Do NOT Trade Clay Buchholz for Roy Halladay.
by BTLove on Nov 25, 2009 3:01 PM EST
147 comments
By now I'm sure everyone has seen the latest reports that the Red Sox are aggressively pursuing a trade for Roy Halladay. Not surprisingly, the rumors always start with Clay Buchholz. But if you're asking, my advice: do not give up Clay for Halladay, even if it is one for one. It is simply not worth it.
Let's look at the values of both players.
Halladay WAR last five years: 4.4, 5.6, 5.7, 7.4, 7.3.
In 6 of his 8 seasons in the majors, he has pitched at least 220 innings, including the last four seasons.
I am not here to disparage Roy Halladay. There is no mistaking that he is a truly elite pitcher, arguably the best in baseball. He is getting older (turns 33 next season), but I am fairly confident he will continue to be worth around 5 WAR for at least four more seasons.
We all are very familiar with the Clay Buchholz saga; top prospect pitches no-no then sucks in the majors, dominates AAA again and now looks to be finally breaking through, having pitched very well at the end of last season. Bill James projects Clay to pitch 161 innings at a FIP of 3.94. Given that projection, and the ability for growth, 3 WAR average over the next 4 seasons seems reasonable. Those are very good numbers, but certainly not in Halliday's class. So why should we hold on to Clay? Simply, because of the money.
Roy Halladay will make $15M next season, the last year of his contract. In order to keep him past this season, we will need to negotiate a Santana-like extension for another 5 years at $20Mish per season. Given my entriely unscientific estimate of 5 WAR per year over that period, he will be paid $115Mish for 30 WAR. That comes out to $3.8 per WAR, actually a very good value.
Clay Buchholz will make at most $15M total over the next four seasons. And only that much if he becomes a very good starter. Like any young, good pitcher, he will be an incredible value, one of the better deals in baseball. We would only be paying something like $1.2M per WAR, without any kind of long-term commitment.
So, we can assume the Sox have a definite budget. Any money spent on one guy, is money that could be spent on someone else. What else can we get with the difference in money, basically $14M next year and more for the years following? A lot. We could sign John Lackey, or Jason Bay, or Matt Holliday. We could make a run at Joe Mauer next season. We could extend Josh Beckett.
Given a choice between the expensive Roy Halladay or the cheap Clay Buchholz, I will take four years of Clay.
0 recs |
147 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I agree.
Halladay is awesome, but he’d cost us $100 million for the next five years. I’d rather give Lackey a slice of that and keep Buchholz and Kelly.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Here we go again
Why even have the debate, everyone knows the stance of the “fantasy geeks.” Its been documented about a billion times over the year. A rumor is just a rumor, just like a prospect is just a prospect. IF I was Toronto, I would be spreading Red Sox rumors all day to try and get the Yankees, Red Sox and Angels into a bidding war for Halladay.
See, the Jays Effed up this season by not trading Halladay, bc his price goes down immediately since he cannot come in and help a team in a playoff run. Plus, from history, teams that hold onto their soon to be FA pitchers usually take pennies on the dollar latter on. Ask Minnesota if JJ Hardy makes them feel satisfied with dumping Santana.
As for Clay, nothing is a given. He could come out and be a dominate starter or he could get crushed by a full season and never give the Sox anything or he could be just mediocre. With Halladay you get 15 + wins each season and a dominating arm to add to an already impressive rotation. If you had to bet on the next 3 or 4 seasons, you would have to take Halladay bc of his consistency. But I understand there are other factors to consider than just on the mound performance.
One point I have to disagree with you on, why does everyone think the Red Sox have some kind of restrictive budget? They didn’t in 2009 ? What makes you think they will not pay players in 2010?
This is all BS anyways, why trade Buchholz for Halladay when Felix is sitting in Seattle waiting to sign a 20 million + /year contract with only 2 or 3 teams able to handle that deal.
Buzzy, If teixeira signed with Boston what would his contract have been? Oh yeah, I guess Theo would sign certain players for over 20 million a year. Learn something will ya.
The Sox don't have a budget?
Could we spend $300M per year? Obviously not. We do have a budget. The FO wants to spend something like $125M per season with the ability to expand to $140-$150M.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
A 28-year old first baseman is a much safer investment than a 33 year-old pitcher.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Also, I am not Buzzy. And I agree that Theo will sign players for over $20M per year. My point is not that we are unable to afford Halladay. My point is that the money is better off spent elsewhere and, more importantly, the difference between Buch and Halladay does not equal what else we could get for $20M per season.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
True
but I am ;). I did not say Theo woulds not offer 20+ million contracts, I simply said that in his tenure the team has not even given out a 15 million dollar contract. At the very least that means he makes such offers infrequently. If Felix Hernandez was a FA, I am sure the Sox would offer more than 20 million, but he is 23 and Halladay will be 33.
But you (SoxAcumen) are still sort of living in fantasyland, and all of your predictions and proclamations are always later shown to be false. So, since you never answered my challenge last time, how about this:
a)If Felix Hernandez is still on the Ms by August 1, 2010, you owe me 100 dollars.
b)If Adrian Gonzalez is still with the Pads you owe me 50 dollars.
And if not I send you the checks. How about that?
The Sox definitely have a budget
It’s well known Theo likes having a bit of payroll flexibility going into the season to possibly add some contracts later on.
That said, I love Halladay, and as much as it goes against my “Flexibility Wins” temperament, I would love to see him on this team. But trading for Halladay and then extending him limits the things we can do later. Extending Halladay and picking up a LFer like Holliday probably adds a good $40m a year to our budget. That severely limits us. Beckett would likely be gone, V-Mart too unless either want to go “Cheap discount for a winning team” but I doubt it.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 25, 2009 5:11 PM EST up reply actions
You used WINZ.
Rephrase please.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Agreed
But if the Mariners would take the right package including Clay for Felix, I’d make that deal.
I agree with BTLove here
I have to add that if Theo is willing to ship Buchholz, I think he should do it for a young ace pitcher like Josh Johnson (likely to be traded and was looking to sign a four-year contract worth $40 million. ) than not a 33 old pitcher looking for a 5 years $100 million.
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
I think unless the deal favors the Sox, Buchholz should be traded for a pitcher (if he is traded)
I understand and don’t disagree with those who say we need to improve our offense more than our pitching, but A) It seems like packages for guys like Adrian Gonzalez are going to be cost prohibitive for Theo and B) I’m just not entirely comfortable with a guy like Lackey anyways. I would rather give Halladay a 5 year deal than Lackey at this point.
Josh Johnson, Roy Halladay (yeah, I know he’s old, but man do I love to watch him pitch), Felix Hernandez.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 25, 2009 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
Buchholz for Halladay?
All day everyday. Halladay will produce more in a 4 year contract than Clay will over that same time period. You pay the premium in dollars for one of the best pitchers in MLB. There is nobody else like Halladay, proven STUD winner in the AL East.
This is a no brainer.
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!
But the difference in costs makes Clay a better value.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Costs? Embrace the darkside
you know you want to…. muahahah
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 25, 2009 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
I find it hilarious that you contribute to a prospects site.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Look
the organization clearly thinks less of Buchholz than most fans do. The guy is brought up in EVERY single trade rumor for 3 years. He will not be with the organization on opening day, he will be traded prior.
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!
He's brought up in every trade rumour
…because he’s the most enticing piece we have. Not because we’re anxious to get him out the door.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
He's going to get dealt
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!
Maybe, maybe not
I’m guessing you’re a bit biased though, judging by your sig quote.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 26, 2009 4:28 AM EST up reply actions
Link?
Could you provide a link indicating that he will definately be dealt?
Sandy's the source.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
And yet we have not yet traded him.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Wow, that came out horribly.
I meant that CW is pretty much the least MFY-fan-ish MFY fan ever.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Ahh ok gotcha.
It’s all good.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 27, 2009 12:08 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah.
I was talking to about 20 people while trying to write that, so it came out weird. I blame a hostile extended family that won’t let jokes die.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Huh?
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Nov 27, 2009 12:07 AM EST up reply actions
Not at all
Halladay’s production will topple that of Clay
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!
yes this
his value is ridiculous and showing no signs of declining. I’d rather have Halladay with a stopgap platoon in LF than overpay bay or holliday. Plus it provides us the flexibility to not rely on resigning Beckett (because let’s be reasonable, the Phils will almost certainly keep Lee, they’re winning and will pay, and no other team will sign Halladay unless they’re sure he’s resigning with them, Vasquez will either get locked up by the braves or traded to someone who will lock him up, which I believe just leaves Webb as a top caliber pitcher who will be available- am I missing anyone?)
Josh Johnson is apparantly available.
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
just because he has not started his declined yet doesn't mean he won't.
He’s 33 years old. But really, that was not the point. Roy Halladay will be expensive monetarily and he will cost Clay Buchholz. Why not just sign a FA pitcher (Lackey), wait a year until Halladay hits free agency or go after a cost-controlled pitcher (Josh Johnson will be cheap for another two years)? By trading for Halladay we are giving up our most valuable trade chip and spending free-agency dollars on an aging pitcher.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
because
a. Halladay will not hit free agency. He can basically decide where he wants to go and he is going to go to a team that can win and will re-sign him
b. Lackey will be just as expensive as Halladay due to the weak market. He is a worse pitcher who wants 5 years/$100 million. Add this to the fact that he has been very public about hating fenway and there is practically a 0% chance he could end up in boston
c. I like Johnson a lot, but he is a lot less proven, and at the age of 25 has already had elbow problems. I would rather take our chances with the years of Buchholz we have left than to have him, as dominating as he appears to be.
All indications are that Halladay is the athletic type that should be able to pitch into his later years and still be effective. He is a very intelligent pitcher, and the ones who usually really suffer the most are the ones that rely on pure speed. He is a very efficient, smart pitcher, as well as being very fit and reliable. He is expensive monetarily, but I feel like he is one of the best uses of the money available.
There's still a chance that Halladay will hit FA
It’s small, but still significant. If winning teams are trying to lowball the Jays for Halladay, Toronto could simply let him play out the year and collect the draft picks. In that case, yes, he WOULD hit the FA market.
And while that’s not probable, it’s possible, so let’s avoid using such absolute terms when making points.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 26, 2009 4:30 AM EST up reply actions
well of course there's a chance
but reasonably, Toronto almost definitely loses out if they keep him a year and just get 2 draft picks for him- they are capable of getting proven talent that is closer to ML ready than draft picks. There is also a chance he could get in a plane crash on the way to spring training and die, but I don’t mention that because it’s very unlikely.
I really think the chance of him hitting FA is small enough that it’s a terrible idea to gamble on the chance that he could possibly do it, so I speak in absolutes about it, because it is absolutely not something we can count on happening.
Lackey will almost definitely be cheaper than Holliday
Halladay will make $15.75 million this year. Any team that trades for him will have to give him a raise. If he hits the market, he’ll make Santana/Sabathia money. Because of that, there’s a 50-50 chance that Halladay doesn’t get traded, and becomes a FA next year.
Lackey wants Burnett money. It doesn’t look like he’ll get that this year because of a down market.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
Holliday = Halladay?
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Lackey deserves Burnett money
At least more than Burnett does. The fact is I don’t believe that Halladay will be prohibitively more expensive than Lackey, because most of lackeys value comes from the fact that this FA class is terrible.
I haven’t seen indications that he won’t be able to make Burnett money, there is a pretty high demand for him.
by wolf9309 on Nov 26, 2009 3:37 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Lackey is better than Burnett
But there are fewer teams willing to give big money contracts this year. More importantly, the MFY aren’t in the market for a pitcher (unless Lackey’s price drops).
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
There's also fewer decent pitchers available
Plus you can’t count the MFY out until he’s actually signed somewhere. Pettite hasn’t decided for sure yet whether he wants to come back and if not they need someone. They may also just decide they don’t want both jobs and Hughes in the rotation next year.
by wolf9309 on Nov 26, 2009 4:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
can we be sure of that?
that the MFY aren’t in the market for a pitcher?
Would they go ahead and throw the money at Lackey to force the Red Sox to give up prospects AND money for Halladay or Hernandez?
34 is usually the age of death for pitchers.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
The average American lives to be 77 I believe
That doesn’t mean there aren’t people that live well over 100.
Halladay has not declined, his peripherals have shown no indication of decline. I see no reason to believe that he will decline anytime soon and in every way he has proved himself to be the exception, not the average.
by wolf9309 on Nov 26, 2009 3:40 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
This is technically true
Except the window to be in one’s absolutely top athletic prime is much smaller than the window for simply living.
it is a hyperbolic example
which gets my point across. Some people continue to pitch well past 34. I’m not suggesting Halladay will pitch until he’s 100 (or even 77)
Yeah, but even the best pitchers see their production drop off a cliff after 34.
He’s already had a few health issues too. He should be able to adjust to lesser stuff, but he won’t be the same pitcher.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
randy johnson and roger clemens beg to differ
there’s not one set limit.
The health issues are a point. The groin injury I don’t see a problem. The shoulder one could worry me a bit. My kind of mindset is that since he hasn’t missed any time since 2005 and has been an inning-chomping beast since then (220-246 each year) those issues won’t recur. It’s possible that’s optimistic of me.
Okay, USUALLY even the best pitchers see their production drop off a cliff after 34.
Plus, I’d hold off on Rogah until he clears his name.
He has a peculiar delivery as well. Not sure if it’s mechanically unsound, but it just looks weird. That could be something I’m trying to connect to his injuries because I really don’t want to trade Buch for him. I still don’t see Buch turning into an ace, but he could be a very good #3 and provide more value.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
It's all about upside.
Halladay will likely give a great-to-amazing performance for a year or two…at a big wad of cash.
Clay will likely give an above average to potentially excellent performance for the next several years…at very cost-controlled levels. Allowing us disposible income to dispense on big, juicy bats.
It really is just that simple.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
but it won't be a year or two
because Theo would never trade for him unless he was sure there was an extension involved. This is obviously not the time to blow a young pitcher with great upside for a short-term great pitcher, but there’s definitely a solid argument for a longer term.
I think if there’s no chance to discuss an extension before pulling the trigger, Theo doesn’t even seriously consider getting Halladay for a minute.
But what kind of extension would you want to give? He’s under contract next year for $15M and he’ll be 33. At most I would want 3 more years, but I really think it would take more like 5 to get the deal done. It is just too big an investment.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
I think 4 is reasonable
for both sides. Again, like i said, if we can’t work out an extension that both sides are amenable to then the trade would just be ridiculous. $15 million a year is nothing for the value he provides. One area our rotation has issues in is the lack of a consistent workhorse who we can rely on to pitch deep in the game when his turn in the rotation comes up. I think Lester has the ability to become that pitcher, but he hasn’t proven he can do it yet.
Great except good pitching beats good hitting
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!
I just read the section of The Book that argues that's wrong.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Maybe I'm just hungry for turkey...
But “big, juicy bats” immediately gave me a mental image of Ozzy.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Agreed.
It would set back the Sox’s future.
And though my answer may seem restrained, I am DIE-HARD behind not trading Buchholz for Halladay.
Keep Buchholz. Sign him for 8 years if he earns it with a full season (160+ innings) like his last two half-seasons (under 100 innings). Quite the deal. And extend Beckett for another 5 years. He’s only 29. Lackey is already 31, with more innings per season. Halladay is 32, with many more innings per season and no playoff experience. And their ERAs and BBtoKs are comparable, as are other stats. They’re all elite pitchers. [The only side reason I have for the Sox trading for Halladay is that he’ll be able to pitch in the post season – and that’s exciting!]
Money isn’t an issue. The 2011-2018 clubs are. We cannot trade away all of our commodities. I respect the Sox for the ability and willingness to trade, as opposed to the *******’ proclivity to simply buy whomever is available. We actually barter future talent for current talent. It’s commendable (though I miss Masterson – and so did the Sox against the Angels!). But please do not do it in this case. Imagine a rotation of an aged and learned Beckett, and a formidable duo of Lester and Buchholz, with Kelly filling in the #4, and Wakefield (ha?) at the 5 (kidding – any other 5 will do – Bowden, Tazawa, Dice-K, or another youngin). Wow! As opposed to sending Buchholz and Kelly away for a chance at a Championship with Halladay this year. In my opinion, it’s dangerous, and not worth it. Let’s get a hitter. Re-sign Bay. Forget the flaky Holliday. Go after Scuatro and sign Alex Gonzalez and Billy Wagner back. And, if you can, trade for Adrian Gonzalez…but do not give up Kelly or Buchholz. Trade Reddick, Anderson (we have enough 1st basemen), Tazawa (perhaps), but do not offer Kelly, Lars, Iglesias, Westmoreland, or Bowden.
’Nuff said.
he would need have a very good year
for me to think it’s a good idea to sign buchholz to an 8-year extension. That’s a long time. Like probably around 200 innings, no DL trips, significantly better peripherals then he displayed this year, and still pitching well towards the end.
8 Year Deal?
Why would Buc or the Sox do that? What would the dollar amount be? I doubt you would be able to find an amount that both parties would be comfortable with.
Similar to the Lester deal
Well, the Sox have Lester locked up for the next 6 or so years at a reasonable price, as detailed below in Drugs Delaney’s post. The Sox have Buchholz pretty much locked up for the next three seasons before arbitration. If he grows and gets better, as I hope he does, then throw out a contract a bit higher than Lester’s (for inflationary reasons) and hopefully Buchholz accepts. I believe Lester is the one UNTRADEABLE pitcher on the current roster – a power lefty of that talent, who has already pitched in the Series. But a pair of young pitchers would be nice to lock up. Sort of how they locked up two core infielders in Pedroia and Youk. Personally, I’d also lock up Ellsbury as soon as possible, before he gets a good sense of his market value in his upcming arbitration year.
Ells needs to figure out how to read balls off the bat a lot better first.
His speed isn’t going to keep him out of trouble forever.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Why is Holliday "flaky"?
And why would you want Scutaro, especially if we aren’t getting picks from Wagner?
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Scutaro
He hasn’t been offered arbitration yet, and if the Blue Jays do not offer then they do not receive any compensatory picks… and BREAKING NEWS – the Blue Jays signed Alex Gonzalez (formerly of the Sox!) to a 1-year deal – so they will probably not offer Scutaro arbitration. And now, more than earlier this morning, we need a starting / backup SS.
Not breaking news.
It’s been on the front page since this morning.
Okay, now about Holliday?
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Food for thought: Josh Johnson apparently only wanted a Zach Greinke-like extension
That’s good value, and if you believe he can sustain his high GB%, K/9, and BB/9 numbers he’d be a good pitcher, even in the AL East. He also hasn’t had a health issue at all since returning from TJS.
Then again, he actually HAD TJS in the past, and his HR #‘s are likely to go up switching to Fenway. He’s also cost more prospect-wise, but less $-wise. That payroll flexibility could allow us to bring in someone at the trade deadline or next offseason and still let us sign a guy like Holliday this offseason, maybe even extend Beckett if he’s amenable to a non-Sabathia deal. Again, mostly playing devil’s advocate as Johnson isn’t even officially on the market yet.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 26, 2009 4:40 AM EST reply actions
my real issue with Johnson
is that because he’s a top-shelf pitcher for very low cost, the teams that want to win now but don’t have the money available that the Sox do are going to be willing to pay way more than they should in prospects, and I while I think he’s a great pitcher, probably not worth mortgaging the farm for him.
Definitely worth giving a shot for him, but I’d be surprised if the price was something Theo was willing to pay.
My big hold-iup isn't just Buch.
It’s the entire package of young guys we’d have to flip. We make this deal, it’ll cost us Buch and Kelly/Lars/Reddick/Middlebrooks, etc.
Remember the Sanatana deal that never was – Lester, Ellsbury and a couple other guys to the Twins. Lester has outperformed Santana in WAR, and Ellsbury and Lester combined have basically doubled his WAR (even accounting for the crappy UZR stats that I don’t believe – no way Ells was +6.9 in 2008 and -18 in 2009). Had we made the team we’d be a worse team with a hole in CF and an extra $20 million in payroll.
Just say no.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Even if Santana was better, the Sox would have been better off with Lester
Because Lester is better value:
2008 – Santana ($19 million) – Lester ($425,000)
2009 – Santana ($20 million) – Lester ($1 million)
2010 – Santana ($21 million) – Lester ($3.75 million)
2011 – Santana ($22.5 million) – Lester ($5.75 million)
2012 – Santana ($24 million) – Lester ($7.625 million)
2013 – Santana ($25.5 million) – Lester ($11.625 million)
2014 – Santana ($25 million/$5.5 million buyout) – Lester ($13 million/$0.25 million
From 2008 to 2013 (not including options), Santana will cost the Mets $137.5 million compared to $30.5 million for Jon Lester—a $107 savings that a team can use on other players. Long-term, high-priced contracts are dangerous—especially with older players. Santana was 29-years old his first year in New York. He’ll be 34-year old before his option year, one year older than Roy Halladay will be next year.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
True but
I don’t see anyone projecting buchholz to be as good as they project Lester being. He’s got potential to be a very good pitcher, but is basically a 2-pitch wonder and never seems to hve both going on at once. Lesters got 4 great pitches, and is a power lefty- they’re not in the same class of pitcher.
And just for the record, I love Buchholz. I don’t think he will get traded but i’m just saying if we had the opportunity to trade him one for one for halladay and could negotiate an extension first, I’d be all over that completely.
by wolf9309 on Nov 26, 2009 2:00 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
But once you take money into account, Buchholz does not have to be nearly as good as Lester. That is the point.If Lester had been just 1/4 as good as Santana, we would have come out ahead in terms of value. If Buchholz can pitch 180 innings at a 4.00 FIP for four years at very little money, he is giving this team an enormous net surplus of value over Roy Halladay, who will be paid accurately for his contributions (with a much bigger risk in terms of money).
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Exactly
And, we’re not talking about a straight Buchholz for Halladay swap. There will be other prospects or players involved.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 2:35 PM EST up reply actions
from the original topic
But if you’re asking, my advice: do not give up Clay for Halladay, even if it is one for one. It is simply not worth it.
That’s what I take issue with mainly
Buchholz for Halladay + $16-25 million
May not be worth it. Paying a pitcher, even one as good as Halladay, that much money is a huge risk. When you factor in that you’re paying for years 33-37 or so, it’s an even bigger risk. The Mets and MFY may regret the Santana and Sabathia contracts—and both those pitchers were younger when they signed than Halladay will be next year.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 2:54 PM EST up reply actions
true
but a GM needs to take risks or won’t build a powerful team. We aren’t going to be able to ever build an entire team of young, cheap, all-star players who are proven to be successful. In my mind, this is a risk worth taking (if it’s in the $16-20 mm part of that figure, not so much in the $21-25).
The Mets and Yankees may well regret those contracts, but they don’t at this point. They’re also both longer term commitments that Halladay would be. I certainly wouldn’t sign a 33 year old to an 8 year/$161 million dollar contract but we’re not talking about that.
The point is
Santana will be 34-years old in the last year of the contract (before the option year), and Sabathia will be 35-years old at the end of his contract. Halladay is 33-years old next year. The Sox will have to extend him for four or five years after that.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
But
Those are still bigger gambles because injury is possible even when they’re young and they’re much longer term. Until I see Halladays peripherals decline I can’t imagine him not having 4 years of great pitching in him. He is just not the body type or pitcher type that declines quickly.
by wolf9309 on Nov 26, 2009 3:33 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Younger pitchers are a bigger gamble?
Really?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
That's not remotely what I said
8-year contracts are bigger gambles
by wolf9309 on Nov 26, 2009 4:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Santana signed for 6. Sabathia signed for 7
But I don’t see how paying a pitcher until age 34 or 35 is riskier than extending a 33-year old pitcher for 4 or 5 more years.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
because they can get injured in year 2 of their contract
and be owed another $140 million or so with little production.
Let’s compare with Sabathia for example.
Both are great pitchers. Both are great at going deep into games (halladay is better). They do it very differently. Halladay does it because he is very efficient and get get very deep in the game with very low pitch counts. Sabathia does it because he is willing to pitch 130+ pitches every outing. That’s fine because he is a large, tough guy- the problem is people with his type of physique are injured way more than people with Halladay’s lean, athletic physique.
Honestly if given a choice between committing to 7 years of Sabathia vs. 4 years of Halladay, I’d much rather take Halladay. Much.
The reason you fail to see it is because you are looking at “a pitcher” rather than concrete examples of the actual players we’re talking about. You gotta get specific in there somewhere.
Based on the "actual pitchers"
I’d rather have Sabathia from age 28-34 than Halladay from age 33-37. That’s without factoring in money because I think any $20+ million contract for a pitcher is a huge risk.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
we'll just agree to disagree then
:)
I think Sabathia is phenomenal but Halladay is a much smaller commitment and I see him (even older) as more durable
And Sabathia will be 35 at the end of his contract. 4 Years of Halladay (which is all I ever said would be a good idea) and he would be 36 at the end of it.
Yes, but if they trade for Halladay ...
they’ll probably have to extend him for four years (because that’s the minimum he’ll get on the open market). That’s five years of Halladay.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
I suppose that's true
I still stick with my belief though that a pitcher that doesn’t rely on speed to overpower and with his body type should be very durable and last a long time. I’d still rather have Halladay than Buchholz net-value-wise. I understand you don’t.
One of the situations will happen and one of the pitchers will be worth more net value than the other and then whoever is wrong can look back in the archives and rub it in the others’ face. deal?
for the record
where would you spend the money? Try to sign Holliday and then sign Beckett to an extension? Just curious where you see the future, what you think they should be headed for the 2011 rotation
For the record
I like Halladay. I always have. And if he was a straight-up replacement for Beckett, I’d say that was a great deal.
In my opinion, it would be a mistake to trade anything close to “fair” value for a player a year away from FA, who you have to lock up for a ton of money. Buchholz and good prospects/young players, plus money, and a chance that the Sox lose Beckett because of Halladay’s contract is too high a price.
The Sox would be better off risking signing Halladay as a FA. That way he only costs money.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
yeah that makes sense
And, because I think Halladay would cost more than Buchholz one-on-one, I don’t think we’ll end up doing it, so I’ll gladly eat my words if he ends up an FA, I just don’t see that happening.
Basically, I don’t see the Sox resigning Beckett after this year either way, so I don’t really see that as a real cost, so I’m seeing the Buchholz-Halladay one-for-one idea as a purely money difference, which I think is worth it. If you think that the Sox will want to retain Beckett after this year, I fully understand and agree that Buchholz+losing Beckett+money is not worth it.
We could have Halladay+Beckett
but that is at least $35M per year, if not more. Two pitchers that are aging into their 30’s at that amount would be risky. A 26 year old pitcher making $500K just seems like an infitely better invesment.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Sabathia is not a smaller commitment.
Attaining Halliday would require Buchholz (plus others). I do not think you are considering what a young, cost-cotrolled pitcher would bring to the team. A free agent pitcher is really not a good comparison.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
That's not remotely what I said
8-year contracts are bigger gambles
by wolf9309 on Nov 26, 2009 5:46 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
but there's more than just face value
we need a killer rotation to compete with the Yankees.
also, Buchholz posted and FIP of 4.69 this year and whether he can be consistent over 180+ big league innings is absolutely in question.
Halladay, meanwhile, posted an FIP of 3.06 and pitched 239 innings. And puts up numbers like that consistently. He will be much more expensive that Buchholz, yes, but I don’t knkow where we would allocate that money where it would provide more value.
If you extrapolate Buchholz’s number for the year (1.2 WAR for a half season) to a full year (make it 2.4 WAR, being kind and assuming the he doesn’t decline and that the hitters he’s facing consistently don’t figure out his changeup) and compare it to Halladay (7.3 WAR) that’s a 5 WAR difference. In my mind, that is worth the cost difference.
The Sox' starting pitching is strong already
Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Dice-K, and Wake, plus another starter is as good as any rotation in baseball. Sure, adding Halladay makes the rotation stronger next year. But will it make it stronger the next few years? Buchholz should improve. Can the Sox afford both Halladay and Beckett? If not, can the Sox adequately replace Beckett? How good will Halladay be in four years?
The MFY have questions too. Their rotation isn’t deep. They have age-related issues. This year, a number of players aged 35+ over-performed. And other players had years close to their career bests.
Roy Halladay is one of my favorite players. But I’d like to see the Sox fill holes in other positions before focusing on an already strong rotation.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions
next year
would you rather have Beckett than Halladay? I think it makes sense to get Halladay (if this were the price) and let Beckett walk after next year- we get draft picks, and we’ll have the better of the pitchers. And while Beckett is younger, I have less faith in him to stay healthy and he is not consistent.
But its not just next year.
If we were making this deal in a vacuum of one year deals, then I would do it in a second. But I’m pretty sure we would be forced to pay Halladay a ransom until at least his age 37 season. Buchholz would be pitching into his age 29 season at very little money. All of those other years must be taken into account.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
no we're just seeing it differently
I’m taking into account the years after 2010 more than 2010. I just feel like even cost-adjusted, Halladay years 33-37 is going to be worth more than Buchholz ages 25-29. He just seems a little overpowered in the majors, and while he has 2 killer pitches, he can’t seem to have both at once, and they’re both the kind of pitch that once people have seen a few times, they can work around.
He has potential of being a great pitcher if he canfigure out how to really pitch using his fastball, but if he develops a lot, I don’t seem him topping out as greater than a #3/4 for the Red Sox. Probably a solid 3 on most teams, but we have to be better than most.
I agree.
But my point is that a $500K number 3 is more valuable than a $100M ace.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
I'd do Buchholz, straight up, for Halladay and an extension
I know, I know, I really like Buchholz too, but I’d do it anyway, and then try and forget the pain of trading Clay.
But apparently the Jays want Buchholz, a major-league ready hitter, and a few prospects. And to that I say: Hahahahahaha NO!
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 27, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
Ridiculous right?
Heyman is saying they really like Kelly, though I don’t really trust heyman. I’d probably give them Kelly+ reddick but that’s as far as I’d go.
Let’s just give em Lester+ pedroia
and to be fair we’ll take wells’ contract too
by wolf9309 on Nov 27, 2009 3:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Haha!! On Da Hop!
…..You so jokey…
"Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax." -- Mike Royko
by sox-inda-south on Nov 27, 2009 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe this is just showing my age/geography...
…but where the hell does this On Da Hop stuff come from?
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
Not that
5 years of buchholz is going to be $500k. If he does perform decently he’ll be getting pretty big raises pretty soon.
by wolf9309 on Nov 27, 2009 3:05 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
4 years for $10M probably.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Meh.
The UZR swing probably isn’t that much, but the quality of fielding in CF has gone up recently too, so that probably accounted for a good chunk of it.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Because the information it's being fed doesn't tell it how the ball got to a spot.
Once Baseball F/X is activated, it should improve the data.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Maybe.
UZR just doesn’t strike me as a quality measurement of outfielders. Take Coco Crisp. 2007, +24.4. 2008, -8.6. 2009, +4.5. A 33-point swing one year (and I watched a lot of Coco in 2007 and 2008, and his D was consistently good/amazing both seasons), then a 12 point swing the next.
Maybe adjusting for type of hit will make a difference. Maybe recognizing that no one can catch a ball that hits 20 feet up the Monster. But whatever the problem is, it’s pretty much crap right now.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
They adjust for type of hit, to a certain degree, already.
It’s still just subjective descriptions like liner, fly, grounder, fliner, etc., along with hard, medium, and soft, IIRC.
Coco’s swings may have been the result of a differing standard set by the rest of the league (like I suggested with Ells), more/less chances to show off the arm, etc. It’s not a statistic that tells you how defensively gifted a player is, but how well they played (compared to a certain standard).
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Listen to
Mike Andrews (president & excutive editor of soxprospects.com) has to say:
I heard something about this (Buchholz and prospects for Hallyday) yesterday morning form a separate source. My source said the Sox are indeed putting the full court press for Halladay, that it could be a multi-team deal (3 to 4 teams) in which they would get Halladay but they would have to bring in at least two bad contracts (who later may be released). The Sox would also have a 10-12 day window to negotiate a contract extension with Halladay. The Sox seem to want to wrap up the trade around the Winter Meetings.
Interesting.
"That was a lot of fun… You just keep pounding balls into the gap. The one thing you don’t want to do is hit a home run. That’s a rally-killer." Jeff Francoeur
If we are taking on two bad contracts, should we assume that we are giving up lesser prospects and not Clay Buchholz?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
And that the Sox are actually going to be ducking under the CBT.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
As long as the “bad contracts” do not include Vernon Wells, we should not get too close to the CBT.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Bah failed
That’s not a bad contrAct, that’s a franchise crusher. I wouldn’t take wells + halladay in exchange for nothing. The money he’s owed is absurd.
by wolf9309 on Nov 26, 2009 2:03 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I wondering if it would be a 3 way deal including the Cubs. Something along the lines of:
Red Sox receive Halladay, give prospects and cash.
Blue Jays receive Bradley and prospects, give Halladay, Wells and cash.
Cubs receive cash and Wells, give Bradley.
The amount of Boston’s cash would drive how many and the quality of the prospects. Halladay may be the Blue Jays’ only opportunity to get out from under Wells’ contract without picking up a significant portion of his remaining salary.
I don't think the Jays would reduce Halladay's value that much just to get rid of Wells
AND I don’t think there are many teams, if any at all, that would even do that deal in the first place
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 26, 2009 5:36 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree
Wells is due $107M over the next 5 years. His contract will be an albatross long after Halladay is gone. I would think getting out from that contract has got to be a top priority for Toronto. Boston wouldn’t need to mortgage the farm to get Halladay while Chicago would fill a CF need while ridding themselves of Bradley.
I’m not saying this deal will happen or they can get it done with low level prospects alone, only that it could work.
your proposal
would have to include the sox giving up an absolutely absurd amount of cash. MLB doesn’t let those go through.
Bradley is not a plus for toronto unless a ton of his salary is getting covered (by the red sox). There is no way the cubs would take wells’ absurd contract in exchange for 1 year of Bradley unless we paid… maybe $40 million?
I do agree that Toronto would be willing to practically give away Halladay if someone would take Wells, but I don’t think there is any team that would consider taking that contract.
Wells is untradable.
His contract is beyond absurd.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Exactly. No one is taking Wells
The Jays never tried to package Vernon in with Roy at the trading deadline and they won’t do it now. Trading Halladay is their best shot at getting some young, impact talent.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 27, 2009 1:37 PM EST up reply actions
Could we get Detroit to trade Cabrera at a lower cost if we took on Ordonez's contract?
Would fix our LF situation and you never know what you may get from Ordonez in a contract year.
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!
Possibly.
I wouldn’t hand him the LF job though.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Why not? He and Hermida could split time right?
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!
Let me be clear this is my scenario
LF: Ordonez/Hermida
1B: Miggy
3b: Youk
Traded away for baseballs: Lowell
Release Jason Varitek before ST is over !
Do not pay Jason Bay !!
Trade Buchholz !!!
Meh.
You could probably find a better option in LF – why not just sign Cameron at that point?
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
I really like the cameron idea
if he’ll do a one year contract. It seems like the only viable option other than overpaying one of the big two.
I keep trying to think of someone to platoon Hermida with to give him a decent shot, but I can’t find anyone available who seems available who can play left and hit lefties. I’d be happy with Rocco if I thought he could stay healthy, but I don’t. Any other ideas?
I can't find a resource that gives a leaderboard for OPS or wOBA lefty/righty splits.
At least, I can’t find one that I can make do that.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
yeah i'm not sure one exists
I’ve just been doing the time consuming method of going on b-r and looking up any potential left fielders’ splits.
Shelley Duncan looks perfect for a year to platoon except that I’m assuming because of the fact that the MFY moved him to first that his defense is pretty atrocious. can’t find anyone else that even looks like a remotely good idea.
Magglio is $18 million of dead weight
He also has a vesting option for $15 million in 2011.
Let me get this straight, Gizmo. You want the Sox to take on Magglio’s money plus Cabrera’s 6 years/$126 million? That’s $38 million for the two players next year, and possibly $35 million in 2011. Do you also see the Sox eating any of Lowell’s contract?
Cabrera is a great hitter, better than Adrian Gonzalez (who has trouble with lefties). But, Cabrera has weight problems and so many off the field issues. I can’t see Theo trading anything Detroit would want, nor can I see him potentially tacking on that much money for two years.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Nov 26, 2009 11:19 PM EST up reply actions
that would be
us taking on an extra $38 million in 2010 plus probably having to pay $8 million+ of Lowell because teams will know we’ll have to get rid of him and he’s not worth more to anyone.
Also, Ordonez has no trade protection to all but 10 (not-publicly-names) teams. If the red sox aren’t on that list of 10 then he’d probably exercise the clause if he thought he was going to be used in a platoon situation- I’m sure he wants the best chance of his 2011 option vesting.
These discussion are excessive to a point.
We should just list the Facts:
We have no f’n idea whether this trade will go down or what package/teams it will involve.
Vernon Wells is a Trojan Horse that Theo would never accept. I like whoever used the phrase “franchise killer”. Toronto will suffer for the next decade because of him. They were damn lucky to get rid of Alex Rios. Well the Winter Meetings aren’t too far away…..well see soon enough……
"Hating the New York Yankees is as American as apple pie, unwed mothers and cheating on your income tax." -- Mike Royko
What else are we supposed to do?
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
Not exactly what I meant (FSU@UF tomorrow = HELLS YES).
But sure.
@bs_uf15bosox9be 12 pieces of bacon, a Red Bull, and go get 'em; Learn to use SB Nation
The articles have already done their damage
There are Sox fans out there who are adamant that if Theo doesn’t give up Buchholz and whatever else Toronto wants for Halladay the Yankees will swoop in and pick him up for peanuts.
The whole “You won’t trade an A-ball pitcher for the best pitcher in the American League!?” rants have already popped up, annoyingly. Some people just don’t understand.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Nov 28, 2009 1:48 AM EST up reply actions
I would just like to say (if it hasn’t already been said) that there is at the moment no indication that Halladay would seek a 5 year/100 million dollar deal. He re-signed in TO for 3 at 13 million per which is a bargain and I’m sure if the Sox made a huge offer in teams of prospects to get Halladay, he would return the favour by signing a 3 year extension for something reasonable, say 14-15 million per. That’s the kind of guy he is – he wants to win and that’s all he cares about and if the Sox would be hindered by 20 million/5 year deal then he will take less. I think that type of extension is definately worth Buchholz, a top position prospect and a lesser pitching prospect.
That said, I don’t think a deal will happen – the Jays will hang onto Halladay for 2010 and pretend to offer him a great deal for him to pitch into his retirement and then when he rejects it they will blame him for being greedy and cry whoa is me like they always do.
But after seeing the Santana and Sabathia deals, I think he might try to get paid. He could just play out the year then let the Yankees give him $20M per year. It just doesn’t seem likely that he would accept $8M less per season than Sabathia.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Huge thread.
Just looked at Vernon Wells’ value #s on Fangraphs. His contract is absolutely awful for what he’d given them before, and can be projected for in the future.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
$.02
I love Halladay – but the time to get him was last summer. His value for the Sox was pretty much at its peak while we were still in the hunt for the division.
I would NOT give up near what Toronto will want for him now.
It makes much more sense value wise to keep Buchholz and spend pure cash for Bay/Holliday and then Lackey, if we still want another pitcher. In that scenario you end up with Beckett, Lester, Lackey, Dice-K & Buchholz as your starting 5. Each of those guys (even Buchholz) has a very real possibility to get you 15 wins. Remember – in that rotation Buch would be facing the other team’s #4 & 5 starters a lot.
If you trade Buchholz (plus change) for Halladay, you have to bring Wake back into the rotation and as much as I love Wake, he simply cannot be counted on for the duration of the season anymore.
The only danger I see though, is if the Yankees get aggressive and go further over the top by buying Lackey off the market (in addition to Bay). That would virtually force the Red Sox to do something stupid in order to try to compete next year. Trading a ton of prospects for Halladay might get the Red Sox to be competitive in the short term, but really hurt in the long term.
If they are going to give up a farmload of prospects for a starter, I would prefer they go after Felix Hernandez. And being so much younger, he makes much more sense to sign a huge contract with.
Basically if you really want to get another starter, give up cash (Lackey) OR prospects (Hernandez) but not both, please.
Future
Agreed….Don’t trade Buchy, he’s the future…..
by Big White Poppi on Dec 11, 2009 5:22 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Over the Monster
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Swisher ends Orioles sweep dreams with timely homer
- Create-a-Caption: Dusty Baker wants YOU to buy playoff tickets
- Padres' Heath Bell wistful about Trevor Hoffman's 600th save
- Want your first career home run? Face a pitcher from Chicago
- Slumpbot .200: Phil Hughes runs into New York's Joba Rules
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
