not considered absurd at the time, by many on this site. The point is, by your very same logic, the Jays would been have been smart to dump Halladay. There is a thing called scouting, no? And as USG correctly states below-this is not the issue of Clay vs. Halladay. It is an issue of many for one, cost control, age and other factors.

right? Let’s say, conservatively, that there are an equal number of win and lose risk trades like this. Are the Sox a team that needs this risk? What did it buy for Houston? Think long term, please. As I said, Halladay is 32 (2 years older than Santana), and will cost a big chunk of change. Meanwhile we are quite likely a playoff team, and moving forward, need payroll flexability as much as we need a 33+ year old Halladay. Buch+Bowden + whatever else are young and cheap and we already have a good group of starters.

Glavine and Maddux are going to be Hall of Famers. Let’s go get them too! Let’s go get Barry Bonds. And Pujols!

I think that the next 6 or 7 years of production of Buchholz and Bowden is much much greater than the production of 1 1/2 of Halladay.

There is no question that Santana or Halladay are better than Buch will ever be. The point is that in a few years our rotation could be Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Bowden and Tazawa. Or if we get Halladay the rotation could be Lester, Tazawa and 3 free agents we pick up because we couldn’t afford to pick up Beckett’s option after this season because we were still on the hook for Halladay.

I’d take the first rotation easily. Our rotation now is solid and has great depth and is in plenty good shape for a playoff run.

I look at our team right now and we don’t NEED a top of the rotation starter. Of course our rotation is better with Halladay but do we NEED him? Do we NEED him enough to gamble away our future? We are in great position for this year. The way our team is set up and with what we have in the minors we are set to compete this year, next year and for many years after that. If we trade the farm for Halladay we are still ready to compete this year and next year but our ability to win beyond that comes into question.

So why trade away our young talent to get marginally better the next 2 years and risk getting worse after he is gone? In my eyes you only trade your top prospects and make a big deal if your team is lacking a major piece. A month ago I thought we may need to deal away a prospect for a bat because our DH couldn’t hit anything. That was a big hole for this team and offense is still in question right now.

The Phillies need a top of the rotation guy, their playoff hopes rest on that. Our playoff hopes are fine with or without an over 30 injury risk of a great starting pitcher.

They aren’t trying to be mean but arguing and debating is pretty much a sport on this blog and has been perfected over many months. I haven’t been around too long but I learned my lesson on which stats fly here and ERA isn’t really one of them.

For instance… BABIP is a little better. In 2008 Buch’s BABIP was .355, his expected BABIP (line drive % + .120) was .290. This generally is an indication that he was unlucky and his struggles weren’t all his fault. Of course it was obvious that his control wasn’t what he showed in the year before and the bulk of his ERA were from a few misplaced pitchers that went long (0HRs in 07, 11 HRs in 08).

But Buchholz did his time in Arizona and has really matured. I think the bulk of his issues last year were mental after all that pressure was put on him after the no hitter. There have been games this year in Pawtucket where he didn’t have a good inning but came back out and finished out the game scoreless. This is something he couldn’t have done last year. He’s ready for the big show. They’re just trying to say, don’t put too much thought into one bad year by a young pitcher. He has a very high upside. Of course it isn’t and most likely will never be as good as Halladay, but he could be a very good top of the rotation guy who has shown a lot of ability both in the pros and the minors. His value to the team over the long run is greater than that of Halladay’s who without we are still very capable of winning a WS now.

that people are trying to act “smart” and then go out and say really stupid things. Actually the ERA did not sum up Buchholz just fine. Let’s look closer.
1)Buchholz had 72 Ks in 76 innings. Very few “busts” do that.
2)Buchholz had a FIP of 4.82. Not great, but much much below his era.
3)Buchholz has a BAPIP of 366 while having a very high GB % of 48% and an average LD% of 21% He was remarkably unlucky.

Buchholz was done in by a putrid LOB% of 60.5%. That is likely a confidence issue, as perhaps he did get rattled when guys got on, and perhaps the shear frustration of pitching nearly 50% ground balls being converted into hits at a 37% clip reflected his immaturity. But when you look behind the numbers, the ERA actually sums it up in a COMPLETELY MISLEADING WAY. Clay was bad but not nearly as bad as his ERA suggested, his faults appear totally fixable (see above) and he has “awesome stuff” written all over last year’s failed #’s (see K/9). That is why the team wants to keep hold of him at nearly any cost. They know more than you do.

It is more arrogant to arrogantly claim that people are talking shit and then go and say the not so smart shit you say.