Why is it accepted here that intra-division trading is basically the same as inter-division, or inter-league?

Just making up numbers, say Halladay is a 5 win boost for the acquiring team. For the Yankees or Red Sox, that is almost certainly 1-2 wins directly at the expense of the Blue Jays, and it makes the Jays' goals (winning the division or wild card) even more difficult. And given the already risky, unproven nature of the players going to the Jays, the intra-division offer would have to be substantially higher to compensate.

I certainly wouldn't rule out such a trade, but it becomes incredibly unlikely unless there are other circumstances (i.e. a player is a true "rental", the receiving team isn't that good, or the trading team projects a longer rebuilding cycle).

The thing I want to know most about Rzepczynski is how to pronounce his name.

It'll be interesting to see who they come up with when he inevitably gets hurt.

Oh, they're already prepared for that eventuality. Why do you think they're holding a reunion of the 92/93 World Series teams on the 17th anniversary of the first win? They've already got David Cone, Mark Eichhorn, Juan Guzman, Tom Henke, Pat Hentgen, Jimmy Key, Al Leiter, Jack Morris, Dave Stieb, Mike Timlin, Duane Ward, and Woody Williams all signed to minor league contracts, the alumni just haven't been told that yet.

Also, I have no idea how they got Dave Stewart signed on to attend.

The crazy thing is that Rzepczynski, whoever or whatever he is, will probably throw seven innings and give up 2 runs.

Honestly though. Remember when Roboturd tore apart Jerod Morris for his unfounded speculation? For his lack of professionalism. Hah. Haha.

The thing I want to know most about Rzepczynski is how to pronounce his name.

"Zepinski" is how I've heard it pronouced. I don't know if that's correct, or just the best possible guess from the person reading off of the transcript.

Why is it accepted here that intra-division trading is basically the same as inter-division, or inter-league?

I'm not sure it's accepted here, at least on anything like a universal basis.

Just making up numbers, say Halladay is a 5 win boost for the acquiring team.

A one-third share of a Halladay season probably isn't 5 wins by itself (though a full season may well be) but players like Halladay are nonetheless rare and I think lots of people are saying that while there may not be as much resistance as to intra-divisional trading as there once was, we're looking at something of an exceptional case here.

Why is it accepted here that intra-division trading is basically the same as inter-division, or inter-league?

Just making up numbers, say Halladay is a 5 win boost for the acquiring team. For the Yankees or Red Sox, that is almost certainly 1-2 wins directly at the expense of the Blue Jays, and it makes the Jays' goals (winning the division or wild card) even more difficult. And given the already risky, unproven nature of the players going to the Jays, the intra-division offer would have to be substantially higher to compensate.

If the Jays' goal is to make the playoffs this year, there's no sense trading Halladay at all. If you do peddle him, you're conceding that you're not in the playoff hunt and thus, wins this year have less value.

Overall, the idea of any trade (even a salary dump, though in that case the actual exchange of wins is more indirect) is to receive more wins than you give up. And if you can take wins from the Red Sox or Yankees, then that should give you further incentive to make the trade.

But if the trade "helps the opposition" (as your version suggests), the problem isn't trading within the division, but making that trade at all.

Overall, the idea of any trade (even a salary dump, though in that case the actual exchange of wins is more indirect) is to receive more wins than you give up. And if you can take wins from the Red Sox or Yankees, then that should give you further incentive to make the trade.

But if the trade "helps the opposition" (as your version suggests), the problem isn't trading within the division, but making that trade at all.

But it's entirely possible to make the old "trade that helps both sides". It Team A has 6 good starting pitchers and no catchers and Team B has 4 good starters and 2 good catchers, then Team A can trade away their 6th starter, who has relatively little value to them, and receive a catcher who would be a big addition to them, while, from Team B's perspective, they're giving away a backup catcher in exchange for a starting pitcher. Win-Win!

If Team A and Team B are in opposite leagues, then they'll both be happy to make this trade as there's (virtually) no downside to making another team better. If Teams A and B are in the same division, though, then the net benefit to Team A is lower - if the trade gains them 2 wins but gains Team B 3 wins, now all of a sudden, Team A would lose 1 game relative to Team B making this trade. So what would be a good trade for, say, the Tigers to make with the Padres would suddenly be a bad trade to make with the Twins.

I have no idea how, if at all, any of that would affect a trade of Halladay to either the Yankees or Red Sox, since such a trade would be a 2009 rental for the Yanks/Sox and would be a clear indication that the Blue Jays are giving up on the 2009 season.

AG: I was thinking 5 wins over a full season (2010) but I just pulled it out of thin air anyway.

You seem to have a reasonable take on it, but #12 and #19 seemed a bit more oblivious to the intra-division trade ramifications. The "best offer" may not in fact be the best offer if one doesn't factor in the negative effects of said offer (i.e. having to face Halladay several times per year, and having to achieve a higher number of wins to contend for the postseason).

I guess it's a matter of perspective -- to me, the "exceptional case" would be an intra-division superstar trade, but it appears you (and others) view the exceptional case as refusing to make such a trade, or setting the asking price prohibitively high. The Jays would seem like one of the better superstar-trading teams in recent memory, and the Yanks and Red Sox would be two of the best acquiring teams too, so it does make the trade much riskier for the Jays than for other teams.

I have no idea how, if at all, any of that would affect a trade of Halladay to either the Yankees or Red Sox, since such a trade would be a 2009 rental for the Yanks/Sox and would be a clear indication that the Blue Jays are giving up on the 2009 season.

Regrettably, it wouldn't be a rental, since Halladay is signed for 2010 as well, at a very reasonably rate.

Given that, before the season started, JP was talking about punting the 2009 season with the intention of competing in 2010, trading Halladay now would be incredibly silly, since JP would both lose his best player and further undercut himself in terms of PR - no one is going to believe that the Jays could be contenders in 2010 without Halladay anchoring the staff.

But it's entirely possible to make the old "trade that helps both sides".

True, and I would be willing to grant a waiver to no inter-divisional trade that helps both sides dealing. Otherwise, I still would rather see my general manager make the best deal, rather than take a lesser one on the basis that "it won't come back to haunt him 18 times a year."

It's definitely complicated. The Jays aren't likely to receive tangible wins in return -- they will simply be taking on the risk of potential future wins. Thus, "getting more wins" in such a trade is very speculative to begin with -- even increasing the potential wins may not be adequate compensation. Plus, with Halladay under contract for 2010 too, the negative impact is greater than a one-year rental, without even considering the likelihood that Halladay re-signs and remains in the division beyond 2010.

But if the trade "helps the opposition" (as your version suggests), the problem isn't trading within the division, but making that trade at all.

Any trade will both help and hurt the teams involved, as well as indirectly help or hurt other teams. The idea is that, all other things being equal, helping a division rival will indirectly hurt your team significantly more than others.

Over a number of years, it may all even out, but it's still an important factor to consider. Trading outside the division might mean a significantly better chance at contending in 2009-2010, with only slightly less potential to contend in 2011-2014, as opposed to the intra-division trade.

Otherwise, I still would rather see my general manager make the best deal, rather than take a lesser one on the basis that "it won't come back to haunt him 18 times a year."

Fair enough -- but indirect negative effects of a trade have to be a factor in truly determining "the best deal."

Obviously, I wouldn't take Carlos Gomez over Jon Lester, for example, but other combinations might not be so clear. In which case, I hope my GM is smart enough to not "haunt the team 18 times a year" for marginal gains in player potential.

Fair enough -- but indirect negative effects of a trade have to be a factor in truly determining "the best deal."

Oh, I agree that there are reasons for not trading Halladay to the Yankees/Red Sox that go beyond on-field value. And any negative revenue effects must be part of the calculus.

The crazy thing is that Rzepczynski, whoever or whatever he is, will probably throw seven innings and give up 2 runs.

Pretty close.

I don't see it online anywhere yet, but I just got a text message that the Jays have released BJ Ryan.

Also, according to sportsnet Halladay has given JP the "go-ahead" to trade him. JP says he doesn't expect being able to keep him from free agency a third time. :-(((((((((

I don't see it online anywhere yet, but I just got a text message that the Jays have released BJ Ryan.

Sportsnet is now reporting it.