Kill the rumors now: Roy Halladay will not be a Red Sox
by Randy Booth on Jul 9, 2009 1:58 PM EDT
in News
69 comments
It's the sexiest name on the market: Roy Halladay. He's one of the best pitchers we've seen in many years, he can easily win 20 games for any contender and his stuff is just flat out nasty.
With that said, he is not going to be a Boston Red Sox on August 1, no matter how hard you try.
There are a few reasons why he won't be a Red Sox, but the most important reason is that the Sox do not need Roy Halladay.
Do you remember back a few months when everyone was freaking out about how the Sox would fit John Smoltz into the rotation? And, at the same time, Clay Buchholz was lighting up Pawtucket? Not to mention Michael Bowden who, along with Buchholz, is still making AAA batters weep.
Since then, we've solved the first problem. Smoltz is in the rotation because Daisuke Matsuzaka is on the disabled list. Check that one off the list. Our next big worry is Buchholz, who is absolutely sick of playing for Pawtucket. He's been killing batters since day one and he wants to be in the big leagues. He deserves to be in the big leagues. If the Sox add another prime-time starter, Buchholz won't see the light of day in Boston until September at the earliest and his innings would be limited.
But let's step back a moment. To even acquire Halladay in the first place, guess who'd be wearing Toronto blue and staring in the rotation the next day? Buchholz -- at least. Maybe Bowden, too. Daniel Bard in the bullpen? That's not a long shot, either. If that happens, hey! My money's on the Jays!
Let's look back a couple of years now. Remember that guy named Johan Santana? The Sox didn't want to move prospects like Jon Lester for him. That non-trade seems like a good decision now by Theo Epstein. The situation right now isn't very different. Epstein has been very reluctant to trade Buchholz and I don't think it'll be any different with Halladay on the market.
To get Halladay, the Sox would have to part with names like Buchholz, Bowden, Bard, Lars Anderson, Casey Kelly. Now, do we really want to trade talent like that for a 32-year-old injury prone starter? While I will say that if the Sox were to trade talent like that, Halladay would probably be one of two of the best guys to bring back, but it's just not worth it.
It's a balancing act: do we want an aging stud of a pitcher, or do we want youthful pitchers that have high cielings? While Halladay may allow the Red Sox to "win now," it won't be a move to win now and later. Keeping the young guns could keep the Sox competitive for many years down the road.
Theo will not sell the farm. Why sell it when we're still the best team in the AL? Let a team -- hopefully a National League team -- grab him and contend for a playoff spot. The Red Sox, on the other hand, do not need Halladay and will continue to push forward without him.
0 recs |
69 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
If my crystal ball worked better AND told me Halladay
could pitch like he does now for 8-10 more years, well then that would be different. It is just too big an injury-aging risk to do it now without some insider info from some absolute source, ie. the Almighty.
by NG on Jul 9, 2009 2:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Mazz
For once Mazz seems to understand:
http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/massarotti/2009/07/no_way_sox_take_a_halladay.html
by Buzzy on Jul 9, 2009 2:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
To flip flop my opinions from a couple weeks ago
I think we need a bat, and wouldn’t be too opposed with moving some of the young talent (i.e. Bowden or Bard, Buchholz for someone amazing) to help our injury depleted lineup. It was hard watching our guys struggle against the A’s little league pitching staff. (Thankfully we won the series).
I haven’t taken time to look at possibilities for lineup help as I’m writing this, so don’t go all ape-shit and tell me there’s no-one available.
"Well let me just quote the late-great Colonel Sanders, who said...'I'm too drunk to taste this chicken.' "
-Ricky Bobby
by nepats108 on Jul 9, 2009 2:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Pardon my French but
No Fucking Way I make that trade. I mean JFC WTF and NFW on that. Clay Buchholz – and why is there 2 H’s – was that a mistake at Elis Island or what? —Clay Buchholz -is Roy Holiday minus 8 years or whatever it is. If you need another Arm – clay is ready – NOW.
The only guy I would trade Clay for is er – ah – let me see. Verlander and that’s about it.
by www.SoxTherapy.Net on Jul 9, 2009 2:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
A few things:
1. I think some people are overstating the case against Halladay right now. Clay Buccholz is most likely not Halladay minus eight years. Halladay is one of the top 3 or so pitchers in the league. He is at a whole other level. There are #1 pitching prospects every single year and almost none of them end up like Roy Halladay.
2. Maybe we do not need him in the rotation, but he certainly would help us- a lot. The guy is special and will continue to be special for a few years.
3. Roy Halladay is not injury prone. In the last 7 years, he has started more than 30 games in 5 of them. He has pitched more than 220 innings in all of those years, including the last three seasons.
4. He will greatly improve our chances of winning the World Series this year. No question about it.
5. All of that being said, we would be mortgaging the future if we traded Buch Bowden and Lars. I think it was USG who had a comment in the other thread showing how much our payroll will be increasing in the next few years as Youk, Pedroia, Paps etc. all start making more money. If we want to keep Bay and Beckett, we will need some cost-controlled young pitchers making $500K.
Its a tough call. For the right deal, I would go for it, but Buch, Bowden and Lars is definitely too much. But anyone that thinks this guy won’t help our team is kidding themselves. He would help this team a helluva lot.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 9, 2009 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agree on ALMOST all accounts.
I just don’t think there’s any one switch we can make that will “greatly improve our chances of winning the World Series” except maybe Hanley for Lowrie/Green/Lugo. Best case Scenario he pitches twice/series in place of 1 start from our eventual #3 and one from our eventual #4.
by USG on Jul 9, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you were to replace one of Smoltz/Dice-K/Wake/Buchh with Halladay for each start in the playoffs it would definitely improve our chances in each of those games. Throwing Wake in the playoffs is usually a 50/50 proposition; the other guys might be worse. You throw Halladay and you are looking at a 75-80% shot at winning. That is significant.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 9, 2009 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
The playoffs are a whole other monster, and one in which Halladay is unproven. Smoltz is arguably the greatest playoff pitcher in the past two decades.
"Well let me just quote the late-great Colonel Sanders, who said...'I'm too drunk to taste this chicken.' "
-Ricky Bobby
by nepats108 on Jul 9, 2009 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Too bad this isn't the past two decades.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 9, 2009 10:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
too, but I (as USG states below) think people are overrating what one single player does or does not do regarding team success. Regardless, Halladay is a hell of a pitcher, and in the short run, if healthy, would make the team better. I think most people on the other thread said as much regarding it not being beyond consideration, or it being a tough call (indeed I said just that several times as other did) but I think in terms of cost it would not likely be worth it. We are not ARI or FLA-our goal is not one (or 2) and done, it is to be a real contender every year. That will be, in the end, what optimizes our chances to win the most WS we can.
Is your name a reference to your love of A-rod? [just kidding, of course]
by Buzzy on Jul 9, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha, no on the bitch tits love. My real name is Bill Truelove, so BTLove.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 9, 2009 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Woah, real name reveals.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 9, 2009 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the best way of looking at it.
Say we’ve got a 20% chance at winning the WS this year, arbitrarily.
If we get Halladay, does that REALLY bump us up more than, say, 5%?
Then consider that over the next few years we lose guys like Bay and Beckett to compensate for Halladay’s salary. I’d say that at least brings us back to even on the 20%
But then we DON’T have guys like Buck coming up, and over time we lose more and more chance.
So it goes 25%, 20%, 18%, 15%, 10%, etc.
Keep Buchholz and the like, and there’s no reason we shouldn’t be able to stay at 20% for the next 6, 7 years.
If we were at a better time for contracts, I’d say yes, go for it. But we’ve got a number of big contracts to work out over the next couple of years, and some back-loaded contracts that will start getting more expensive over the same period of time.
Interestingly enough, when Halladay’s contract next runs out is when we shed a lot of these issues (Ortiz, Lowell, Lugo, Tek are a total of about 35-40 million), so hey, look forward to that I guess.
by USG on Jul 9, 2009 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your basic premise,
but the tough part would be assigning those numbers. How would the actual percentages be affected? I don’t know, but its this exact line of thinking that the front office is going through.
Also, if we were not forced to extend Halladay,it would only impact our payroll for this year and next at a total of around $22M over two seasons. I’m not sure that is enough to force our hand in the Bay or Beckett negotiations. If we did extend him, that is another issue.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 9, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It definitely is in the Bay department.
We just don’t have enough in contracts ending this year to counter an extra $15mm along with the sizable increases to Youkilis, Pedroia, and Lester’s paydays.
Beckett we could still keep if we didn’t resign Halladay, but then you have to consider him a rental.
1.5 years of Halladay for X years of Jason Bay, 6 years of Clay Buchholz, Lars Anderson, whoever else might be involved in the deal.
by USG on Jul 9, 2009 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think we could absorb one year of an extra $15M in payroll. The Sox were looking to sign Teixeira for $18M per year, so they have some extra cash.
Also, we would get the two high draft picks if we let Halladay walk.
My point is that the Sox are willing to expand payroll by a total of $22M over a season and a half if they think it is good for the team.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 9, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True.
But would the added chance at a WS ring be worth the $22 mil? That’s the big question, I guess.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 9, 2009 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget the long term financial impact of losing Buch, Lars, whoever.
If those guys get anywhere near their potential, they will save us from having to spend on FAs down the road.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Jul 10, 2009 12:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
WE need Roy Halladay
I would say we give the Jay’s whatever they want for Halladay! Win now, and deal with players we want to re sign after we win it all! Hell, He may even like winning and take less than you think to stay here? Smoltz, He’s Gone! ( Please!!! )
by BoSox 2009 on Jul 9, 2009 4:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Getting him now =/= Guaranteed victory
This post basically espouses everything bad about the idea. People are much too willing to burn bridges when they come to them, where as if you plan well in advance, you might not have to at all. Instant gratification in sports is only very rarely the right idea. It worked for the Celtics because they didn’t have really great current or future prospects, so they traded in to have a good shot immediately. I think their immediate success has tainted people’s perspective of the situation:
We can very well win the WS without Halladay. We are one of the best teams in the league despite injuries and bad luck plaguing our early season.
We can’t win in a few years time without a steady stream of cost-controlled players. We are not the Yankees. It’s been proven time and time again that it doesn’t work unless you are. A team can’t cover up deficiencies at multiple positions with a few bright stars—especially not pitchers.
by USG on Jul 9, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2004 team had very few guys up through the system.
Just sayin…
"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
by BTLove on Jul 9, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2004 was built on a very different market
Where high-OBP and K/BB guys could be got on the cheap. A lot of that talent was fairly cheap for what it was, and would not come so easily to the Sox now that almost everyone is playing on that same level. There’s simply not nearly as many markets that are easily exploitable since…Well, since Theo exposed them as the goldmines they were.
You read Torre’s book? There’s a really great chapter in there basically talking about how the Red Sox ruined it for everybody by exposing moneyball as really a good idea if you have money.
by USG on Jul 9, 2009 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Defensive valuations are the new frontier, though I think the Rays might have exposed that one last year.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 9, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
Not much left now… Mascots?
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 9, 2009 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ERA, AVG and uh RBIs
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Jul 10, 2009 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ooh...
I’m not sure there’s enough machine power to calculate those stats properly.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 10, 2009 12:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
The Boston Red Sox do not NEED Halladay to be competitive. We’re already competitive right now with what we have. Other teams that don’t have a reliable ace NEED Halladay to compete. We may just need a high-end bench player or a back-of-the rotation starter to compete for the next few years. Both of those things will allow us to keep players like Lars, Kelly, and Buchholz. We’re not going to keep mortgaging our farm for every superstar that’s up for auction.
by South Coast Ghost on Jul 9, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A front three of
Hallady, Lester and Becket wouldn’t help our playoff chances?
wow.
by ccthemovieman on Jul 9, 2009 5:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It certainly would.
But it’s not as big a help over a front three of Lester, Beckett, and X as you think it is.
by USG on Jul 9, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chances are we make the playoffs anyways.
Once we’re in, it’s a crapshoot.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 9, 2009 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well talking about the prospects
As opposed to the proven players. Yeah Buchholz is lighting up Triple A Pawtucket, but look what happened last time he was up in the bigs playing in the most competitive division in baseball… which is why he is back in the minors.
Halladay has been a proven dominant force IN OUR DIVISION playing against the likes of us, the Spank Mes, the Os and the Rays. Imagine what he would do with our offense and defense behind him.
Again, Buchholz is unproven in the bigs. There have been lots and lots of great prospects who look to be the next Beckett, who flame out under the pressure of not only the bigs, but the pressure of playing for the Sox.
I’ll take a proven performer over 3 maybes any day.
by BerkshireFan on Jul 9, 2009 10:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
He really wasn't horrible last time up, and all his issues were easily fixable.
Also, our defense is worse than the Jays, so it’d be a bit of a drop off there.
Finally, you’re not looking at everything involved. Chances are that any grouping of Buch, Bowden, Bard, Lars, Kelly, Lowrie, etc. will be worth more than Doc over the course of their careers. Combine that with the MUCH lesser cost of these players, along with the talent we could get with the extra money, and the deal makes no sense for us.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 9, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Buchholz is proven..
I just don’t think he has the mentality and the pitching smarts to match his pitches and physical capability. I guess he needs to disguise his pitches better. His curve ball is beautiful to watch, but hitters are figuring out the break..
I would send him to a trade to Cleveland in a package for Victor Martinez.
He has gotten a no hitter in Fenway, which is no easy feat, compare to Schilling’s one hitter in Oakland with plenty of foul territory.
I think to be a dominant pitcher in baseball, the batter knows what is coming on, and they still can’t hit it. Lester is showing this with his curveball. Santana with his change up. This isn’t the case for Buchholz, I think he needs some more experience in Major Leagues, perhaps in at a lower tier club. A place like Oakland, where he has plenty of foul territory to work with, ditto with Safeco or Petco Park.
I just think it would be a disaster to put him in the Sox starting rotation, and throw him in at MFY stadium,
Buchholz, may be a good to great pitcher in the future, but he needs to learn some more baseball smarts.
by superferret on Jul 11, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Many, many pitchers struggle early in their careers. Roy Halladay had an ERA over 10 in 200 when he was 23 years old. After his first 25 or so starts, Jon Lester had a FIP just as bad as Buch’s FIP last year. When these guys were struggling did they have “baseball smarts”? Did Clay have “baseball smarts” then subsequently lose them? How has he been able to dominate in AAA when he is so “baseball stupid”? Sorry, butI just do not buy that explanation at all.
And you want to give him up for a catcher (who can only sometimes play catcher) who has a career .850 OPS even though we have our own catcher with a .785 OPS? Yes, you could play Vic at 1B, but getting a first-baseman than can hit is much cheaper than a catcher that can hit.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 11, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lester had this thing called cancer his first year as a Sox...
Lester is still hot and cold, but he is getting better and better. If Beckett leaves, Lester will be the Ace of the Staff. Some of his outings have been lights out this year, other games, he had been hammered for 5 or 6 runs for 6 innings of work. Much like I still have more confidence in Daisuke than I do in Buchholz.
What I mean by smarts is that the pitcher can continue to have decent outings when their physical prowess is diminishing, like Greg Maddux, Glavine, even Schilling. They keep the batter anxious, instead of throwing high heat all the time. Pedro is also a pretty smart pitcher, which is why his years of dominance 1999-2000 were in some ways better than Koufax’s years of total domination.
Buchholz definitely has the talent, but he has to know his batters, and he has to be more deceptive. He also can’t get shell shocked if he has a bad inning, which he did last year, and he then start pulling a Dontrelle Willis. So a bit of baseball smarts are composure and confidence..
I don’t think Buchholz can be relied on right now to handle the pressure of AL East, he needs some time to figure out some things. As I wrote, throwing him as a starting pitcher at Yankee Stadium would be like the Yankees putting Jose Contreas in the game against the Sox. Contreas, one of the most talented pitchers out there, wilted. It took being on the Lesser Sox staff, to show his dominance, even though it lasted only a year.
by superferret on Jul 11, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jon Lester was diagnosed with cancer after 25 MLB starts, at which point his FIP was bascially the same as Buch’s from last year. It’s probably a bad example because I have no idea how cancer effects pitching.
I just think your analysis of Buccholz is terribly rudimentary; “he has been bad so he will be bad”; that is what you seem to be saying. And the best pitchers of all time (Pedro, Schilling, Maddux, Glanvine) are what define “smarts”? Then I agree Buch is probably not “smart.” Whether “smart” or not, he still has a very good chance at being a very good pitcher in the majors; a HOF’er? (as you seem to describe a “smart” pitcher), probably not.
If you are just saying that Buch will not be a Schilling/Pedro/Maddux, then I entirely agree. But that is not what we are talking about. At all.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 12, 2009 4:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is not what I wrote..
I didn’t write or even paraphrase “He has been bad, so he will be bad”, that is a fallacious argument on your part. I did mentioned he has the talent and the pitches, and I hardly minimize getting a no hitter in Fenway is no easy feat. Here are some quotes, I wrote:
“Buchholz, may be a good to great pitcher in the future, but he needs to learn some more baseball smarts.”
“Buchholz definitely has the talent”
That is hardly my analysis is “he has been bad so he will be bad"; that is what you seem to be saying.”
Learn to read, and insult better, Pendejo.
I stated that he tends to panic when his breaking balls get hammered, and then what he did last year, try to change his mechanic on the mound. This isn’t about talent, it is about not knowing the batters, and then losing confidence in his pitches. I know he had a great spring training, but it is more handling the pressure of a tight situation, and having confidence in getting that last out. Masterson showed how he failed on Saturday night, even though he was throwing some good stuff before throwing a couple meatballs across the plate.
There is also a difference between what is best for the Buchholz and what is the best for the Sox. He could be a dominant pitcher in MLB, but he may need to be on a lower tier team to shine, before his payday when he hits Free Agency.
If the Sox Management were in the same thinking as my statements about Buchholz, he would had been traded a long time ago. Obviously, they feel he is the future for the franchise. They want him in the rotation, and will probably use him when the rooster is expanded in September.
by superferret on Jul 12, 2009 8:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all, I woke up this morning hoping that I didn’t write anything obnoxious last night, when I was basically blackout. Maybe that comment was a little obnoxious, but I’m pretty impressed by its coherence considering my state.
And, I was not trying to insult you. My point is that you (and many others) seem to think Buchholz will be no good based simply on his results from last season (that’s where I got the “he has been bad so he will be bad” thing). But you have to consider everything else he has done; basically dominating the shit out of the minor leagues.
So, I have no idea about the panic thing, or the smarts thing. Its just something anyone can say without having any actual proof, so its dumb for me to argue against it. You could be right; I don’t know. I just think we need to give the kid another chance in the majors.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 12, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at his 2008 numbers, watch some of the games he pitch especially the last game he pitch in the Majors with the Lesser Sox in Aug of 2008 before he was sent to AA. After getting hit, he starts walking batters left and right. It is not that anyone can argued this point, he lost confidence in his pitches on the mound. He was afraid to throw strikes. Buchholz the starting pitcher reminds me more of Dontrelle Willis, than Zach Greinke.
by superferret on Jul 12, 2009 1:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wild and crazy times in Montana?
@bs_uf15bosox9be:OverTheMonster-ALLERGEN WARNING:May contain PB.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 14, 2009 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its not happening
Theo wouldn’t deal 1 prospect for Nick Johnson. What makes people think he is going to give up, at the very least, Buchholz, Bowden, and Anderson? Not that I wouldn’t love to have Halladay, but it is obvious what Epstein’s policy is on our farm system right now.
by ritz on Jul 9, 2009 10:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not sure that's the best way to look at it, but sure.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 9, 2009 11:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with some lower tier teams
The GMs act like some third world potentate, demanding three top prospects for someone like Nick Johnson. Tampa Bay for years was renown for demanding much in return for the Aubrey Huffs of Major League Baseball. The former Gnats GM was kind of renown for being really demanding, and one reason Alphonso Soriano wasn’t traded before the July 31st deadline. Florida Marlins is also a team that demands a pound of flesh in its trade deals. (ie how they backed out of the Manny trade last year)
by superferret on Jul 11, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do Roy Halladay rumors and Jason Varitek have in common?
…
…
THEY JUST WON’T STAY DEAD!!!!!!
"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.
by 0157H7 on Jul 10, 2009 12:12 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Rec'd.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 10, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This trade is really not reasonable
There is no way that the Jays will get any team’s #1,#2 #3 and #4 prospects, so we can stop with the over inflation of trade offers to scare people and talk realistically. The rumors are they want a premier arm prospect and 2 or 3 other pieces. Not the top 4 players in each team’s system. Philly rumors are Klye Drabek + pieces not Kyle Drabek, JA Happ, Carrasco, and Dominic Brown.
This comes down to Clay Buchholz and parts, not Clay Buchholz, Lars, Casey Kelly and Daniel Bard. What people say is offered and what actually gets done are two entirely different concepts.
Another thing, all the people who keep running this argument, USG, Buzzy, DD, that Halladay will not make a huge impact on the Red Sox are really starting to sound ridiculous. 1) he is the best pitcher in baseball and a proven #1 legit Ace who would take the #1 spot in the rotation from Beckett bumping each of our rotation arms down a spot. So you just improved your #1, #2 and #3 slots. Meaning If you match up with the Yankees the match ups would be Halladay v. CC, Beckett v. Burnett, and Lester v. Joba. Which will make a difference. 2) the playoffs are a consideration. Its again foolish to say that a guy who averages 220 innings and leads the league in CGs will not make a major difference in the playoffs. 3) other teams will not get him. Maybe the Yankees dont need him, but if the Angels get Roy Halladay, the balance of power just could easily switch from the AL East to Anaheim, and you are nuts if you dont think that is a possibility. Halladay, Lackey and Saunders can match any starting 3 and facing Halladay in a game 1 in Anaheim in a 5 game series is not what I call good odds.
Lastly, for Red Sox fans, some of your memories are awfully short. I know you guys run to the stats as quick as you can to prove a point but being fans of the Red Sox I would hope that you could put down the stat sheet and realize that the intangibles of having a proven winner on your team does make a difference on the mound.
Randomness had nothing to do with Curt Schilling beating the Yankees with a busted tendon or Beckett owning the Indians in the 07 ALCS. Stat geeks can look this over, up and down but players who have the juice win big games. I bet CC looks great on paper but I would not want him pitching for me in the playoffs. A-Rod has fantastic numbers and he folds every playoffs.
Halladay is a winner, he is a once in a decade arm, worth top unproven prospects and you can down grade his impact as much as you like but if we face him in the 1st game of the playoffs against the Angels or Texas or worse in the WS against the Phillies, I am wondering if you will have the same opinion of his impact.
I am not saying the Red Sox should trade for Halladay, i am saying if the price is right, you trade for him immediately. If you have a problem with his contract you extend him like Schilling’s trade. If you have a problem with a certain prospect, look to Hanley Ramirez as an example. And let me clarify more, if all it takes to get the best pitcher in baseball is Clay Buchholz and Michael Bowden, you must make that trade.
Some of you come off like there is no trade worth Roy Halladay and its getting comical.
by SoxAcumen on Jul 10, 2009 2:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I was with you at the start.
The first two paragraphs make sense (though I think the Jays are asking for an MLB-ready position player as well as top pitching prospect). But then you lose me:
You use examples of A-Rod and CC as guys who are not “proven winners” because they have failed in the playoffs. Makes sense. But then why is Roy Halladay a “proven winner”? He has never even been in the playoffs! CC does look great on paper. He had great numbers for years, but then failed in the playoffs in 2007. Halladay has never had the opportunity to fail. If you rely on these postseason performances as the standards on which to judge a player, how can you have so much faith in a guy that is the definition of unproven by the standards you are applying to A-Rod and CC? Makes no sense.
Now, I agree that we should get him if the price is right. If its just Buch and then lesser guys, then I’d think about it. But I think they’ll demand more from us and the MFY than Philly (Mayberry and Grebeck maybe?) and Philly is more desperate. They will get him in the end.
"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
by BTLove on Jul 10, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm gonna pause mid-way through this comment, to point out a fallacy:
Its again foolish to say that a guy who averages 220 innings and leads the league in CGs will not make a major difference in the playoffs.
So, we want a guy who’s going to have pitched a TON to be great in the playoffs. Plus, we don’t necessarily want CGs – I’d rather bring in a RP after the 6th or 7th inning so that the batters are facing new, fresh stuff.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 10, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way it could work
If we could center a trade around Paps, not Buch or Lars, then I would be all for it.
by Gnick on Jul 10, 2009 3:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If we could get Riccardi to make the trade for Paps + a group of prospects like...
3 out of Rizzo, Kalish, Stolmy, Lin, and Doubront, then I’d do it.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 10, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good way of thinking outside of the box, BTW.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 10, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jays to Rays?
The local sports talk radio guys here (central FL) have been blathering on about how the Rays need Halladay, and talk like Kazmir, Kapler & Gabe Gross will get it done. Or add in a top prospect.
Not seeing it on both ends. The Jays would never take so paltry a cache for an elite pitcher. Nor would the Rays take on about $5 million in add’l salary.
I don’t think we need Halladay. give smoltz a few more starts to get his legs. We have 2 aces already, and I still want to be winning 5 years from now when Beckett, Wake, Dice-K, Penny & Smoltz are gone. That means keeping some young arms.
"simul justus et peccator"
by cavman on Jul 10, 2009 7:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Sounds like Duemig, for some reason.
Agreed on all accounts, except for who’s around in 5 years. Beckett SHOULD still be here, assuming he doesn’t have a huge drop off. Wake might, assuming he’s still healthy and the knuckler’s still dancing. Dice-K really should be avoided, unless he figures it out or he’s reeling in Japanese prospects.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rays don't need Halladay..
They need what the MFY need, Middle Relief and a dependable bridge, they also need a better closer.
If it wasnt’ for the New Yankee Stadium, and its infamous right field porch, I would say the Rays have the best batting line up in baseball, better than the Yankees. If the Rays want to contend, they need Garza to step up, and Kazmir pitch more consistent.
The Rays can’t compete in making these type of mega deals for the top pitcher in MLB baseball. It comes down to the MFY, The Sox, the Mets, the Dodgers, The Angels and the one who would really want Halladay, the Phillies.
The team crazy enough to make a mid season trade for Halladay are the MFYs, but the Yankees tenuous farm system would further depleted. They need Austin Jackson for next year’s team.
My wild card team to pick up Halladay would be the Rangers, they have the young players that the Jays may want, and have a decent farm system.
I don’t think Halladay will be traded, no matter what Ken Rosenthal states.
by superferret on Jul 15, 2009 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very nice.
First time I’ve seen OTM linked there.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tempting but...
But, as I type we are being no hit through four innings. We need a 3b who can hit – Lowell is my favorite Sox – but, he is hobbled now the 2nd year in a row. We need his bat and him on the field every day. Or, we need to make a trade to get someone who can do what he used to do.
And, I think the heart of this debate is that we finally have a deep farm – so we ask – when do we unload a prospect for a great ballplayer? And, can you hold onto a prospect for too long and lose his value? Along with Is there a right time to trade even if it is painful?
With all that said, at this point I wonder if we value Lowrie and Buchholtz too much…maybe they should go to Toronto for Halladay?
"You take a team with twenty-five assholes and I'll show you a pennant. I'll show you the New York Yankees." - Bill Lee
by Dave D on Jul 10, 2009 8:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is why we ask other fans, who are relatively impartial.
Or, at least, less likely to overvalue either team’s players.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont think its going to be Halladay coming from Toronto but Overbay.
by leftcoastsox17 on Jul 10, 2009 11:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmm... who would we give up?
And you might have to convince both teams that the deal is worth it.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm....
We really do need a 3b with power – Lowell is sorely missed. Esp. since Green or Lowrie will not be the power guys at SS now or in the future. I think Youk and his gold glove need to be a first. We need a 3b more than we need Halladay. Overbay is not the solution to our most pressing need as he is a 1B.
But, back to Halladay – the more I chew on this I do think we could lose Lowrie and Buchholtz and two other lesser knowns with upside and it would be completely transparent. I say this because we do have Green who has proven himself at SS (and, I was extremely critical of his shoddy defense early on). Also, Toronto if they wait receive will receive two first rounders afterthe next season. That is amonst two years away.Their upside is that Lowrie and Buch are ready to go now. May work for them.
Our downside to losing Lowrie (who has not played a game this season in the bigs – needs to be said) is that we lose flexibility at 3b assuming he can play in the 2nd half. However, our upside is that we lose Buch and gain Halladay. Halladay is in another universe compared to Buch, and will be for the next season also. The downside is how good will Halladay be past 2010 and will he require an extension? The FO is smart enough not to get snookered if that were the case. So, all who say don’t let go of Buch that is equal to saying look at 2011 and 2012 how will he be compared to Halladay – both price and performance…Also, what if we bring Buch up in September and he tanks? Then, we have lost his value. Maybe now is the right time – trade while value is high risk and reward…remember Hanley Ramirez? I still say Beckett and Lowell were worth it.
However, our needs at 3b are critical and must be addressed first. If we stay status quo this season tehn we could have another close but not enough in the post season – even if we add Halladay.
And, I do not know about you – but long term (retrospectively speaking) as I watch the hometeam play with a 2004 and 2007 WS banner flying high – if we make the right moves (whatver they are) to see a 2009 WS banner billowing gently in the breeze in 2011 and Halladay is on the DL while Buch is dominating – I would still say it was worth it….
"You take a team with twenty-five assholes and I'll show you a pennant. I'll show you the New York Yankees." - Bill Lee
by Dave D on Jul 11, 2009 11:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lowrie has played this year.
And Green’s starting to regress offensively.
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 11, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You say that as if it WILL happen if we get Halladay
And WON’T if we don’t.
We’ve got the best record in the AL right now by 3 games.
We’ve got a top-10 farm system.
Why trade a strength away to bolster an already strong aspect of our team? Even a talent like Halladay can only make such a difference.
by USG on Jul 12, 2009 7:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Sox either need...
someone to replace Saito or Penny if they are traded, or the allusive 8th inning bridge, that Oki had until some batter are hitting his change up to New Hampshire.. They may need a bat.. The Starting rotation isn’t one the big problems right now..
by superferret on Jul 12, 2009 11:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
halladay
I would do this trade you never know what prospects are going to do and with Halladay Beckett And with lester you can win any playoff series.
You play for today not two three years down the road
by MUNDS on Jul 11, 2009 12:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Read all the comments before making such broad statements please.
We’ve already explained why it’s not worth it, both in this thread, and in another:
http://www.overthemonster.com/2009/7/7/941185/halladay-to-red-sox
OverTheMonster - ALLERGEN WARNING: May contain peanut butter.
by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on Jul 11, 2009 1:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
