Halladay, Phillies and Riccardi
So in the light of the Jays offical purposal to the Phillies, and some of the rumors going around (demanding both Hugehes and Chamberlain from the Yanks on top of top prospects, asking for Jered Weaver from the Angels etc.) it really seem to be mind boggling to me that the Jays would be asking in this fashion.
Let's look at the obvious, the Jays are trading Halladay because they can't compete this year and isn't likely to next year (and until Vernon Wells leave really) while teams trading for Halladay are obviously ALL contenders.
So why is JP asking for guys who are already significant contributors. RIGHT NOW to those teams ? this doesn't make any sense. because the reason you want to trade Halladay is most improtantly to upgrade for the remainder of this year. after this year. you can spend the money on FAs. while the vast majority of whom won't give you as much bang or bang for the buck as Halladay. they're still there.
However, by asking for young players who are already helping the team, RIGHT NOW. it really defeats the purpose not only long term. but also short term too.
Let's start with the guy who's probably the most useful right now. Jered Weaver. he's on pace to be somewhere between 4-5 WAR this year (and consistently around 3 WAR since he arrived). as oppose to Halladay being around 7 WAR. in a 2 month span, that means Halladay is only a 1-2 win upgrade !! something that luck and other factors could easily change. considering that the Angels are a virtual lock for the playoffs this year anyway and the chances are good going foward too. Any one who trade Jered Weaver strait up for Halladay would already be insane, let alone Weaver + good prospects.
The same holds true for most of the teams that rumors have popped up to involve in, pretty much NYY/BOS/PHI / LAA / LAD are all well secured in their playoff position by now. even Boston have something along the lines of a 75% odds of making the playoff according to BP's PECOTA playoff chances . getting Halladay doesn't significantly change the factor of making the playoff this year. and almost all those teams would be contenders again next year anyway.
So that brings up back to J.P Riccardi, I'm baffled by his choices of trade partner AND his asking price approach. for one. he's mainly talking to team who is hardly desperate to make the playoff right now. and on the other hand, he's asking those teams for young player who are already productive right now. which really defeats the purpose of a short term upgrade.
By logic, talking to teams like the AL or NL central would make more sense. since they're in a mess right now and Halladay could indeed change the playoff odds significantly. or even Texas. who would be able to improve their chances enough to seriously challenge the Angels at least next year (though similarly, if I were Texas I'd wait until the off season for this trade anyway) . and since Toronto is building for the future (and that future might be quiet a while away) wouldn't asking for more prospects instead of more young players now make a whole lot more sense both in terms of actually getting the deal done, and for the benifit of Toronto's future? while one might argue that prospect's far from a sure thing, for the Jays to contend they MUST have a crazy good young core. and you do that by trading for prospects and gamble on more high upsides guys than by taking the likes of J.A Haap.
The way Toronto is approaching this really just make me feel that Riccardi is looking at his job security first rather than the well being of the organization going foward.
0 recs |
3 comments
Comments
oops
I only saw VEP’s post after posting this. but still, the point remains that
A. asking for players who are already serious contributors “RIGHT NOW” is self defeating in such a trade.
B. Riccardi’s handling of this trade so far seems pretty poor.
by RollingWave on Jul 26, 2009 10:21 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Do you expect him to take less than offered?
The offer Riccardi made to the Phillies was a fair one given the fact that the Phillies are receiving surplus value for Halladay next year, plus the potential for flying a flag again this season. Or at least that’s the idea. In truth, Dan already took a look at the values and found that the Jays came out ahead on all prospective deals, I believe including the one Riccardi said no to today.
JP should get premium talent for Halladay, I suspect he’s doing the right thing in asking for a high price. For the most part, of the deals I’ve heard of, only the one the Phillies are offering makes sense for the receiving team, unless the Rangers decide they can take on Halladay’s contract and hand out everyone but Justin Smoak.
Also, you double posted the majority of your paragraphs and it confused the hell out of me. Seriously, I did a double take every paragraph I scrolled down on. Whoa.
by SFiercex4 on Jul 26, 2009 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ack
sry, dunno how that post went nuts like that.
As for the Phillies purposal, it’s not that it isn’t fair. it’s that the way they are asking as odd.
If the Phillies throw in J.A Haap, then the Roy Halladay upgrade just went from 9-10 win over 8 months of regular season ball to 6-7 wins. because Haap is giving the Phillies that right now. replacing a replacement level pitcher is not the same as replacing a above replacement level one. so if Roy’s value was 23M like Sky calcuated (which is based on the assumption that he replaces s replacement level pitcher) then he’s value to the Philleis is more like 8-13M once Haap gets involved.
What I’m saying is, if Riccardi wants to get this deal done. he is MUCH better off asking for a top level prospect (say, Michael Taylor) than a guy like J.A Haap. even though the two’s fair value might end up similar. because from the Phillies prospective, said prospect is unlikely to help in the next 8 month and will DEFINATELY not help in the next 2. however Haap almost surely will.
The playoff upgrade is obviously luring. but in reality it ups your chances but it’s still just a chance (say it went from 1/8 to 1/6 ) your probably better off making sure you have a better chance of making it more often than (so you get to roll the dice a few more try) than upping the chances a bit in one particular roll)
by RollingWave on Jul 27, 2009 1:55 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

by 








BtB on Facebook
















