep the talent.

Lackey isn't anywhere near the talent Halladay is though.

Lackey isn't anywhere near the talent Halladay is though.

I fully acknowledge that.

But I don't think the Yankees need to add any SPs. Adding Lackey would make the rotation much better than last year's.

Going for Halladay is overkill, and weakens the team long-term.

It only weakens the team long-term if you're projecting both Hughes and Joba as starting pitchers, and last time I checked there isn't enough room in the rotation for both of them. Especially if you're adding another starting pitcher like Lackey.

Don't the Jays have two DH's already in Lind and Snider?

It only weakens the team long-term if you're projecting both Hughes and Joba as starting pitchers, and last time I checked there isn't enough room in the rotation for both of them. Especially if you're adding another starting pitcher like Lackey.

Well, I wouldn't add another SP. I'm assuming Lackey replaces Pettitte, so there's still room for both.

If they trade for, and extend Halladay, they will likely not bring back Pettitte, so will still be a SP short.

Don't the Jays have two DH's already in Lind and Snider?

If he can't hack it as a catcher, he's a 1B on a team that doesn't have Tex for the next 7 years.

They also have Randy Ruiz, and Lyle Overbay is still under contract.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the Yankee move being discussed here would make the them better short-term. With an aging but still excellent core, I'd want the Yankees to go all in for the next few years. Even with the Yankee payroll, it's not going to be easy to replicate this core. I'd want them to pull this trade off to try to win a few more before the Mariano core finally ages.

I don't think anyone would disagree that the Yankee move being discussed here would make the them better short-term. With an aging but still excellent core, I'd want the Yankees to go all in for the next few years. Even with the Yankee payroll, it's not going to be easy to replicate this core. I'd want them to pull this trade off to try to win a few more before the Mariano core finally ages.

Well, as a Yankee fan I want no part of it.

Even Mariano Rivera must retire someday.

Even Mariano Rivera must retire someday.

He's not going to retire, he'll just get drafted by Skynet to start hunting all of us down.

He's not going to retire, he'll just get drafted by Skynet to start hunting all of us down.

Nicely done.