It's been stunning over the past few days to read a quote here and a comment there about how the Dodgers would be giving up too much if they let Chad Billingsley go in a trade for Roy Halladay.Are you fucking kidding me? Or more to the point, why are you kidding yourselves?
Chad Billingsley is a guy who has had some success here and there by kicking the stuffing out of also rans in the National League West for the past few seasons. Sure, he's shown the Padres quien es mas macho, and he's schooled the Diamondbacks. He's faced down the mighty lineup of the Giants ("now hitting cleanup, Bengie Molina"). He's pitched in a lot of pitcher friendly parks. And he's thrown exactly 3.2 innings against American League East teams, namely the Jays.
Meanwhile, Doc has stepped to the mound for 516.2 innings against the Yankees and Red Sox over his career. So we're guessing that he could hang in the NL West.
We realize that as fans you can start to overvalue your own players, and develop unnatural attachments to them. That's the nature of fandom. But if you (or your general manager) can't conceive of how much better Roy Halladay is than Billingsley or anyone else that you have on your roster or in your system (yeah, Clayton Kershaw included), then you deserve to have Vincente Padilla pitching in crucial games for the next dozen years.
AA shouldn't trade Doc to the Dodgers out of spite. LONG LIVE VINCENTE PADILLA.
ReplyDeleteOut of the three, who would you rather have: Weaver, Billings, or Kershaw?
Kershaw > Billingsley >>>>> Weaver.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why, but if we're talking Angels, I think I'd prefer Erv Santana. Truth be told, there isn't much in an Angels package that excites me....though it might be the place I'd be most at ease seeing Doc land. Weird.
You know, the thought of shipping off Doc for $0.50 on the dollar is about making me nauseous. I'm just trying to decide if Doc in pinstripes/red stockings, but for a fair return, would make me more, less, or equally ill.
Forget Billingsley. The trade with the Dodgers might be for Martin and a couple of top prospects. We don't have to get a ML pitcher back. Even if we don't like all the risks in our current crop, we can go out and sign a back of the rotation guy to eat innings.
ReplyDelete@Gil Fisher
ReplyDeleteSays you.
From what I gather, there are a lot in the weeds on this, and when one team makes a solid offer, there will be others there to top it.
Don't be surprised if Joba or Phil Hughes get floated, and then the race is on.
@eyebleaf
ReplyDeleteI'd much rather have Kershaw, then it is a toss up between Weaver and Billingsley.
I'm with Gil, the Jays don't NEED a major league ready pitcher in return (although that would be nice).
ReplyDeleteThey are in dire need of a shortstop and catcher, plus it wouldn't make sense for a team to trade one of their starters to get a starter back.
The Dodgers and their fans are not who I thought they were.
ReplyDeleteIf Halladay had been on the Dodgers' roster last playoff, I bet it would have been them in the WS vs NYY. (Safe bet since he can't possibly be disproved.)
Then again, only an idiot would go blabbing to the media about how desperate they are to acquire a player. Yet another reason why I would make a terrible GM.
Ian, I think it absolutely makes sense for the Dodgers. It's still an upgrade to the rotation. You might not be improving depth of the rotation, but when you're a team on the cusp of a Championship like the Dodgers are, you need to have a Hammer. Is Billingsley that guy right now?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't know about targeting positions if you're the Jays. If Team A offers a package of talent that includes a catcher and SS, but Team B comes in and offers a more talented package of players at other positions....don't you need to take that package? I think you do.
Which is way I'm terrified of a potential Hughes/Montero/Jackson offer, or Buchholz/Anderson/Bard type of deal.
I think the Jays absolutely need a stud pitcher in return. The way Weaver pitched in the playoffs against Boston and New York, I'd be more than happy to have him in return.
ReplyDeleteWeaver, Aybar and prospects.
Tao, this post is absolutely NAILS! It summarizes exactly how I feel about the whole Dodgers situation.
ReplyDeleteOh, and Weaver+ would be a good return for Doc considering he always becomes Cy Young when he faces us.
Take it for what it's worth but someone posted on MLB traderumours that he heard the Giants and Jays are discussing a Halladay for Bumgarner and Posey deal.
ReplyDeleteNow in no way do I think that there is a shred of truth to this rumour, however, this is exactly the type of deal that I am hoping for. Two STUD prospects, I don't care about mediocre major leaguers or fringe prospects.
@eyebleaf isn't Eybar "untouchable" for the Angels?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, what's more believable, that this guy won the Cy Young or that he was charged with ganja possession?
What would you prefer:
ReplyDelete1) Hughes, Montero, Jackson
2) Buchholz, Anderson, Westmoreland
3) Billingsley, Gordon, DeJesus
4) Santana, Wood, Reckling, Richards
We need a closer named DeJesus so I can hold up a sign that reads "DeJesus Saves!"
ReplyDeleteGil, I think the order you have there is about right. The Boston and NY deals are pretty close and then there is a substantial gap between 2 and 3.
ReplyDeleteNice post. Amen.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, the order seems about right, although my (potentially unfounded) preference of Buchholz > Hughes gives me pause.. I really don't know enough about the LAD/LAA prospects to differentiate there, though.
ReplyDeleteAnd are we 100% confident that Hughes has a future in the rotation? He'd have to, obviously, to make any deal with him make sense.
I still have confidence that Hughes will be a very good major league starter.
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting comparison; Hughes vs. Buchholz minor league stats:
IP
Buchholz - 443.1
Hughes - 330
K's
Buchholz - 506 (1.14 K/inning)
Hughes - 367 (1.11 K/inning)
Wins/Losses
Buchholz - 31-14
Hughes - 31-8
ERA
Buchholz - 2.42
Hughes - 2.37
WHIP
Buchholz - 1.002
Hughes - 0.924
Here's the thing, guys. I want some insurance for my young, semi-tested starters coming off of injury (Marcum, Litsch, McGowan).
ReplyDeleteIf I trade Doc, and I don't get a ML-ready SP with #1 or #2 potential, our rotation going forward will rely on Romero, Cecil and Rzep (and the above-mentioned wounded). They are all good, but still have much to prove. One or more of them could fail, or get injured. We do have a shitload of SP's coming up, but we need to fill out our rotation with some experience, that isn't coming off TJ or a breakout rookie campaign.
Look, I am very handsome, and extremely handsome men also enjoy looking very smart. My brilliance adds to my handsomeness, and the ladies at the Rail need me.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, we don't need a SS. Mike McCoy played +7 defence, had a very high OBP and stole 40 bases last year, whilst being blocked at his position. If all goes as planned, and he shows his stuff to Cito in ST (after his extended look playing for Nick Leyva in the fall leagues), he will be my starting SS (or OF if Scutaro accepts my arb. offer) in 2010. Expect big things from him, and the other guys I personally scouted/signed, Doparik and Ruiz.
ReplyDeleteThe credit is all mine, you can thank me later, when we win 85+ games.
Signed,
Handsome Tony
Oh Handsome Tony. You are dreamy.
ReplyDeleteI'm fully on board with Punny Guy: "DeJesus Saves!!!1"
ReplyDeleteAs for Phil Hughes, his future certainly seems bright. He seems like the real deal. He was dominant out the 'pen last year. 68 hits allowed in 86 innings; 98 strikeouts; 1.11 WHIP. Amazing control. I'm def. high on Hughes.
"Success here and there"? He has a career 3.55 ERA in 634 innings. I'm not sure why you think that it's worlds better than Halladay's 3.43.
ReplyDeleteObviously Halladay is the better pitcher, but Ned Colletti would be being really dumb (well, being himself, I guess) if he traded Billingly in a package for Halladay. You don't trade a 25 year old borderline ace for one year of a legit ace, especially when your team are already the favourites to win its division.
Here's the thing about all the potential Angels packages we hear bandied about....they all include pretty good players - players that fill a need for the Jays and improve the fortunes immediately (Saunders/Santana/Weaver, Aybar, Kendrick, Wood, Napoli, etc....).
ReplyDeleteBut does any combo of three of those players jump out to you as pieces that would be a big part of a contending club in 3 years?
I want that one (or two, to be greedy) guy who you can point to and say "that's the guy" who makes this trade worthwhile - whether we see that production in 2010 or 2012.
Ack,
ReplyDeleteYou are dead on with your assessment of the Angels. While I've promoted the idea of trying to get Wood, I wouldn't want it to be part of a Halladay deal. Try to get him in a straight up prospect deal, or offer a guy like Scott Downs for him.
None of the Angels players being mentioned excite me very much, and Angels prospects are always over-rated because their stats are inflated due to the hitting friendly Pacific Coast League. Saunders is a nice innings eater pitcher, but not an Anchor by any means.
Aybar is the guy I like the best, but apparently the Angels aren't willing to deal him.
I'm thinking Toronto fans are being unrealistic. Sure we all know Doc walks on water, and will most likely continue to do so - but to get *anything* close to his calibre in return in terms of a SP is a longshot at best. I think the trade should be for young controllable position players to fill at SS and C, with a possible upgrade at 3B/1B if possible. We have tons of pitching, and even without Doc someone will step up to win 15. The Jays will suck next regardless -sub .500 even with Doc last year- so lets put a strong lineup out there and develop our young pitchers internally.
ReplyDeleteSwagman, why limit yourself in a trade for Halladay to a return of positions, shouldn't the Jays just try and get the best players available, regardless of position?
ReplyDeleteThe Halladay trading partners are limited as it is, some even suggest there are really only two player (Yankees and Red Sox), so the team should make any further limitations.
Peter D.
ReplyDeleteYour point is spot on - I was intending to point out that most proposed trades either involve the near ace of the trading partner, or future ace...not a sure bet by any means.
Taking the best players in trade was what I was going for - I just feel its easier to know what you're getting back when it's a position player. And we do have a pressing need for a catcher, and a 10+ year need for a true SS, not a utility player playing well above his abilities.
"I've promoted the idea of trying to get Wood"
ReplyDeleteMy new favourite GM is Brian Burke! He loves his cock chugging son!
ReplyDeleteDon't let Sean Avery hear about Burke's gay son. I can hear the 'sloppy seconds' comment already.
ReplyDelete